Memorial Day and Pentecost
Two people were looking at their town, where they had both spent their entire lives. Then one asked, "If you were all-powerful, what would you do?" The other replied, "I'd build walls around the entire town, so great that nothing would endanger this beautiful city."
The first old friend pushed his lips together and responded, "I'd lift the town high above all danger."
We humans seem to build walls of full of laws and controls around our communities and churches believing they will hold back the flow of evil.
But God lifts a person up by the Spirit, far above the reach of humanity’s destructive forces.
Prior to Pentecost God would reach down to one person or group and lifted them above the tides of destruction, as needed.
At Pentecost God let the Spirit loose for every child of God. No longer do we need to be over run with evil. The Spirit will always lifts us higher.
Our dock in the river is a platform, and the buoyant force beneath it, keeps it afloat.
We (Church) are like that dock. The outer area is where we enjoy, care for and expand our lives. God gives us, the church, a buoyant force - Holy Spirit. Thru the Spirit we ar able to rise above the common level of life. We are able to choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong. We can live high above the troubled waters of life.
Paraphrasing Gal 5:19-26, The acts of human nature are obvious: sexual transgression; love of idols and mysticism; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissension, gangs, and envy; drunkenness, orgies, etc..
But the Holy Spirit produces love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. To live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.
Let us not be conceited, provoking and envying each other.
A sunken dock has no life. It is no fun!
A Church without the Spirit has no life. It has no fun!
A spiritual church is more powerful than a religious church.
A patriotic nation is more powerful than an oppressor nation.
Citizens who want a free lunch and have a sheep like attitude are the backbone of an oppressor nation.
Patriotic soldiers who give their lives (physically and emotionally) in the defense of freedom are the backbone of a truly patriotic nation.
Legalistic (my way or the highway) worshipers of laws are the greedy self-centered backbone of a religious church.
Spirit filled people who put God above all things are the backbone of a spiritual church.
Religiosity and Oppression cost you everything.
Patriotism and Pentecost cost you nothing.
Religiosity and Oppression are the Hallmarks of Navelgazers.
Patriotism and Pentecost are the Hallmarks of Stargazers.
Are you self centered or God centered? This Sunday let the Spirit of God fill you at worship and then Monday celebrate Memorial Day and fill your thanks for all of patriotic men and women who gave their lives in defense of freedom. It is time for the Stargazers to be lifted up in our churches and our nation!
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Law Day and Reason
The United States of America is out of step with much of the world. Today many people around this old planet celebrate May Day on May 1. In a land were freedom reigns we celebrate Law Day on May 1. Some how our news media and public seemed to miss that special day this year. Law Day, established in 1958 by President Eisenhower, is dedicated to the traditional American concept of respect for the law. Our law is established in a philosophy of freedom for the individual with common threads of decency required to live together in peace and harmony. The system is far from perfect, but it is the best yet devised for a government of laws and not men.
Unfortunately, poison vines have silently crept into every facet of our law. The vines of selfish interest and greed are entangled in every level of the mechanism of our law, which we call government. Remember the government is the law, not the elected or appointed officials. Our Law is an accumulation of modifications to the original foundation of law. Changes made by individuals approved by the electorate.
This poison crept slowly into our lives over the years. Will it take years to remove it? Not really. It doesn't even require throwing out the elected and appointed officials or even destroying the established government. A simple return of their focus to what's good for us and not what's good for them.
On Law Day, if those in power or with the ability to vote could have resolved to defend the law, our problems would be solved in a short span of time. For instance it takes millions of dollars and months to elect one representative to defend the law and define government. What happens if we establish one day on the calendar to hold primary elections across the land? Setting aside appointed TV times when each candidate for various positions could present their positions. After the primary election set five TV periods for presenting their positions in greater detail.
Eliminate matching funds for elections. Establish a standard of conduct in regards to all lobbyist. Forbid any and all candidates, elected officials or political parties from receiving monies from lobbyist or businesses. Make it socially unacceptable for any government official to be paid for making speeches to constituents. In short let the elected officials serve because they want to serve their nation and not their financial self interest.
Limit the smell of money and the foxes will lose interest in the hen house. The problem is not the government as those in the far left and right want us to believe. It is interference in decisions by individual self interest and greed.
Interestingly enough, self interest and greed are what elected officials believe they need to satisfy in the voters back home to stay in office. That's us folks! It is our turn to say we are more interested in what's good for the whole, not what's good for the few. Law Day is an opportune time to reestablish the law as our good friend not our foe.
The problem is not government or law. It's people. People who are bigots in regards to race, religion and creed - both to others and in favor of their own. People who refuse help to others in need. Lazy people who take handouts over hand ups. Over caring people who create systems that make laziness more rewarding than work. People who won't find a middle ground for the common good, in situations that demand our government or law intervene.
As the saying goes, "I have met the enemy and it is I!" And I want to do something about it. How? Urge these important changes. Encourage government to be responsible and do what's best for the whole of society. Support them while they are in office. Don't make them run for the next election the day they are sworn into office. Let them relax and lead. Be part of the solution not part of the problem.
Law Day reminds us that it is the Law that makes us free. Unselfish leaders created the Law we have today. God Bless the United States of America and the Law of the Land. Let the law of the Land and the Law of Reason return.
Unfortunately, poison vines have silently crept into every facet of our law. The vines of selfish interest and greed are entangled in every level of the mechanism of our law, which we call government. Remember the government is the law, not the elected or appointed officials. Our Law is an accumulation of modifications to the original foundation of law. Changes made by individuals approved by the electorate.
This poison crept slowly into our lives over the years. Will it take years to remove it? Not really. It doesn't even require throwing out the elected and appointed officials or even destroying the established government. A simple return of their focus to what's good for us and not what's good for them.
On Law Day, if those in power or with the ability to vote could have resolved to defend the law, our problems would be solved in a short span of time. For instance it takes millions of dollars and months to elect one representative to defend the law and define government. What happens if we establish one day on the calendar to hold primary elections across the land? Setting aside appointed TV times when each candidate for various positions could present their positions. After the primary election set five TV periods for presenting their positions in greater detail.
Eliminate matching funds for elections. Establish a standard of conduct in regards to all lobbyist. Forbid any and all candidates, elected officials or political parties from receiving monies from lobbyist or businesses. Make it socially unacceptable for any government official to be paid for making speeches to constituents. In short let the elected officials serve because they want to serve their nation and not their financial self interest.
Limit the smell of money and the foxes will lose interest in the hen house. The problem is not the government as those in the far left and right want us to believe. It is interference in decisions by individual self interest and greed.
Interestingly enough, self interest and greed are what elected officials believe they need to satisfy in the voters back home to stay in office. That's us folks! It is our turn to say we are more interested in what's good for the whole, not what's good for the few. Law Day is an opportune time to reestablish the law as our good friend not our foe.
The problem is not government or law. It's people. People who are bigots in regards to race, religion and creed - both to others and in favor of their own. People who refuse help to others in need. Lazy people who take handouts over hand ups. Over caring people who create systems that make laziness more rewarding than work. People who won't find a middle ground for the common good, in situations that demand our government or law intervene.
As the saying goes, "I have met the enemy and it is I!" And I want to do something about it. How? Urge these important changes. Encourage government to be responsible and do what's best for the whole of society. Support them while they are in office. Don't make them run for the next election the day they are sworn into office. Let them relax and lead. Be part of the solution not part of the problem.
Law Day reminds us that it is the Law that makes us free. Unselfish leaders created the Law we have today. God Bless the United States of America and the Law of the Land. Let the law of the Land and the Law of Reason return.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
International Peace Day? You are kidding! Right?
Did you know that there is a International Peace Day? Yep, September 19th is designated International Peace Day. It is either a forgotten day or a great joke on the world. One thing there is not today - international peace. Recently some publication reported forty-one wars being waged somewhere on this planet.
War and Peace are more than a great novel. They dominate our lives from the domestic violence in families and there resultant deaths to a world wide fear of terrorist. War is our oldest weakness. Peace is our oldest dream.
Story: An elderly cannibal sage and a missionary were comparing their philosophies. The cannibal reminisced about tribal wars he had fought, and how he had eaten his foes. The missionary said, "We fight wars for higher reasons - for truth, for defense of democracy, for freedom." "You must eat many, many people," said the cannibal. "Oh, no," said the missionary, "we don't eat human beings." "Then," said the cannibal sage,"you have no reason to kill each other."
No civilization yet created has been able to abolish war. In the last hundred years we have been in five significant conflicts. In the same period we have helped to establish two peace making bodies, the League of Nations and the United Nations to abolish war. This era also witnessed the greatest build up and development of armaments in world history. Humanity knows how to make war better than how to make peace. In the old days people went off to war. Today science and television can bring it right to you.
Story: Two pacifist were arguing about who was more idealistic. "I love peace so much," said one, "that I am willing to fight for it." "And I love peace so much," said the other, "that I am willing not to fight for it."
Peace is like an elusive butterfly. Beautiful to hunt and difficult to capture. Yet every group has begun with the ultimate goal of obtaining a peace. "To beat their swords into plowshares." Yet peace seems to be something humanity continues to fight over.
Franklin Roosevelt said, "Peace, like charity, begins at home." How right he was! Look at the religious wars in Ireland, Bosnia, India and other places. Then look at the religious wars at home. Roman Catholics against Protestants, Orthodox against Fundamentalist, "Saved" against "Unsaved" and so on and so forth.
Recently the front page of our paper had murder, suicide, domestic violence and murder trials all on the front page in one day! And we are arrogant enough to send missionaries to bring peace in the name of the Lord. If we could bottle the hate that many "Religious Coalitions" are generating, we would have enough to wage wars for the next hundred years.
Can’t we make every day International Peace Day? Can't we reach across our local boundaries and make peace in our own land. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God."
War and Peace are more than a great novel. They dominate our lives from the domestic violence in families and there resultant deaths to a world wide fear of terrorist. War is our oldest weakness. Peace is our oldest dream.
Story: An elderly cannibal sage and a missionary were comparing their philosophies. The cannibal reminisced about tribal wars he had fought, and how he had eaten his foes. The missionary said, "We fight wars for higher reasons - for truth, for defense of democracy, for freedom." "You must eat many, many people," said the cannibal. "Oh, no," said the missionary, "we don't eat human beings." "Then," said the cannibal sage,"you have no reason to kill each other."
No civilization yet created has been able to abolish war. In the last hundred years we have been in five significant conflicts. In the same period we have helped to establish two peace making bodies, the League of Nations and the United Nations to abolish war. This era also witnessed the greatest build up and development of armaments in world history. Humanity knows how to make war better than how to make peace. In the old days people went off to war. Today science and television can bring it right to you.
Story: Two pacifist were arguing about who was more idealistic. "I love peace so much," said one, "that I am willing to fight for it." "And I love peace so much," said the other, "that I am willing not to fight for it."
Peace is like an elusive butterfly. Beautiful to hunt and difficult to capture. Yet every group has begun with the ultimate goal of obtaining a peace. "To beat their swords into plowshares." Yet peace seems to be something humanity continues to fight over.
Franklin Roosevelt said, "Peace, like charity, begins at home." How right he was! Look at the religious wars in Ireland, Bosnia, India and other places. Then look at the religious wars at home. Roman Catholics against Protestants, Orthodox against Fundamentalist, "Saved" against "Unsaved" and so on and so forth.
Recently the front page of our paper had murder, suicide, domestic violence and murder trials all on the front page in one day! And we are arrogant enough to send missionaries to bring peace in the name of the Lord. If we could bottle the hate that many "Religious Coalitions" are generating, we would have enough to wage wars for the next hundred years.
Can’t we make every day International Peace Day? Can't we reach across our local boundaries and make peace in our own land. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God."
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Context is Everything
Context is an important element in any of our understanding of what is true or false. For example, if I say, "he kissed his mother," it wouldn’t sound abnormal. But if I revealed that he was Oedipus, son of Laius and Jocasta in Greek legend, it sounds abnormal. In fact that is where the phrase, "Oedipus Complex" originated.
At eighteen I was considered to be of average height. My West Point class was the first class to integrate by heights. Before then, cadets were assigned companies according to their height. But that system had developed some "Napoleonic" complexes in the shorter or "runt" companies. I was one of the first "tall" men to be put in the smallest "runt" company. Suddenly, I went from being average height to tall.
Chapel was mandatory in those days. We marched to church each Sunday. I had never been in a church with musical instruments. On that first Sunday I marched in the chapel and heard this magnificent organ praising God, but I was thinking I was entering the realm of Satan. After two Sundays, I couldn’t wait to attend chapel and worship God on such a high plane! That chapel went from being an instrument of Satan to a truly wonderful way of worshiping and praising God.
Over my life I have been asked many times, "Are you a Christian?" Most often, the person asking the question had a formulated response they expected me to repeat. If I answered as they wanted, they approved of me. If I answered wrongly, they were sure I was condemned to hell.
I hadn’t changed, but the person asking the question was different.
In my other pastorates, in the context of the communities where they were located, I was considered to be a moderate evangelical tongue speaking Presbyterian. In the community where I now reside, where fundamentalism prevails, I am often regarded as a flaming liberal, whose salvation is in doubt.
Context is important, especially in choosing a church. If your understanding of Christianity is it is all about salvation, then you would seek a church of that bent. They would have and emphasis altar calls in Sunday worship, the numbers being saved, how many visitors you bring, and your level of giving to the church. Salvation churches are about expansion, and rightly so, if salvation is what you believe Christianity is all about.
However, if your view of Christianity is people are saved by grace and not good works, and the work of the church is sanctification (becoming more holy or Godly), you would seek a different type of church. That church would see Sunday worship as a gathering of believers (saved people), who come to worship God, seek to equip people to be more Christ like in life so they can attract others to God, emphasize holiness and obedience to the Spirit of God, take serious Jesus’ life and teaching to be the way, the truth and the life, and believe no one can get to the Father (God) in heaven except by being like Jesus. These churches emphasis the age old Shema - love the Lord God with all your might. So if becoming more holy, to be a better follower of Christ and a more Godly person, then these are the churches for you.
Yes context is important, especially when you are seeking a place to worship and to grow spiritually. Names can be deceiving, so look at who they are, not who they say they are.
At eighteen I was considered to be of average height. My West Point class was the first class to integrate by heights. Before then, cadets were assigned companies according to their height. But that system had developed some "Napoleonic" complexes in the shorter or "runt" companies. I was one of the first "tall" men to be put in the smallest "runt" company. Suddenly, I went from being average height to tall.
Chapel was mandatory in those days. We marched to church each Sunday. I had never been in a church with musical instruments. On that first Sunday I marched in the chapel and heard this magnificent organ praising God, but I was thinking I was entering the realm of Satan. After two Sundays, I couldn’t wait to attend chapel and worship God on such a high plane! That chapel went from being an instrument of Satan to a truly wonderful way of worshiping and praising God.
Over my life I have been asked many times, "Are you a Christian?" Most often, the person asking the question had a formulated response they expected me to repeat. If I answered as they wanted, they approved of me. If I answered wrongly, they were sure I was condemned to hell.
I hadn’t changed, but the person asking the question was different.
In my other pastorates, in the context of the communities where they were located, I was considered to be a moderate evangelical tongue speaking Presbyterian. In the community where I now reside, where fundamentalism prevails, I am often regarded as a flaming liberal, whose salvation is in doubt.
Context is important, especially in choosing a church. If your understanding of Christianity is it is all about salvation, then you would seek a church of that bent. They would have and emphasis altar calls in Sunday worship, the numbers being saved, how many visitors you bring, and your level of giving to the church. Salvation churches are about expansion, and rightly so, if salvation is what you believe Christianity is all about.
However, if your view of Christianity is people are saved by grace and not good works, and the work of the church is sanctification (becoming more holy or Godly), you would seek a different type of church. That church would see Sunday worship as a gathering of believers (saved people), who come to worship God, seek to equip people to be more Christ like in life so they can attract others to God, emphasize holiness and obedience to the Spirit of God, take serious Jesus’ life and teaching to be the way, the truth and the life, and believe no one can get to the Father (God) in heaven except by being like Jesus. These churches emphasis the age old Shema - love the Lord God with all your might. So if becoming more holy, to be a better follower of Christ and a more Godly person, then these are the churches for you.
Yes context is important, especially when you are seeking a place to worship and to grow spiritually. Names can be deceiving, so look at who they are, not who they say they are.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Equality of Sexes
Many traditions advocate women must be submissive to men. Sad traditions I have encountered all my life. Interestingly enough they claim God established this hierarchy at creation. So let me address it as a creation issue, "Are women spare ribs or prime cut?"
My foundation for examination is I believe, "Bereshith bara Elohim" ...In the beginning when God created... i.e. Life begins with God. Genesis means beginnings. Chapters 1 thru 11 of the book of Genesis are the primordial historical narrative of the earliest generations of the world and humankind. They are background for the call of Abram in the twelfth chapter. It is in this history that we find the creation of boys and girls.
English Bibles or traditional King James paraphrases are very difficult to use for particular endeavor, because they use the word "man" in place of several original Hebrew words. Let us first look at the Hebrew word influencing this subject. The word "adam" in Hebrew generally means humankind. It is not used as the proper name of the first male until verse 4:25. The evolution of the use of the word that goes from meaning humanity to a specific person is not uncommon in many Near Eastern accounts of creation.
The crux of creation is seen in Chapter 1 verse 27 - "So God created humankind (adam - heb.) in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (NRSV) Boys and girls are both created in the image of God. This is the first and oldest text in Scripture concerning we humans. Man and woman were created equal in the sight of God. They are male and female in the image of God. Neither is more of an image than the other.
Then what is the second more familiar story the account of the Garden of Eden? Like much of the rest of Genesis it is a God's method of revealing truth that took place in the beginnings. Much is hard to understand but it is background for many traditions in the nation of Israel. Remember all of these Scriptures were passed down through generations for over a thousand years until they were put into writings just before the collapse of Judah as a nation.
Many people appropriate the story of the rib, which has no medical support. Yet many of us seize the issue of the breath of God. What is more important in the Garden story, the notion of male supremacy or a people of God, male and female, lead by the Spirit of God?
I have always had trouble with the two humans in the Garden being the first humans on planet Earth. Why? Who were the people in the land of Nod east of Eden? I don't know either, but they forced me to look at the story again. In the second look it was fascinating to see God take two particular humans into a special alliance and breath the breath of life into them. The etymologist knows it is the same breath that blew over the chaos and created something out of nothing. It is the same breath that descended as a dove when Jesus received the Holy Spirit.
Eureka! Perhaps these two creatures, male and female, were the first humans on planet Earth to receive the Holy Spirit. The first two humans born from above into the Kingdom of God. That is the real significance about the Garden story. Not some proof text to make me a Tarzan and my wife a Jane. Sorry Bubba, but your wife is also in the image of God and filled with the same Spirit, if she is a child of God.
Scriptures treats humankind as the focus of creation. Each and every human is intended to be prime cut. Yes, made in the image of God, male and female. Humankind is separated by who is in God's Garden and who is not in it. Or who has God's Spirit, the breath of God, and who doesn't have it. During the introduction of sin we find the spare rib concept for female humankind. Isn't it time to return to the original concept for God's people. Recognize we are all created in his image, male and female, and in need of his breath?
And! I am not a feminazi or a flaming liberal feminist! I am a male human in God, who wants equality of position to all humankind. In the place where I live (that's in Christ Jesus) there is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female. Won't you move to my neighborhood and live in the fullness for which God created you, whether you are male or female?
My foundation for examination is I believe, "Bereshith bara Elohim" ...In the beginning when God created... i.e. Life begins with God. Genesis means beginnings. Chapters 1 thru 11 of the book of Genesis are the primordial historical narrative of the earliest generations of the world and humankind. They are background for the call of Abram in the twelfth chapter. It is in this history that we find the creation of boys and girls.
English Bibles or traditional King James paraphrases are very difficult to use for particular endeavor, because they use the word "man" in place of several original Hebrew words. Let us first look at the Hebrew word influencing this subject. The word "adam" in Hebrew generally means humankind. It is not used as the proper name of the first male until verse 4:25. The evolution of the use of the word that goes from meaning humanity to a specific person is not uncommon in many Near Eastern accounts of creation.
The crux of creation is seen in Chapter 1 verse 27 - "So God created humankind (adam - heb.) in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (NRSV) Boys and girls are both created in the image of God. This is the first and oldest text in Scripture concerning we humans. Man and woman were created equal in the sight of God. They are male and female in the image of God. Neither is more of an image than the other.
Then what is the second more familiar story the account of the Garden of Eden? Like much of the rest of Genesis it is a God's method of revealing truth that took place in the beginnings. Much is hard to understand but it is background for many traditions in the nation of Israel. Remember all of these Scriptures were passed down through generations for over a thousand years until they were put into writings just before the collapse of Judah as a nation.
Many people appropriate the story of the rib, which has no medical support. Yet many of us seize the issue of the breath of God. What is more important in the Garden story, the notion of male supremacy or a people of God, male and female, lead by the Spirit of God?
I have always had trouble with the two humans in the Garden being the first humans on planet Earth. Why? Who were the people in the land of Nod east of Eden? I don't know either, but they forced me to look at the story again. In the second look it was fascinating to see God take two particular humans into a special alliance and breath the breath of life into them. The etymologist knows it is the same breath that blew over the chaos and created something out of nothing. It is the same breath that descended as a dove when Jesus received the Holy Spirit.
Eureka! Perhaps these two creatures, male and female, were the first humans on planet Earth to receive the Holy Spirit. The first two humans born from above into the Kingdom of God. That is the real significance about the Garden story. Not some proof text to make me a Tarzan and my wife a Jane. Sorry Bubba, but your wife is also in the image of God and filled with the same Spirit, if she is a child of God.
Scriptures treats humankind as the focus of creation. Each and every human is intended to be prime cut. Yes, made in the image of God, male and female. Humankind is separated by who is in God's Garden and who is not in it. Or who has God's Spirit, the breath of God, and who doesn't have it. During the introduction of sin we find the spare rib concept for female humankind. Isn't it time to return to the original concept for God's people. Recognize we are all created in his image, male and female, and in need of his breath?
And! I am not a feminazi or a flaming liberal feminist! I am a male human in God, who wants equality of position to all humankind. In the place where I live (that's in Christ Jesus) there is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female. Won't you move to my neighborhood and live in the fullness for which God created you, whether you are male or female?
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Time for a Worldwide Reformation
Wherever we live on this beautiful crazy planet we are being bombarded with daily headlines that sadly reveal a rapidly growing worldwide clash of cultures and values. Examine any culture or value and you will find their ethical roots entwined deeply in their own particular historical and religious development over the ages. This ever developing clash of ideals lurks menacingly just below the surface of every faith and culture. When these lurking ideals finally clash they will create as much or more mayhem in the world as any of the other great steps in culture evolution in the past have brought.
This erupting struggle of cultures and values caused me to ask, "What single idea or perspective is the real cause of this ecclesiastical struggle that is now spilling over into every domain?" Over the last two hundred years or so, societies have been expanding beyond their borders, while at the same time struggling with their isolationism. What has caused this dynamic tension amongst the cultures of the world? I believe it was and is the coming to age of the rapid communications and travel systems that are universally available.
Before this current and almost unbelievable expansion of information humanity seemed to live somewhat happily ever after within their own lands and within their own comfortable religious and cultural ideals and laws. And now, this new increasing access of information is allowing we citizens of the world to know so much more about one another. Maintaining an isolationism of peoples and faiths is growing more difficult each and everyday. In one way or another, we keep finding new needs for our far away neighbors, who we soon realize are so very different from ourselves.
This worldwide struggle according to many leaders is forcing us to choose what primary proclamation are we to declare in this expanding world community? This difficult choice seems to be between two major thoughts or perspectives, that would be difficult to proclaimed together. In fact they struggle to exist together within every faith because of the basic differences in how they are applied to people from/with different cultures and values.
What are these two opposing perspectives? Simply stated they are:
1. (Fill in a word or name) is the only way to acquire life after death (peace).
Or
2. For me/us (Fill in a word or name) is the best way to acquire life after death (peace).
A person deeply committed to statement number one, the one way only theory, will struggle constantly with how to effectively relate with anyone outside that system of belief. Why would this be true? By the nature of the statement, a person with that perspective must view anyone outside their perspective or realm as lost and without hope. They have and always will tend to see these outsiders as the enemy as well as people full of ignorance.
We don’t have to look to relationships between the major faiths of the world to see this in action. Throughout our Christian history this has been evident between many, if not most, Christian groups. Early in our history the Roman Church was one of the first major movements to claim exclusiveness. Subsequently, each and every cause seeking to reform the faith claimed that their particular perspective or way was the best, if not only true one. Nearly every spinoff from one of the main movements was created because someone claimed a new and special way.
Let one thing be clear, if a person or group stands on statement number one, they should by all means be isolationist and treat the rest of humanity as lost. It is a difficult road to walk, but it would seem to be the correct one for this group. Those of this perspective usually claim they simply are believing what God has told them.
In the second stated perspective there appears to be two underlying principles. The first is that how a person, or for that matter which person, is redeemed is freely and exclusively up to a Higher Power or Ideal. The twist? This perspective assumes all who are redeemed are done so by God. Therefore I believe this view also requires a respect of other views of God and reality. This twist evolves out of a humility that understands that there are things about the Creator we humans have yet to learn. It is powered by the notion that God desires every human being to exist forever with God, so they can come to the full knowledge of the truth of the reality of Creation and its Creator. Thus the second group normally endeavors to exist in a manner that will attract others to their faith. They do this by treating others as fellow creatures in the Creator’s world.. Who is or who isn’t in the fold of God is left entirely up to God.
Which statement is correct? Both could be correct and both could be wrong. But both require a deep respect of faith and discipline to that particular way of life. Jesus as well as most all other great teachers of other established faiths recognized this when they taught their followers that a person cannot serve two masters. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people attempt to live by both of the above statements. A person’s circumstance at various times seems to dictate as to which statement governed their actions.. In doing so their faith has been watered down to a point where it is now hard to tell the difference between the two points of view.
Having lived in communities and countries with different faiths than mine, and I found I was comfortable with most of their philosophies. For the most part, I believe they simply didn’t want to offend me. However, in every place I lived, I encountered minorities who strongly advocated just one of the statements. And they made it clear, that for them their statement of faith, whether it was the first or second one cited above, was the only way.
Unfortunately the middle groups who simply didn’t want to offend anyone have slowly lost center stage and control in every faith and culture. They seem to be standing on the sidelines while the two extremes fight for survival.
What should we make of this? Perhaps it is time for a new Reformation, not just in Christianity, but in the all the faiths of the world. Let us seek a common understanding of God and the purpose of this Creation. Let us seek it with love and understanding.
This erupting struggle of cultures and values caused me to ask, "What single idea or perspective is the real cause of this ecclesiastical struggle that is now spilling over into every domain?" Over the last two hundred years or so, societies have been expanding beyond their borders, while at the same time struggling with their isolationism. What has caused this dynamic tension amongst the cultures of the world? I believe it was and is the coming to age of the rapid communications and travel systems that are universally available.
Before this current and almost unbelievable expansion of information humanity seemed to live somewhat happily ever after within their own lands and within their own comfortable religious and cultural ideals and laws. And now, this new increasing access of information is allowing we citizens of the world to know so much more about one another. Maintaining an isolationism of peoples and faiths is growing more difficult each and everyday. In one way or another, we keep finding new needs for our far away neighbors, who we soon realize are so very different from ourselves.
This worldwide struggle according to many leaders is forcing us to choose what primary proclamation are we to declare in this expanding world community? This difficult choice seems to be between two major thoughts or perspectives, that would be difficult to proclaimed together. In fact they struggle to exist together within every faith because of the basic differences in how they are applied to people from/with different cultures and values.
What are these two opposing perspectives? Simply stated they are:
1. (Fill in a word or name) is the only way to acquire life after death (peace).
Or
2. For me/us (Fill in a word or name) is the best way to acquire life after death (peace).
A person deeply committed to statement number one, the one way only theory, will struggle constantly with how to effectively relate with anyone outside that system of belief. Why would this be true? By the nature of the statement, a person with that perspective must view anyone outside their perspective or realm as lost and without hope. They have and always will tend to see these outsiders as the enemy as well as people full of ignorance.
We don’t have to look to relationships between the major faiths of the world to see this in action. Throughout our Christian history this has been evident between many, if not most, Christian groups. Early in our history the Roman Church was one of the first major movements to claim exclusiveness. Subsequently, each and every cause seeking to reform the faith claimed that their particular perspective or way was the best, if not only true one. Nearly every spinoff from one of the main movements was created because someone claimed a new and special way.
Let one thing be clear, if a person or group stands on statement number one, they should by all means be isolationist and treat the rest of humanity as lost. It is a difficult road to walk, but it would seem to be the correct one for this group. Those of this perspective usually claim they simply are believing what God has told them.
In the second stated perspective there appears to be two underlying principles. The first is that how a person, or for that matter which person, is redeemed is freely and exclusively up to a Higher Power or Ideal. The twist? This perspective assumes all who are redeemed are done so by God. Therefore I believe this view also requires a respect of other views of God and reality. This twist evolves out of a humility that understands that there are things about the Creator we humans have yet to learn. It is powered by the notion that God desires every human being to exist forever with God, so they can come to the full knowledge of the truth of the reality of Creation and its Creator. Thus the second group normally endeavors to exist in a manner that will attract others to their faith. They do this by treating others as fellow creatures in the Creator’s world.. Who is or who isn’t in the fold of God is left entirely up to God.
Which statement is correct? Both could be correct and both could be wrong. But both require a deep respect of faith and discipline to that particular way of life. Jesus as well as most all other great teachers of other established faiths recognized this when they taught their followers that a person cannot serve two masters. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people attempt to live by both of the above statements. A person’s circumstance at various times seems to dictate as to which statement governed their actions.. In doing so their faith has been watered down to a point where it is now hard to tell the difference between the two points of view.
Having lived in communities and countries with different faiths than mine, and I found I was comfortable with most of their philosophies. For the most part, I believe they simply didn’t want to offend me. However, in every place I lived, I encountered minorities who strongly advocated just one of the statements. And they made it clear, that for them their statement of faith, whether it was the first or second one cited above, was the only way.
Unfortunately the middle groups who simply didn’t want to offend anyone have slowly lost center stage and control in every faith and culture. They seem to be standing on the sidelines while the two extremes fight for survival.
What should we make of this? Perhaps it is time for a new Reformation, not just in Christianity, but in the all the faiths of the world. Let us seek a common understanding of God and the purpose of this Creation. Let us seek it with love and understanding.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Free to Speak or Listen
I believe the greatest event in the history of this nation happened on June 12, 1776. The incidents that day are very much a part of everything we read, see, believe or do today. Debate continues to rage around it in to this century. Because of what a handful of people did so long ago our present debates are conducted in freedom.
A document primarily written by George Mason was approved at the Virginia Convention on that special date. It was known as the Virginia Declaration of Rights. It was more than a unusual inspiration for the Continental Congress that assembled thirty days later in historic Philadelphia to write that beautiful document we call The Declaration of Independence. Any review of that precious document, our Constitution or the Bill of Rights will reveal the vital influence Mason’s document had on the assembly.
We, the people of these United States, are privileged. We are able to stand up and speak our minds. Speaking your mind freely is something few people in this world can exercise or comprehend. It is this overriding feature that beckon the tired, the poor and the hungry to our shores. When that privilege is lost personal freedom goes with it.
Those assembled in Virginia understood the importance of this for future generations, especially if they wanted to preserve a high level of personal freedom. You can hear their wisdom in their own words. Article 1,"That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights... the enjoyment of life and liberty... and pursuing and obtaining happiness... 2. That all power... is derived from the people."
The Assemblage also made other vital points so important in our nation’s foundation upon which free men and women have built this unique melting pot called the USA. For instance, they demanded freedom of press and freedom of worship. In fact it was their enthusiasm and convictions that most probably cause the meeting in Philadelphia to take serious a demand for personal freedom, particularly in regards to one speaking ones mind.
If a national Constitutional Convention were held today, would the delegates give heed to the words of George Mason again? "Are all men by nature" (in nature it means women as well as men; as it does also mean Spanish Americans, Black Americans, Asian immigrants, Native Americans, Neo Nazis, Homosexuals, Militants, Conservatives, Liberals, Far Right, Far Left, Children, Parents, Fetus, Etc.?)
"Equally free?" Does that mean that John Boehner and Ellen DeGeneses are equal? Is freedom shared equally with Rev. Billy Graham and Bill Maher? Is it fair to pursue as many welfare programs as you will give me? Is it fair for me to say no to you if I choose not to help you? Or must I do something or be a certain somebody to earn my equality in this free land?
Freedom is lost when we can no longer speak our minds. With freedom people are free to hear what I have to say and decide for themselves if what I say applies to them or not. If more people agree with one person over another our freedom says they may govern until they no longer are in the majority. But in our freedom that majority must do all they can to protect and preserve not only their own freedom, but the freedom of the minority. Difficult? Yes, but then that's why this nation is so special.
The moment we change this equation we begin to sound the death knell for freedom in this country. When we or anyone wants to shut another person up because of what they say, a little bit of freedom dies. Keep it up long enough and we can kill the whole thing.
The one element that cannot be removed from the freedom that founded this country is "the freedom to speak your own mind." It would do us all well to pause and remember that important fact. Do you hear me Hollywood, Elected Politicians, Radio and TV Pundits, Comedians, Religious Leaders, Directors of Movements, and the rest of those willing to speak their own minds? Can you extend that same courtesy and bravado into your own ability to listen when others speak their own mind?
Can you listen or will you simply wait impatiently until it's your turn to talk? From my perspective most of us exercise the freedom of speech without the freedom of listening. Listening doesn't mean we agree. It means we believe we all have the right to speak. Once again this formula precedes all democratic action. Lose it and you lose democracy.
A document primarily written by George Mason was approved at the Virginia Convention on that special date. It was known as the Virginia Declaration of Rights. It was more than a unusual inspiration for the Continental Congress that assembled thirty days later in historic Philadelphia to write that beautiful document we call The Declaration of Independence. Any review of that precious document, our Constitution or the Bill of Rights will reveal the vital influence Mason’s document had on the assembly.
We, the people of these United States, are privileged. We are able to stand up and speak our minds. Speaking your mind freely is something few people in this world can exercise or comprehend. It is this overriding feature that beckon the tired, the poor and the hungry to our shores. When that privilege is lost personal freedom goes with it.
Those assembled in Virginia understood the importance of this for future generations, especially if they wanted to preserve a high level of personal freedom. You can hear their wisdom in their own words. Article 1,"That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights... the enjoyment of life and liberty... and pursuing and obtaining happiness... 2. That all power... is derived from the people."
The Assemblage also made other vital points so important in our nation’s foundation upon which free men and women have built this unique melting pot called the USA. For instance, they demanded freedom of press and freedom of worship. In fact it was their enthusiasm and convictions that most probably cause the meeting in Philadelphia to take serious a demand for personal freedom, particularly in regards to one speaking ones mind.
If a national Constitutional Convention were held today, would the delegates give heed to the words of George Mason again? "Are all men by nature" (in nature it means women as well as men; as it does also mean Spanish Americans, Black Americans, Asian immigrants, Native Americans, Neo Nazis, Homosexuals, Militants, Conservatives, Liberals, Far Right, Far Left, Children, Parents, Fetus, Etc.?)
"Equally free?" Does that mean that John Boehner and Ellen DeGeneses are equal? Is freedom shared equally with Rev. Billy Graham and Bill Maher? Is it fair to pursue as many welfare programs as you will give me? Is it fair for me to say no to you if I choose not to help you? Or must I do something or be a certain somebody to earn my equality in this free land?
Freedom is lost when we can no longer speak our minds. With freedom people are free to hear what I have to say and decide for themselves if what I say applies to them or not. If more people agree with one person over another our freedom says they may govern until they no longer are in the majority. But in our freedom that majority must do all they can to protect and preserve not only their own freedom, but the freedom of the minority. Difficult? Yes, but then that's why this nation is so special.
The moment we change this equation we begin to sound the death knell for freedom in this country. When we or anyone wants to shut another person up because of what they say, a little bit of freedom dies. Keep it up long enough and we can kill the whole thing.
The one element that cannot be removed from the freedom that founded this country is "the freedom to speak your own mind." It would do us all well to pause and remember that important fact. Do you hear me Hollywood, Elected Politicians, Radio and TV Pundits, Comedians, Religious Leaders, Directors of Movements, and the rest of those willing to speak their own minds? Can you extend that same courtesy and bravado into your own ability to listen when others speak their own mind?
Can you listen or will you simply wait impatiently until it's your turn to talk? From my perspective most of us exercise the freedom of speech without the freedom of listening. Listening doesn't mean we agree. It means we believe we all have the right to speak. Once again this formula precedes all democratic action. Lose it and you lose democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)