I've already decided I'm not going to vote for any of the Republican candidates next year, but I admit that I loved how Mike Huckabee responded to a question posed to him on the YouTube debate the other night. The question was, "What do you think about the Bible?" I typically hate ALL politician's responses to these type of questions because, quite frankly, none of them have any idea what the hell they're talking about, and they always try to give an answer that makes everybody happy. But Huckabee not only nailed this question in a way that demonstrated his theological prowess, he also gave an answer that, I think, would make most people happy. He first said that either you believe the Bible is God's word or you don't, and where the debate begins is what is literal or allegorical. He then went on to say that what is clear is to love your neighbor as yourself and what you do to the least of these you've done to me, and since we still don't get the easy things right, it's pointless to fight over the complicated parts. I paraphrased , but that's essentially what he said.
Chris Matthews made a good point on Hardball last night. Why did Huckabee answer the question at all? What does taking the Bible literally have to do with being a good president? Why is this being used as a litmus test for governing a secular nation? Why should Huckabee being a Christian be a selling point? Here's what I think: it shouldn't, but if Christ is going to be dragged into this, he should look good. Indeed, the correct answer would have been, "I'm not going to acknowledge this question because what I think about the Bible is completely irrelevant to a presidential debate." Instead Huckabee gave an honest answer that highlighted the heart of the Gospel, was thoroughly Christian, yet is something that people of all religions and the non-religious can embrace. And that might be one of the best thing I can say about any of the candidates, Republican or Democrat.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
Rudy and the (Hopefully) Unraveling of the Religious Right
After reading this post there's just not much else to say. I hope that the coming election will be a huge blow to the religious right. From the looks of things, a large portion of the Republican party's base is not going to vote for their nominee. There really isn't a nominee they will vote for that can beat Hillary. One of the leaders of the Relgious Right has backed an adulterous, pro-gay, pro-choice candidate. And it looks like I'm going to vote for Hillary Clinton. It's going to be an interesting 2008.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
The Suffering of Mother Teresa
"[Jesus]: Wilt thou refuse to do this for me? You have become my Spouse for my love... Are you afraid to take one more step for Your Spouse- for me- for souls?... Am I a second to you?
[Teresa]: Jesus, my own Jesus- I am only thine- I am so stupid- I do not know what to say but do with me whatever You wish-...
[Jesus]: You are I know the most incapable person- weak and sinful but just because you are that- I want to use You for My glory. Wilt thou refuse?"
"God- please forgive me- When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven- there is such a convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul. -I am told God loves me -and yet the reality of darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. Did I make a mistake in surrendering blindly to the Call of the Sacred Heart?"
On my way home from Chicago I read an article in TIME about the new Mother Teresa book that chronicles her 50 year faith crisis. Honestly, I expected it to be boring, but to my surprise the article was captivating, thought-provoking, inspiring and convicting. It called to my attention the issue of suffering and how little of value American Protestants place on it.
When I was little I remember my mother explaining to me that Catholics had all these crucifixes in their churches, but what they need to realize is that Jesus rose from the dead. Her point was that Jesus' death is only part of the story, and that the most important part is the resurrection. Along with that I was taught that Catholics believe salvation comes through works. These sentiments, while they have some validity, have been deeply ingrained in me, and those that grew up with similar faith backgrounds. What this article forced me to do was assess suffering as it relates to the gospel, question what the emphasis on the resurrection and de-emphasis on Christ's suffering- as well as, the emphasis of salvation by faith- has done to American evangelicalism, and think about how much suffering should be a part of Christian orthopraxy.
Part of the TIME article is devoted to shedding light on why Mother Teresa (MT) sunk into spiritual darkness throughout her entire ministry. The atheist response, of course, is that MT simply realized that religion is a human creation, and much of her life was spent in a state of perpetual denial. The psychologist's response is that she inflicted it upon herself. I imagine that much of the anti-Catholic stream of Protestantism would probably say, "See, I told you she wasn't really a Christian, and that she didn't have a relationship with God." I found the Catholic response, however, to be the most beautiful, compelling and hopeful.
Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk, the editor and compiler of Come Be My Light explains MT's desire to drink ONLY from, "Christ's chalice of pain." The article goes on to say that MT's desire was fulfilled, and later suggests that God allowed MT to suffer the deepest anguish Christ experienced on the cross- God's absence. From my own reading, I understand that Catholics believe that suffering purifies. Now, while I believe that a Christian is a new creature, I would agree with the Catholic sentiment that rejoicing in our suffering for others brings us closer to imaging Christ. Part of the gospel is that Christ served and suffered for a world he loved, and that being his follower means learning to do the same. And that when we suffer joyfully for others, Christ's image is reflected, and the gospel is extended.
No doubt, Christ's victory over death is central to the gospel, but in order for Christ to be resurrected he first had to suffer and die. In de-emphasizing the role of suffering and sacrifice, and putting all the emphasis on "the good stuff," I would argue we have neutered the gospel and stripped the Kingdom of it's power. In many circles the gospel has been reduced to, "Christ did all the hard stuff; just believe and you're on your way to heaven." This gospel goes right a long with the American lifestyle, which also seems to avoid the suffering that a lot of the rest of the world goes through. Indeed, I and most everyone I know live a pretty kooshy life. I don't necessarily think this is an evil in and of itself, but I think that maybe this means we need to go out of our way in order to serve, sacrifice and suffer because the gospel is best shared by someone who looks like Jesus suffering and dying for those he loves.
Practically, those of us who don't find many opportunities to suffer, I think, should seek them out. Whether that means going out of our comfort zone, giving up a seat for others on the bus, volunteering in a poor neighborhood, living in a poor neighborhood, or simply thanking God for the rare occasions we do get to suffer. I don't condone everything I read in the article. I only mean to point out something I think that Protestant Christians could learn from Catholics. And whether or not any of the previously mentioned explanations for MT's faith crisis are true, I think we should all, in whatever way, partake in Christ's passion.
[Teresa]: Jesus, my own Jesus- I am only thine- I am so stupid- I do not know what to say but do with me whatever You wish-...
[Jesus]: You are I know the most incapable person- weak and sinful but just because you are that- I want to use You for My glory. Wilt thou refuse?"
"God- please forgive me- When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven- there is such a convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul. -I am told God loves me -and yet the reality of darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. Did I make a mistake in surrendering blindly to the Call of the Sacred Heart?"
On my way home from Chicago I read an article in TIME about the new Mother Teresa book that chronicles her 50 year faith crisis. Honestly, I expected it to be boring, but to my surprise the article was captivating, thought-provoking, inspiring and convicting. It called to my attention the issue of suffering and how little of value American Protestants place on it.
When I was little I remember my mother explaining to me that Catholics had all these crucifixes in their churches, but what they need to realize is that Jesus rose from the dead. Her point was that Jesus' death is only part of the story, and that the most important part is the resurrection. Along with that I was taught that Catholics believe salvation comes through works. These sentiments, while they have some validity, have been deeply ingrained in me, and those that grew up with similar faith backgrounds. What this article forced me to do was assess suffering as it relates to the gospel, question what the emphasis on the resurrection and de-emphasis on Christ's suffering- as well as, the emphasis of salvation by faith- has done to American evangelicalism, and think about how much suffering should be a part of Christian orthopraxy.
Part of the TIME article is devoted to shedding light on why Mother Teresa (MT) sunk into spiritual darkness throughout her entire ministry. The atheist response, of course, is that MT simply realized that religion is a human creation, and much of her life was spent in a state of perpetual denial. The psychologist's response is that she inflicted it upon herself. I imagine that much of the anti-Catholic stream of Protestantism would probably say, "See, I told you she wasn't really a Christian, and that she didn't have a relationship with God." I found the Catholic response, however, to be the most beautiful, compelling and hopeful.
Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk, the editor and compiler of Come Be My Light explains MT's desire to drink ONLY from, "Christ's chalice of pain." The article goes on to say that MT's desire was fulfilled, and later suggests that God allowed MT to suffer the deepest anguish Christ experienced on the cross- God's absence. From my own reading, I understand that Catholics believe that suffering purifies. Now, while I believe that a Christian is a new creature, I would agree with the Catholic sentiment that rejoicing in our suffering for others brings us closer to imaging Christ. Part of the gospel is that Christ served and suffered for a world he loved, and that being his follower means learning to do the same. And that when we suffer joyfully for others, Christ's image is reflected, and the gospel is extended.
No doubt, Christ's victory over death is central to the gospel, but in order for Christ to be resurrected he first had to suffer and die. In de-emphasizing the role of suffering and sacrifice, and putting all the emphasis on "the good stuff," I would argue we have neutered the gospel and stripped the Kingdom of it's power. In many circles the gospel has been reduced to, "Christ did all the hard stuff; just believe and you're on your way to heaven." This gospel goes right a long with the American lifestyle, which also seems to avoid the suffering that a lot of the rest of the world goes through. Indeed, I and most everyone I know live a pretty kooshy life. I don't necessarily think this is an evil in and of itself, but I think that maybe this means we need to go out of our way in order to serve, sacrifice and suffer because the gospel is best shared by someone who looks like Jesus suffering and dying for those he loves.
Practically, those of us who don't find many opportunities to suffer, I think, should seek them out. Whether that means going out of our comfort zone, giving up a seat for others on the bus, volunteering in a poor neighborhood, living in a poor neighborhood, or simply thanking God for the rare occasions we do get to suffer. I don't condone everything I read in the article. I only mean to point out something I think that Protestant Christians could learn from Catholics. And whether or not any of the previously mentioned explanations for MT's faith crisis are true, I think we should all, in whatever way, partake in Christ's passion.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Irreparable Cruelty
I think that Michael Vick is a total douche. I've got very little love for people who mistreat animals. Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated," and I think that's very true. Stephon Marbury defended Vick saying that dogfighting is just another sport and compared it to deer hunting. At first I dismissed his statements as more idiotic bullshit coming from another person that ought not to have such a lofty platform. But then I started to really think about it. Do we accept hunting as a legitimate sport and not dogfighting because that's how, culturally, we've been conditioned to think? After all somebody is profiting from deer hunting, and hunters are certainly being entertained and enjoy it. So what is the difference between a deer being stalked and shot with a bow, and two dogs fighting to the death all for the purpose of entertainment, sport and profit? Aren't the end results the same? Animals die and people are rich and happy. This is the position that PETA would take, which, right there, should be a red flag. But maybe not.
Today, my dad called to let Anne and I know that their dog died. My mom adopted this dog, last year, from an organization that rescues puppy-mill dogs. These dogs live their lives in tiny cages just large enough for them to lay down. The only attention they get is from the brutal people who take them out when they are in heat to breed with a stud. Their only purpose is to make babies. As you can imagine, this cruel, inhumane treatment irreparably damages them psychologically and socially. Suzie, the dog my parents adopted, was virtually catatonic, and my mom was the only person whom she responded to and gave any sort of evidence that she wasn't a dog that my parents owned ten years ago that they had freeze-dried. I think that she even might have actually liked my mom, but that might be pushing it. Thursday my mom, aunt and their friend took a short vacation to New York, leaving Suzie alone with my dad. Apparently, she immediately stopped eating, drinking and going to the bathroom. Today my dad took her to the vet and she dropped dead on the vet's table.
Both of my parents feel responsible. My dad was pretty upset, and I imagine my mother is devastated. My hope is that they stop blaming themselves and start blaming those who are responsible- the puppy-mill owners. The only reason Suzie shut down is because of the irreparable psycho-social damage done to her the first five years of her life. She was traumatized in such a way that the absence of my mom caused her to go into a depression that killed her. Human cruelty is so destructive and powerful, that it can kill animals not only with physical abuse but psychological abuse as well.
So, what does this have to do with Vick and Marbury besides cruelty to dogs? Well, as I pondered Marbury's statements I found that he is essentially saying that killing an animal is killing an animal. It's all the same, one way is called a sport and the other is called cruelty. This got me thinking about my stance on hunting. I started thinking about what is considered noble hunting over what isn't. I don't consider trophy hunting noble, and the hunting that is done in the shark fin soup industry is the epitome of waste, greed, and barbarism. On the other hand I'm reminded of how Native American buffalo hunting is romanticized because of their deep respect for the creature, and their use of the whole animal. I agree that this is good and noble hunting.
We (humans) are relational beings. And not only are we in relationship with God and each other, but we also have a relationship with creation. We depend on creation to live and creation depends on our good stewardship for it's survival. Of course, not only is our relationship one of dependency, but also of companionship such as with our pets. It's interesting how, in our relationship-making, we humanize pets. We are appalled that the Chinese eat dogs, because, to us, dogs are like little people. Likewise Hindus might be appalled that we eat cattle, but I digress.
Like most moral quandaries, this too boils down to a theological truth. Humans are in relationship with creation, and our role in that relationship is good stewardship. The puppy-mill owners relationship with Suzie was one of abuse, neglect, malapropism, greed, torture and exploitation. My mom's good relationship with her, ultimately, could not restore her. Michael Vick's relationship with his dogs is also one of barbarism, abuse, exploitation etc... I would add that many people who own pit bulls do so for status and macho ism, but that's another post. Many hunters eat their kill and are conservationists. They hunt partly for sport, but also because they have a deep reverence for creation, and feel closer too it by sitting in a tree for hours on end covered in deer urine. Therefore, I would argue, hunting- excluding the aforementioned bad forms of it- represents good stewardship and a good relationship with creation.
Hopefully, this bad press about dogfighting will raise awareness about animal cruelty. I'm no PETA advocate, but sometimes I think they're right, and I affirm their overall dream of people living in right relationship with creation. Even though Vick allegedly converted, I still think people who fight dogs are douches, and it would be nice if he'd publicly come out against it, get his peeps in the hip-hop community to do the same and help the police bust up dogfighting rings. For some reason I'm not too optimistic about that. Words usually speak loud enough in these cases where action isn't necessary. But one can hope.
Today, my dad called to let Anne and I know that their dog died. My mom adopted this dog, last year, from an organization that rescues puppy-mill dogs. These dogs live their lives in tiny cages just large enough for them to lay down. The only attention they get is from the brutal people who take them out when they are in heat to breed with a stud. Their only purpose is to make babies. As you can imagine, this cruel, inhumane treatment irreparably damages them psychologically and socially. Suzie, the dog my parents adopted, was virtually catatonic, and my mom was the only person whom she responded to and gave any sort of evidence that she wasn't a dog that my parents owned ten years ago that they had freeze-dried. I think that she even might have actually liked my mom, but that might be pushing it. Thursday my mom, aunt and their friend took a short vacation to New York, leaving Suzie alone with my dad. Apparently, she immediately stopped eating, drinking and going to the bathroom. Today my dad took her to the vet and she dropped dead on the vet's table.
Both of my parents feel responsible. My dad was pretty upset, and I imagine my mother is devastated. My hope is that they stop blaming themselves and start blaming those who are responsible- the puppy-mill owners. The only reason Suzie shut down is because of the irreparable psycho-social damage done to her the first five years of her life. She was traumatized in such a way that the absence of my mom caused her to go into a depression that killed her. Human cruelty is so destructive and powerful, that it can kill animals not only with physical abuse but psychological abuse as well.
So, what does this have to do with Vick and Marbury besides cruelty to dogs? Well, as I pondered Marbury's statements I found that he is essentially saying that killing an animal is killing an animal. It's all the same, one way is called a sport and the other is called cruelty. This got me thinking about my stance on hunting. I started thinking about what is considered noble hunting over what isn't. I don't consider trophy hunting noble, and the hunting that is done in the shark fin soup industry is the epitome of waste, greed, and barbarism. On the other hand I'm reminded of how Native American buffalo hunting is romanticized because of their deep respect for the creature, and their use of the whole animal. I agree that this is good and noble hunting.
We (humans) are relational beings. And not only are we in relationship with God and each other, but we also have a relationship with creation. We depend on creation to live and creation depends on our good stewardship for it's survival. Of course, not only is our relationship one of dependency, but also of companionship such as with our pets. It's interesting how, in our relationship-making, we humanize pets. We are appalled that the Chinese eat dogs, because, to us, dogs are like little people. Likewise Hindus might be appalled that we eat cattle, but I digress.
Like most moral quandaries, this too boils down to a theological truth. Humans are in relationship with creation, and our role in that relationship is good stewardship. The puppy-mill owners relationship with Suzie was one of abuse, neglect, malapropism, greed, torture and exploitation. My mom's good relationship with her, ultimately, could not restore her. Michael Vick's relationship with his dogs is also one of barbarism, abuse, exploitation etc... I would add that many people who own pit bulls do so for status and macho ism, but that's another post. Many hunters eat their kill and are conservationists. They hunt partly for sport, but also because they have a deep reverence for creation, and feel closer too it by sitting in a tree for hours on end covered in deer urine. Therefore, I would argue, hunting- excluding the aforementioned bad forms of it- represents good stewardship and a good relationship with creation.
Hopefully, this bad press about dogfighting will raise awareness about animal cruelty. I'm no PETA advocate, but sometimes I think they're right, and I affirm their overall dream of people living in right relationship with creation. Even though Vick allegedly converted, I still think people who fight dogs are douches, and it would be nice if he'd publicly come out against it, get his peeps in the hip-hop community to do the same and help the police bust up dogfighting rings. For some reason I'm not too optimistic about that. Words usually speak loud enough in these cases where action isn't necessary. But one can hope.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Evangelicals on Mitt Romney
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)