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.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Poverty here and there
Yesterday, the Diane Rehm show interviewed author William Vollmann about his new book, "Poor People." In his book Vollman travels around the world, finds poor people and asks them one "simple" question, "why are you poor?" One answer jumped out at me. Vollmann discussed what is called, "Thai Fatalism." In Thailand he asked some cleaning ladies, who he said lived in awful conditions, why they were poor. Their answer was that it was their karma or destiny, and that they must have been a bad person in another life.
I began to think how similar this answer is to what we in America might say. Not that people are poor because they were bad in a past life, but because they have been bad in this one. In America we put poor people into two different groups called, the "worthy poor" and the "unworthy poor." The worthy poor are the poor who are worth our assistance. These are the "down on their luck" poor, and the ones who are poor because they fell on hard times. In other words, it isn't their fault they are poor. I find we believe that very few people in America fall into this category. We usually think in terms of the unworthy poor. Poor people are poor because they use drugs, are alcoholics, they're promiscuous, lazy etc... Poor people are poor because they are bad people. It's they're own fault, and so they're unworthy of our assistance. In both places, here and there, one's poverty is linked to his or her bad behavior. But, I would argue that people being poor as a result of their bad behavior in this life is as ludicrous as them being poor due to a previous life's bad karma.
Poverty is a result of bad behavior, but this bad behavior is collective, not individual. A child who is raised in a poor neighborhood is most likely being raised by a single mother. This single mother probably grew up in the same circumstances she's raising her children in, which means the only parenting skills she has were the ones she learned from her single mother. Poverty is systemic, cyclical, and generational. I work in a hospital that is surrounded by poorer, inner city areas, and routinely see teenage kids from these areas in the lobby. These kids are typically loud, they get into arguments easily, and have their Ipods turned up so high that everyone in a 30 foot radius can hear what they're listening to. We have phones in the lobby that can be used for free. Sometimes when they use these phones they get into fights with the person on the other line, and end up screaming and cursing. They treat the lobby like it's their bedroom, and it's easy to start thinking predjudicely and racially. But the problem isn't that they're black, or even that they're poor. This behavior is all they know. They come from a home where yelling and swearing at one another is normal. They come from a home where violence is used to solve disputes. They come from a home where they were exposed to things at six that most people aren't exposed to ever. They are poor, and their behavior contributes to the fact that they will probably stay poor, but it isn't their fault.
Not only do they have to deal with the circumstances they were born into, but they have to deal with the world around them. They are not only born into a family, they are born into a culture. They already have assigned to them a dress code, a type of music and a genre of movie. The media they consume is filled with people telling them that their value is based on how much sex and money they have, and that they must do whatever is necessary to acquire those status symbols. Boys are taught that women are ho's and that drug dealing and stealing is not only necessary, but it's cool. Women are taught to use their bodies to get what they want, and that being a single mother is expected. Behind the media that propagates these messages are extremely wealthy entertainers, ceo's, and shareholders reaping profits from a people trapped in a cycle of poverty, drug use and violence.
This is just one sample of what we might call "the poor." Poverty, in this scenario, comes from bad behavior that is passed down generationally, bad behavior via the messages of the hip-hop culture, and by the capitalist system that creates the economic climate where those messages are profitable. Later on in the interview with Vollmann, he tackles third world poverty. He discusses the bad behavior by the rulers of third world countries that keep those countries poor. How greed causes these leaders to take aid from the World Bank and squander it on themselves. It's interesting how greed can cause poverty. Our love of money and possessions causes us to have less of them.
Vollmann also discusses the relativity of poverty and the effect community has on how people perceive poverty. Those who live in community are less likely to consider themselves poor. It's interesting to study the correlation between wealth and isolation
There is so much more concerning this topic, that I could blog about, and I'm sure I will down the road. I would encourage anyone who is interested in the issue of poverty to check out this link: http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/07/03/06.php . This is the interview I reference in this post.
I began to think how similar this answer is to what we in America might say. Not that people are poor because they were bad in a past life, but because they have been bad in this one. In America we put poor people into two different groups called, the "worthy poor" and the "unworthy poor." The worthy poor are the poor who are worth our assistance. These are the "down on their luck" poor, and the ones who are poor because they fell on hard times. In other words, it isn't their fault they are poor. I find we believe that very few people in America fall into this category. We usually think in terms of the unworthy poor. Poor people are poor because they use drugs, are alcoholics, they're promiscuous, lazy etc... Poor people are poor because they are bad people. It's they're own fault, and so they're unworthy of our assistance. In both places, here and there, one's poverty is linked to his or her bad behavior. But, I would argue that people being poor as a result of their bad behavior in this life is as ludicrous as them being poor due to a previous life's bad karma.
Poverty is a result of bad behavior, but this bad behavior is collective, not individual. A child who is raised in a poor neighborhood is most likely being raised by a single mother. This single mother probably grew up in the same circumstances she's raising her children in, which means the only parenting skills she has were the ones she learned from her single mother. Poverty is systemic, cyclical, and generational. I work in a hospital that is surrounded by poorer, inner city areas, and routinely see teenage kids from these areas in the lobby. These kids are typically loud, they get into arguments easily, and have their Ipods turned up so high that everyone in a 30 foot radius can hear what they're listening to. We have phones in the lobby that can be used for free. Sometimes when they use these phones they get into fights with the person on the other line, and end up screaming and cursing. They treat the lobby like it's their bedroom, and it's easy to start thinking predjudicely and racially. But the problem isn't that they're black, or even that they're poor. This behavior is all they know. They come from a home where yelling and swearing at one another is normal. They come from a home where violence is used to solve disputes. They come from a home where they were exposed to things at six that most people aren't exposed to ever. They are poor, and their behavior contributes to the fact that they will probably stay poor, but it isn't their fault.
Not only do they have to deal with the circumstances they were born into, but they have to deal with the world around them. They are not only born into a family, they are born into a culture. They already have assigned to them a dress code, a type of music and a genre of movie. The media they consume is filled with people telling them that their value is based on how much sex and money they have, and that they must do whatever is necessary to acquire those status symbols. Boys are taught that women are ho's and that drug dealing and stealing is not only necessary, but it's cool. Women are taught to use their bodies to get what they want, and that being a single mother is expected. Behind the media that propagates these messages are extremely wealthy entertainers, ceo's, and shareholders reaping profits from a people trapped in a cycle of poverty, drug use and violence.
This is just one sample of what we might call "the poor." Poverty, in this scenario, comes from bad behavior that is passed down generationally, bad behavior via the messages of the hip-hop culture, and by the capitalist system that creates the economic climate where those messages are profitable. Later on in the interview with Vollmann, he tackles third world poverty. He discusses the bad behavior by the rulers of third world countries that keep those countries poor. How greed causes these leaders to take aid from the World Bank and squander it on themselves. It's interesting how greed can cause poverty. Our love of money and possessions causes us to have less of them.
Vollmann also discusses the relativity of poverty and the effect community has on how people perceive poverty. Those who live in community are less likely to consider themselves poor. It's interesting to study the correlation between wealth and isolation
There is so much more concerning this topic, that I could blog about, and I'm sure I will down the road. I would encourage anyone who is interested in the issue of poverty to check out this link: http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/07/03/06.php . This is the interview I reference in this post.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Tony Jones on Pluralism
Heres a link to a great article on pluralism by Tony Jones.
http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2007/02/tony-jones-three-choices-in-pluralism.html
http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2007/02/tony-jones-three-choices-in-pluralism.html
Wut I lernd in skool tuday: Social Problems- Defining Porn
As of late, we've been discussing pornography, prostitution, and homosexuality in my Social Problems class. Yesterday we were discussing what porn actually is. After a lot of thought, I came up with a brilliant definition. I raised my hand and said, "could porn be any sort of media that causes sexual stimulation?" My prof kind of shook his head as if my statement had some sort of validity, while some of the other students chuckled. I thought it was a good answer, that is until I started thinking about it more.
By the definition I gave, a picture of a vacuum cleaner could be considered porn. After all, in our world, there must be some sick person out there who could be sexually aroused by a picture of a vacuum. Anything is possible. On the ride home I continued to think about this. Surely, there is a level of subjectivity when defining pornography yet, there are some movies and magazines that, no questions about it, are porn. They just are, no matter who trys to say it's "art."
After much thought I came up with this distinction: There are some forms of media that are pornographic in nature and are used -I hope we know what I mean by "used"- as porn, and there are some, that are used as porn, but are not pornographic in nature. A porno movie would be an example of the first. The makers of the "film" intend on that "film" to elicit sexual arousal from it's audience, and it does... ten billion dollars worth. An example of this that isn't so obvious would be a commercial that uses sex to sell it's product. How many times have you watched a commercial and thought, "what does a woman in a bikini have to do with this product?" This commercial is pornographic in nature because it is intended to elicit a sexual response -albeit, not an intense one-, and could be used as porn.
So, what about something that isn't pornographic in nature, but could be used as porn. Well, my vacuum analogy would be one example, but a less weird one would be an ad for women's shorts. What if someone who had a strong fetish for legs picked up an ad showing a girl wearing shorts? The ad is geared towards women, and convincing them that they can look that good, yet in the hands of the right person could provoke intense sexual arousal.
I'm sure I won't settle on the ideas I outlined above, but I wish I would have made this distinction in class on Monday.
By the definition I gave, a picture of a vacuum cleaner could be considered porn. After all, in our world, there must be some sick person out there who could be sexually aroused by a picture of a vacuum. Anything is possible. On the ride home I continued to think about this. Surely, there is a level of subjectivity when defining pornography yet, there are some movies and magazines that, no questions about it, are porn. They just are, no matter who trys to say it's "art."
After much thought I came up with this distinction: There are some forms of media that are pornographic in nature and are used -I hope we know what I mean by "used"- as porn, and there are some, that are used as porn, but are not pornographic in nature. A porno movie would be an example of the first. The makers of the "film" intend on that "film" to elicit sexual arousal from it's audience, and it does... ten billion dollars worth. An example of this that isn't so obvious would be a commercial that uses sex to sell it's product. How many times have you watched a commercial and thought, "what does a woman in a bikini have to do with this product?" This commercial is pornographic in nature because it is intended to elicit a sexual response -albeit, not an intense one-, and could be used as porn.
So, what about something that isn't pornographic in nature, but could be used as porn. Well, my vacuum analogy would be one example, but a less weird one would be an ad for women's shorts. What if someone who had a strong fetish for legs picked up an ad showing a girl wearing shorts? The ad is geared towards women, and convincing them that they can look that good, yet in the hands of the right person could provoke intense sexual arousal.
I'm sure I won't settle on the ideas I outlined above, but I wish I would have made this distinction in class on Monday.
Friday, January 26, 2007
An Exercise in Communication
I've realized, in a past few months, that I really do suck at communication. This goes for written and interpersonal communication. I've decided that a blog would be a good way at improving this aspect of myself. I've commented on blogs and message boards in the past and it's always taken days for me to post one comment. I've decided that this is ridiculous. As I have started to embark on a fresh academic career, I am determined to become an effective communicator and regular writer. I plan on blogging about religion, politics and culture, so I thought the title I chose was rather fitting. I look forward to hearing thoughts, ideas and criticisms from any future readers. I'm also looking forward to becoming more confident in putting my ideas, beliefs and values into the blogosphere, and ultimately being able to lay out my thoughts in a clear and concise way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)