How to Control the Masses Without Really Trying...

Have you ever read a book that everyone is talking about, and says it's completely amazing, but when you read it you see something completely different and so appalling you're amazed people get away with it? That's how I feel about A Tale of Three Kings by Gene Edwards.

A good friend of mine had recommended it and my dad had it on his book shelf, so I borrowed it. The reviews on Amazon and elsewhere that I've read on it all talk about how it's a great book for people who are suffering. People who maybe are (or recently have been) under tyrannical/abusive relationships with other believers or authority figures in church. But when I read it, I didn't walk away feeling better about myself or challenged to live a better Christian life, as many of the reviewers said I would. I walked away from it thinking, "Are people really buying into this bullshit?" (Sorry about the language, but it's really bugging me).

Here's my take on the theme of the book: if you're in a bad relationship in a Church or if you're in a church with an abusive pastor; sucks to be you. Grin and bear it, you can't leave or offer up any sort of dissent because that rebellion comes from ego, and if you give into that rebellion you're no better, or could potentially become that person. No wonder this book is being taught from the pulpit! It essentially says put up or shut up. You can do nothing about your situation, because the person who is abusing you might not really be abusing you in God's eyes, and the big man upstairs isn't going to tell you. So don't rock the boat, if you do you're bad!

Pastors are handing out this little $9 booklet left and right and I can't imagine why. You have problems with what I'm doing? I'm sorry, I'll do better. Here read this nice book, it'll help put things in perspective and quell any further criticism you may have. Wow, you just came from an abusive church so you're kinda' grumpy, why don't I not acknowledge your abuse and help you work through it; instead give you this nice booklet that tells you not to be too critical because I don't need another person to rock the boat here.

I mean, come on people! The one group of people that Jesus was critical and harsh with were the religious leaders of his time. The implications of many of the stories of demon possession is that the very religious system that Jesus was challenging was the enabler of the demon and they could be seen as in collusion with one another. Didn't the Reformation come from people challenging the abusive authoritarian powers of the Church at that time? I find it telling that this book is getting mass publication and reading during a time when many people are seeing a new reformation on the horizon. It seems a thinly veiled attempt at establishment trying to quiet the mass of those who would seek to challenge the answers of an age that is increasingly becoming irrelevant.

Anyway, sorry, rant is over...

Oh, and can you really trust someone whose glossy looks like this?

Labels: A long Post....

Typically I'm opposed to labeling people, including myself. It always seemed so restrictive and demeaning. How could I possibly be confined to a set of words? Am I Jewish? Am I Christian? Am I something else? What are you? Is it at all important? I'm starting to think that for some reason people need labels for things. It helps to put the world in perspective, and know where you stand in relation to other people. But I think it's important that the label applied to the person is one that they accept and embrace and not something that we impose on them.

How does this come up? It came up for several reasons, but mostly because I'm not really comfortable with being called a Christian (as I mentioned before). I connect Christianity with something else...Pat Robertson, Christian Coalition, Campus Crusade, Rick Warren, etc. None of whom I really...connect with...none of whom really speaks to me/for me as a believer in God and Jesus' teachings.

This sort of mini-identity crisis came up because I'm constantly asked what I am. I'm not Jewish, I haven't converted, and don't plan on it. But I love the teachings of the Rabbis and much of what traditional Judaism offers. I know the tractates of the Talmud; I know who the Tanaim and the Amoraim are; I know what the difference is between Halacha and Agadah and can use them in an argument with most of my Jewish friends.

But I can also flop between the Rabbis and Jesus in the same breath, and arguing for the same point. On one message board, it brought confussion as to whether or not I believed Jesus was the Son of God because I moved between the Talmud and New Testament without batting an eye. I love the teachings of Jesus and I don't see a great difference between what he taught and what the Rabbis taught (e.g. both hold Deuteronomy 6.4-9 as the greatest commandment). I study the gospels quite a bit and know most of the storie fairly well. I'm learning Greek so that I can read the New Testament (among other things) in Greek because I hate translations (I should add that to the list of things I'm skeptical about) I really want to know what he was saying and try to understand all of the implications.

At the same time, I don't believe that you have to believe in Jesus to be saved (honestly I think of eternal salvation as a moot point). I think anyone from any religious background can merit salvation by loving their neighbor. The dividing line for Jesus was not belief in him, but how you treated the poor and downcast (a la the sheep and goats, etc). I hug this dividing line between the two traditions which makes both sides not quite comfortable with me (although my non-Christian friends tend to be more comfortable around me than my Christian friends).

So what am I? This question has been plaguing me for sometime, and only recently have I come up with something that I can feel comfortable with: Existential Christ-following Humanist. Let me break it down for you, so that we're all on the same page:

Existential: This world is what matters more than the next. We are to take care of people now, the planet now and should be ultimatly concerned with what is happening here.

Christ-Following: For me, the ultimate example of God's love is seen in Jesus. Not so much in his death but in the life he lived. The life that lead to his dying. Where oppressive authority structures were challenged, care for the poor and needy was the ultimate concern and how we treat others is ultimately how we treat God.

Humanist: I believe man can achieve the realm of God. We are to be the agents of God in building his kingdom. God has chosen humanity to be the image of the divine in the secular. We cannot continue to think we are worms and dust, but that we are glorious creatures made in the image of God. We are in a sense a part of the Divine, and we should try to find that part in all of us.

Honestly I was quite surprised by how freeing labeling myself was. Maybe it reflects a lack of maturity on my part, but to be able to say, "Look this is what I am..." actually offers a bit of stability for me. Maybe labels can be beneficial in some degree or another. Unless your Jaime and choose to label yourself a Christian Sociopath....

For Brice

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes
(turn and face the strain)
Ch-ch-changes
Dont want to be a richer man
Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes
(turn and face the strain)
Ch-ch-changes
Just gonna have to be a different man
Time may change me
But I cant trace time

Cha Cha Cha Changes!

Yes, blogger is making some changes to it's format, so I decided to take the plunge earlier, by signing up for the beta. This also gives me an opportunity to change, my template. I keep, simplifying, simplifying, simplifying... I can't edit the html just yet, so some of the banners and stuff will have to wait until then, but otherwise, I'm ready to go! Except now I have to go through all my previous blogs and label them, 'cause I think labels are cool!

A New Christianity for a New World

So I just finished this book today. Generally speaking, I don't care for Bishop Spong's writings, his scholarship is dated and his treatment of the Bible is, at times, too reckless. But let me say that I really enjoyed reading this book, and I would recommend anyone who is looking to expand their view of Christianity and get a vision for a new type of Church to read this.

Once again, I don't agree with everything that Spong argues, especially in the first part of the book. His deconstruction of Theism is, for me, deeply flawed. I have run into too many "coincidences" in my life, to believe that God is completely uninvolved, but I've also run into too much suffering to believe that God is completely involved (at least to the degree that most mainline evangelical Christians believe). Spong continues to be, for me at least, too far out there in his dismissive nature of the role of the Divine in our everyday lives.

But the last half of the book, his reconstruction of Christianity, evangelism, prayer and the Church is completely compelling. Ironically, in this section, many of his conclusions, I would like to take even further. If you already have problems with the way Christianity currently operates, you could even skip the first six chapters and start with his vision of Christianity beyond "Theism" in chapter seven. Or if you're not sure, or appreciate new challenges to your way of thinking and understanding the world take the time to read from the beginning, it's worth your time.

If nothing else, even though much of Spong's methodology doesn't resonate with me, I'm appreciating more and more his willingness to think outside the box that we tend to put God into. His challenges to traditional understandings push me to reconsider the foundations upon which my own beliefs and faith issues stand. If you come from a traditional background but have yet to find a Christianity that is significant to you read it today.

Welcome Isabe!!

Jaime's birthday just became that much more exciting for the family, because now there's two birthdays to celebrate! My brother, Ben and his wife Julie welcomed their first child, Isabel Florence Kessler. Congrats to all, and Crazy Uncle Ben (as my kids call him) gets to become Crazy Daddy!! MAZEL TOV!

Happy Birthday Jaime!

I'm totally not good at this stuff, but it's Jaime's birthday today! I really can't imagine a better woman to be married to. Her compassion and care for other people puts me to shame. I can't be more grateful for all of her patience with everything I put her through in the past few years. After nearly 11 years of marriage, I'm discovering that what Jaime said last night is true: Women do get better with age.

Thoughts On Various Profound and Unprofound Topics

Jesus never publicly declared who he was, and never gave any direct formulaic argument on his relation to God, or other apologetic discourse. Instead he said that his actions told who he was and all his teachings had to do with how we treat other people. Therefore, if we try to convince people with apologetics, or try to make a case for Christ, etc are we committing a sin? We aren't following the example of Jesus who we're supposed to be imitating nor following his teaching of letting our good works be seen by men that they might glorify our father in heaven. I find it interesting that we use the teaching of salt and light, being a city on a hill and those other images to teach that we should be "witnesses." In reality, those teachings are purely ethical; they were meant to encourage us to righteousness (deeds) not formulaic arguments on who Christ is or the four spiritual laws as a way to eternal life.

I'm growing increasingly uncomfortable with the label of Christian for myself. There's just too much baggage with it (both personally and within society). So I offer the new non-threatening label: Puppy Pals of Jesus... of course, if your allergic to dogs that might have it's own baggage.
Seriously, as far as labels go here's my new one for me: Existential Christ Following Humanist.

The first season of 24 has too many plot holes, are they covered in the next season or just dropped? If they just leave them, I don't know if I really like the show, too sloppily written...also too many camera men were seen on camera, aren't they supposed to be behind the camera?

Do people make gay jokes because they're uncomfortable with their own sexuality? Is it really that scary that you have to demean the people by making them a by-word for something bad? That's so hetero!

Brice, you should just give up on MSN and start over on blogspot. Come to the new evil empire: Google! I use their search engine, blog, calendar and e-mail. I no longer have a soul, but I'm very organized (not to mention addicted to Google Earth).

Confessions of a Skeptic

It has been revealed to me that I might be overly...skeptical... Things that I am skeptical about (in no particular order):

1) The Moon Landing
2) The Mars Rovers
3) Pictures from the Hubble Telescope
4) Anyone who's getting paid by a church
5) The latest terrorism threats
6) Really, anything that comes from the White House
7) Who am I kidding? Anything that comes from a politician
8) History

Maybe I should seek help for this...

Following Faith's Lead...

You Are Guinness

You know beer well, and you'll only drink the best beers in the world. Watered down beers disgust you, as do the people who drink them. When you drink, you tend to become a bit of a know it all - especially about subjects you don't know well. But your friends tolerate your drunken ways, because you introduce them to the best beers around.

What's Your Beer Personality?

How did they know???

You Are 26% American

America: You don't love it or want to leave it. But you wouldn't mind giving it an extreme make over. On the 4th of July, you'll fly a freak flag instead... And give Uncle Sam a sucker punch!

How American Are You?

I know, I know, I was hoping for less, but what can I do? I like dark beer, but it's Guiness, or Negra Modelo that should count for less...

Your Deadly Sins

Sloth: 40%

Gluttony: 20%

Pride: 20%

Wrath: 20%

Envy: 0%

Greed: 0%

Lust: 0%

Chance You'll Go to Hell: 14%

You will die while sleeping - and no one will notice.

How Sinful Are You?

Woo hoo!! With only a 14% chance of going to hell...I'm in like Flynn!

Nizlopi Start Beginning Tiscali Session

These guys are my new musical obsession...also check out their JCB video here (oh and yes, he's beat boxing...cool...)

Have to get this off my chest:

Since I was a Jewish Studies major and am now getting my masters in Hebrew, the first question out of every Christian (a gross generalization, sorry) I meet is, "What do you think about what's going on in Israel?" The frequency of this question has obviously increased over the past month, and there is a direct correlation to my frustration and the frequency of these questions.

Why you ask? Because I think Israel really screwed up on this one. Are the hundreds of civilians that have been killed in the bombings on both sides really worth the lives of the two soldiers taken by Hezbolah? I don't think so. It also doesn't help that I'm a pacifist and find any form of violence appalling. So then I inevitably get into a debate about violence and pacifism and the teachings of Jesus, defending so called "just wars," which I don't think exist.

Then the conversation invariably (unless of course I manage to duck out before it gets that far) goes to an end times/rapture/dispensation argument. I have to point out that prophecy doesn't really foretell the future, as much as warn about likely scenarios. That apocalyptic literature really has nothing to do with our times as much as it has to do with the political maneuvering of the time of the writer. It usually comes out that I don't believe in the rapture, that humanity is supposed to build the kingdom of God and we've done a piss poor job of it because we keep responding to violence with violence. If people would just understand that violence does nothing other than beget more violence, and that turning the other cheek and loving our enemies could have amazing political implications the world would be amazing.

Really, that teaching is one of the main reasons I'm a Christian. Out of all of the monotheistic religions, Christianity is the only one that (at least originally) teaches non-violence at all costs. It doesn't teach retaliation, it doesn't teach justification of war via spiritual means. Instead, Jesus teaches to love your enemies, to bless those who curse you and not drop bombs on them.

Back to Matthew 18

Okay, go here and here to see the previous posts on Matthew 18.15-17 also see the comments left by Lauren especially her post on her on-line journal that I linked to in the second post.

I've been wanting to go back to this passage and creatively reinterpret it, but I had been delaying because I couldn't really find another interpretation other than the mainstream interpretation. If that interpretation is accurate, as I posted before, I really reject that train of thought as not being a valid teaching of Jesus. However, having read Rabbi Greenberg's book on Homosexuality and his description of the Jewish view of the Bible has inspired me to follow Lauren's suggestion and to look for a different interpretation.

Having said all that, I feel like I need to be completely honest here. I still find verse 17 problematic as a teaching from Jesus. The use of the Greek word translated here as "church" (ekklesia) is used in all of the gospels only one other time also in Matthew (16.18) which is best understood as a comment from Jesus that a new community will be built upon Peter's declaration of Jesus as messiah. But if we read ekklesia in Matthew 18 as the specific community built around Peter you're still dealing with the Church, and you have the problem of Jesus giving advice on how to run the Church many years before it began.

Also, I have to admit that the reading of "gentiles and tax collectors" that I propose is unique to the meaning of gentiles and tax collectors as Jesus employs those terms, especially in Matthew. These terms are used in Matthew specifically to represent those who are wicked, evil or highly impure and should be avoided. So that, if Jesus did give this teaching about his coming community, it really could have no other meaning than to make the unrepentant outcasts. This seems to me to go against everything that Jesus represented in his life and other teachings...that is that God is found in the outcasts, forgiveness is unending (for instance the question from Peter in Matt 18) and other teachings of acceptance and love.

However, if we remove only verse 17 which is the only problem verse in this scenario (it mentions church and gentile/tax collector). The rest of the passage makes much more sense. Once the passage of condemnation is removed, the statement of wherever two or three are gathered connects directly to the number of witnesses needed as Jesus quotes Deuteronomy in 16 and the connection to the following question of forgiveness by Peter, flows nicely as well. All of this leads me, if I'm going to be honest, to continue to argue that verse 17 is added in by a later scribe seeking to justify their harsh treatment of dissenters (Christian scribes are notorious, btw, for amending texts to suit their theological needs).

But there is still a part of me that says that this is scripture, and should be treated with respect and, even so called "trouble passages" should be left in for a possible new interpretation. So I offer the following re-reading in an attempt to leave this verse in the text and still understand it within the larger framework of Jesus' teaching.

It must be pointed out that the passages of binding and loosing, and where two are gathered in the name of Jesus are specifically referencing forgiveness (or condemnation) of the offender's sin (see John 20.23). Jesus is telling the apostles that they have the authority to condemn or forgive anyone. As far as Jesus is concerned, their decisions are final. So, when immediately following this passage, Peter asks Jesus how often they should forgive, it seems likely that he is seeking further guidance on this teaching. Jesus' response is then a clarification on his earlier teaching--the clarification being to always forgive.

Therefore, the command to treat those Christians as "gentiles and tax collectors" seems to me not to encourage excommunication, but rather shows a status within the community. They should be regarded as weak in faith or as young Christians (see Romans 14) which their actions reveal them to be. To me it seems counter productive to keep people from the communion table, let alone fellowship with the community. It is, in a sense, declaring someone a non-Christian. It is a stance of unforgiveness, which goes against Jesus' clarification with Peter later on. Therefore to use this passage as a guideline for church discipline with some form of disassociation with the believer is actually, in my opinion, to loose the meaning of the passage.

A New Form of Church

What if we totally changed the way a church looked.

What if church services were agreed upon times to...well...serve. Like instead of meeting in the same building every week singing a variety of the 20 songs that the worship team knows/likes (I can say that because I'm on one of my church's worship teams) the church met at a park where the homeless are known to hang out and they bring free food and actually eat with them and spend time getting to know them.

What if the next week the church service was on Saturday and they went to the home of an elderly widow and helped her clean her house, bring her food and spend time in fellowship with her.

What if instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on building a new super huge, state of the art building, the church spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on helping people pay their mortgage, get out of debt, eat, get medicine, etc. Do you know how many goats the average church could buy for people in third world countries if they just got rid of their building funds? I don't either, but I bet it would be a lot. What if the amount of time and energy various churches spent on building campaigns was instead spent on feeding the poor campaigns?

Do you think you could get people to come to those churches? What if you said to your friend, "Come to my church our service this week is eating with the homeless at Goodale Park, and next week we're going down by the river and doing the same thing, the Saturday after that our church service is at Mrs. So and So's house. Her husband died last year and she needs some help done around the house, and some people are making her food..." I would like to go to that kind of church...

A Jewish Reading of Scripture

I'm reading the book Wrestling with God and Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition by Rabbi Steven Greenberg. Rabbi Greenberg is an Orthodox Rabbi and he's also openly gay (he came out many years after his ordination and the first chapter is his story of dealing with the fact that he's gay). Because he's Orthodox he feels compelled to read the Torah as the word of God; because he's gay he has a problem dealing with those verses that condemn male homosexuality. If you're interested in a way of reading the text that both honors it and moves it beyond it's probable original intent this is a great book. But that's not what I'm writing about.

He describes the Rabbinic view of scripture very succinctly, and the way they handle the Torah has always been something that I have greatly admired. So here is his description of Torah from a Jewish point of view:

"While [Judaism] refused to relegate scriptural passages into a distant and irrelevant past, it also refused to read the Torah as if it meant and has always meant only one thing. The Torah is black fire upon white fire, which bears specific and different meanings depending on the living-reading-observing community. In the first century the schools of Hillel and Shammai differed greatly on many issues and often had competely opposing interpretations. The rabbis claimed that 'both these and those are the words of the living God' (Babylonian Talmud Eruvin 13b). If two opposing understandings of Scripture can both be the word of God, there must be no final reading of any verse. All verses in the Torah are pregnant with multiple meanings, some on the surface, others more deeply hidden, and some yet unborn.

"Traditional reading demands that one approach the verses in Leviticaus as covenantal duty. That we ought to be committed in advance of our reading to uphold the verses in question is not to say that we know in advance what they actually forbid or require us to do. Even though they may have meant something particular in the past, they also speak today. As the psalmist teaches, the Torah is given 'today--if you will hearken to his voice' (Ps 95.7).

"Those unfamiliar with Jewish reading of Scripture may find the barage of questions...unusual. Questions are a hallmark of Jewish spirituality. They are a great cultural paradox in that they both destabilize and secure social norms. Questions tend to spread power around; they are a democratizing force. Comfort with questions conveys a fundamental trust in the good sense of people...

"It is for this reason that God loves it when we ask why. We celebrate challenging the Torah to make sense and above all to be a defensible expression of divine goodness. When we ask good questions, the Torah is given anew on Sinai at that very moment."