Caught Red Handed.

I skipped ahead last night to Borg’s Epilogue in his book Jesus. I was trying to “cheat” a little to understand where he was going with the post-Easter Jesus (see previous post), but came across something else that got my attention.

Borg admits that he has tried to be objective in his writing of this book, but admits that the idea of “pure objectivity” is fantasy, he calls this place sub specie aeternitatis, the vantage point of the eternal, which belongs only to God.

He uses an illustration he contributes to another author, history is like a parade and historians are in a reviewing stand, watching the parade (history) go by, but that is not what is happening. There is no reviewing stand, historians are part of the parade it self, constantly moving with the flow and therefore the understanding of the past, or what is behind, is constantly changing because of the ever-changing vantage point of the “beholder”.  So far, I am in complete agreement with Mr. Borg.

Here is where he gets me. He says that he tried to be objective but avoid being what he called “uncritically subjective“. He said that there are two common and virtually opposite forms. And I’ll quote:

“One is the easy-going tolerance of difference that sees all views as valid because they’re all subjective and that it’s all a matter of ‘where you are coming from.’ The other form of uncritical subjectivity fails to recognize its own subjectivity and thus thinks its view is ‘the way things are.’ One is completely relative, the other is dogmatically certain.”

His answer to the problem of “uncrital subjectivity” is critical thinking about not only the views of others but also about one’s own.

That is the whammy for me. I left one camp (dogmatic certainty) to join the other (easy-going tolerance). It was for me the easiest way to get out of the first camp, complete treason. That has alot to do with my personality. I find it easier to side with an extreme. The lines are more clearly drawn. There is less guess work or work in general. But to be honest, I am finding that in order to make this Wilderness of Spirituality journey more successful, I must be willing to be more critical in my thinking. This will make the journey a little more difficult, but in the end, I now believe more rewarding.

The Wheels Have Been Turning.

I am still making my way through what I have called The Wilderness of Spirituality and I have come across something else that now seems to be a foreign idea.

I have always been taught and understood that Jesus was both 100% man and 100% God, at the same time. Well, I used to argue, sure, no problem there, he was God and therefore could do anything. Not much of an arguement upon further review.

I am reading Marcus Borg’s book Jesus, and he basis alot of the book on the idea that there are two “versions” of Jesus in the bible, the pre-Easter Jesus and the post-Easter Jesus. The pre-Easter Jesus is all human, no deity. He is the son of two earthly parents (Borg argues against the virgin birth. He thinks the idea is dated much later than earlier stories of Jesus and therefore a legendary or mythical idea perpetuated by early Christian communities after the revealing of the post-Easter Jesus), lived as a peasant, was a radical, both politically/socially and spiritually, and died because of this radicalness. Borg calls this Jesus a Jewish mystic.

The post-Easter Jesus has been vindicated by God and therefore no longer human but deity. For me, I am still trying to understand how Borg is going to develop the post-Easter Jesus (I’m still reading the book), but the point of  there being a distinction between pre and post Easter Jesus’ makes more sense to me than 100% man and 100% God. The difference between man and God are so polar opposite that it is impossible to find in the same place much less one “person”. By definition, if he was all human, which I believe Borg is saying about the pre-Easter Jesus, then he could not have been God at all. Just on definition alone this doesn’t wash. If he was all God, start to finish, then he was not human at all, but an all together different species of existence.

I will continue to come back to this idea as I continue my journey, both personally and through Borg’s book.

Peace

 

Went to church this morning. Not sure why. Thought that I would try again to not be cynical and sit in a church service.

Well, I think my blood pressure was up during the “message”.  I was uncomfortably hot, felt like vomiting, and had a headache. I didn’t feel this way going in to the church. I guess maybe it is the virus known as “Fundamentalism” that I contracted. Maybe I should have induced vomiting, but I don’t think that would have helped in the long run.

Anyway, the “message” was about peace, specifically the peace the Jesus came to bring. The peace that was announced at his birth and later recalled by Paul in his letter to the church at Ephesus. OK. So far so good, I can understand that Jesus came to bring peace. Here is where the virus attacked. The reason the world is in the shape that it is in, is because everybody else (the ever popular us vs. them statements abounding) in the world is not bowed the knee to God’s Word, aka the CHRISTIAN bible. WTF?!? Why don’t those that really want peace stop trying to shove THEIR belief system down the throats of everybody that doesn’t believe as they do? I mean if I trully want peace, am I not going to work on making peace with my fellow man, regardless of what he/she believes.

Another statement of craziness, the world is not getting any better till Jesus comes again. News Flash! The world is not getting any better because the foolishness of fundamentalism. Not only is fundamentalism in any religion/belief system foolish, its a dead end. What are you going to do in order to bring YOUR message to those that don’t believe as you do? Aside from bombing the hell out of them. Is there a peaceful way to bring a no tolerance, fundamentalistic message to those of different beliefs? I can’t see how that can ever happen.

I heard a comedian the other day say that he doesn’t like going to movies that have a bad ending. He asked, why go to the movies, pay X amount of dollars to see a depressing movie? He said if he wanted to be depressed when he left from somewhere he could always go to church. I can sympathize.

An Interesting Find

I have stated before, and still attest, I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer. With this being said, I found something out today that I never knew before. The idea of a “rapture” has not been around that long, in terms of ancient and modern histories. John Nelson Darby made his announcement of a “secret rapture” around the year 1832 to a conference in Ireland. He is also the father of dispensationalism, which divides the entirety of history into seven dispensations beginning with the age of innocence, or Adam. We are now in the sixth dispensation, the age of the Church, and are preparing to enter the seventh time period, or the Millennial Age.

Back to the “rapture”. I grew up believing that one day I would hear Gabriel’s horn and the church would disappear from the earth and evil would reign until Jesus came back with the church and began the 1,000 reign of Christ which ends with Jesus sending the devil and all those that never believed into the lake of fire while the rest of the “good God believing” people went to enjoy heaven in a mansion. What a scare tactic! As a young impressionable boy, I watched a movie called “A Thief In The Night” about the rapture that scared the crap out of me. I would have nighmares about waking up and my whole family being gone and I would be left to face all the evil that was left in the world. Gee thanks God. I thought I was “in the book”.

Well, after all those years of night sweats and near hysteria, I find out that some guy in the 19th century introduces this idea of a “secret rapture” to a group of bible scholars and from there becomes one of the foundational elements of the fundamentalist movement. Some guy made it all up!?!

You know come to think of it, I heard a few times growing up, that the term “rapture” is no where in the bible but the idea is. To me, if the “rapture” was a real event, it seems pretty important to me and should be mentioned by name, don’t you think? I mean, come on. If you don’t get your stuff together, you might be “left behind”? Wait a minute. Wait a minute. What a good idea for a book! No a whole series of books! I’m going to start right now, writing. I hope no one else is doing this. I am going to make a killing.

Later, I’ve got to get started. Now where is my bible…there. Revelation…got it. Here we go!

Compassion. Love. Same?

I am reading Marcus Borg’s, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time. I just finished a chapter that talks about one of the main focus’ of Jesus’ message was compassion. Is love the same thing?

In my simple mind, I would think that they are. But are they? Borg goes into the meaning of the word compassion as having to do with, literally, the bowels, more pointedly, the womb. This is what the mind of the day would have understood of  the word compassion. For women, the child carrying and birthing process, led to compassion for the child. For men, more of the origination of compassion, “it the gut”. This would seem then that compassion is very deep seated in us humans. Something then that would drive us to action.

Doesn’t love do the same. If I love someone, isn’t compassion what I extend from myself. So in that vein, love is the emotion while compassion is the action? Would that be correct?

If indeed love and compassion walk hand-in-hand, are they interchangeable? It certainly is easier to say, “I love you” than “I compassion you”. Of course, anyone can say I love you, but until there is some compassion, ie action, on the part of the say-er, the sayee really has no basis of believing the say-er.

So then, am I safe to say, love is the emotion and compassion is the action? I’ve heard through life, love is an action word, but maybe the action side of love is compassion.

I hope that I am not being confusing. I am just trying to understand what love really is at its core. Any thoughts or suggestions on finding out? I know that experience is the best teacher but I would really like to have a good definition of love to go on.

Hold The Friggin’ Cheese, Will Ya?

 

I was reading about a man that is sueing McDonald’s for 10 million dollars for leaving the cheese on his two quarter pounder hamburgers and when he began to eat, he had a “sever” allergic reaction that nearly “caused his death”.
Ok. I am not the brightest star in the sky or the sharpest tool in the shed, but if I am that damn allergic to cheese, I think that I would not leave my life in the hands of typical McDonald’s employees. He says that on five different occasions he asked that cheese not be put on the hamburgers and doesn’t bother to check to see if his instructions are followed, he then proceeds to go into a dark room (to watch a movie) and eat his hambuger. Again, can’t you think to look at this possible death sandwich in the light before turning them down to take in a show. Personally, I think lawsuits of this nature are sick, but when people are rewarded huge settlements for being irresponsible, why not, right? Excuse me, I think I am going to go to McDonald’s and place an order, not check to see if it is what I ordered, go into my closet, without the lights on, and eat it. With any luck, they will have done something wrong and I can…sit on my ass for the rest of my life living off of McDonalds. Give me a break!

Love; A Many Splendored Thing

I was tempted to put a Daniel Webster definition of love in this blog concerning my epiphany, but I decided not to go that route. I wanted to state what I believe love means.

Maybe it would be better to make a short list of what love is not. That too will be lengthy and will not be complete, but that is the way I’ll spin this.

Love is not judgemental. Seems a good place to start. What is judging others have to do with love? How can I with a straight face say that I love you then follow that statement with a “but”? I don’t think you can. I heard once that if anyone says to you, “ABC” then adds a “but XYZ”, what they really mean follows the “but”. I think this is true. If I say to a homosexual, “I love you, but I don’t think the life you are living is good and if you continue down this road, you will die and go to hell”, I don’t think that I am exhibiting love. Do you? I think if you really express love to someone, anyone, there are no exemptions or clauses added in. No matter what your personal opinion is about another person, to love them is to accept them as they are, without trying to get them to join your team. I mean, do you like it when someone tells you that who you are is wrong? I can hear some out there saying, “The truth hurts”. Does it really have to? Who elected you, Giver of YOUR Opinion, whether it is requested or not.

I am not only talking about homosexuals, but anyone that is different from you. People of all walks of life. Those that are not the same color, sex, religion (non-religion), whatever. Judging someone different from myself is just wrong. Why would I believe that I am the archetype of all human kind? Here is a hint to anyone that think they are, uhhh, you’re not!

My advice is as Jesus’ was, “love your neighbor”. He didn’t say, “love your neighbor, but first put them in their place”. Just love them. Sounds simple so why isn’t being done? Too many still believe they are right and everybody else is wrong. It’s a “us vs. them” mentality that is ruining our society.

It’s more than “let bygones be bygones”. Love is not passive, its active. In order to love others, I must be compelled to offer assistance to someone in need without any motive of restitution. The “what do I get out of it” attitude is killing actions of love. Truly loving another human being is not concerned with reward, heavenly or otherwise.

(This is a side bar; What used to motivate me as a Christian to “love” others was the hope of eternal reward, what a sicko I was! OK that is off my chest.)

 Love is not “tough”. Ahh, I’ve thought about this some and I am not convinced there is a such thing as “tough love”. If you want to get technical, what you would consider tough love, I would consider discipline. I don’t believe that is the same thing. I discipline my boys because I love them. They are two seperate actions. Love and discipline are not even on the same page. That would be like saying that Marine drill sergeants are the most loving people in the world. I don’t think that anyone actually believes that. To punish a child because they are not listening is not tough love, it is discipline. I read once, and I’ve never forgotten it, if you spank a child, never do it with your own hand, use something else that will be seen by the child as the impliment of discipline. As a parent, I can see how this has worked. When my oldest son was younger, he was active. Not active like most kids his age. I mean active like The Flash on amphetimines. It was admittedly a pretty stressful time. It was our first child and he was different. I admit to spanking him with my hand on more than one occasion, but that all stopped when one day he was standing next to me not doing anything (for once) and I went to dust something off his pants and he jumped away scared that I was going to spank him. I think I cried myself to sleep that night. I hated myself for doing that to him and never did it again. Anyway, my point is discipline is not love and love is not discipline.

Love is not painless. When I love another human being, I am exposing myself to not have that love returned. Again I think about my boys. They can be loving, but mostly they are just young boys, and being loving to them is “yucky”. As a parent, I am forced to have most of my love towards my boys, not returned. I know that one day, more than likely, that will be different and that will be a sweet time, but for now, it’s mostly one sided. Its painful to love anyone and not have that love returned. It’s more than frustrating, it hurts. Love is sacrificial. Sacrificing my pride isn’t easy, but if I am going to really love someone else, pride has to be burned up at the alter.

I have gone on longer in this post than I wanted to, but I will continue periodically to examine this concept of love.

Epiphany

I had an epiphany. It seems that I am the most still in my mind right before the dawn. It is in these moments that things seem to make the most sense, seem the most real. This morning was one of those mornings.

I have been reading, The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing, in the hopes of one day owning a business (still looking to open a coffee shop Lyndon?), and one concept has stuck with me. The authors of the book say that reducing your business or concept down to one word is essential to success. For example, FedEx’s word is overnight or BMW’s is driving. The one word that defines who you are as a business or concept.

This mornings epiphany sprang from this thought, what is the one word (or truth) that defines what religion/spirituality should be all about. I have been looking for the core TRUTHS that transcend world faiths but what if it were a core TRUTH. What if it was only one word that is at the center of it all? What if it was so obvious, something that has been staring me in the face all my life? Would that make it any less…true? I believe (as of today) that the one word is…drum roll, please…love.

I know what your thinking, all that build up for love? Are you crazy?! Life is much more complicated than that! I don’t believe it should be. Love, I believe, is THE central truth in life. If we can learn how to love, we will have accomplished everything that there is in life.

Since this is a new development for me, I will be posting some more thoughts on this idea, but for now I wanted to get this “on paper”. To go on record and say what I’ve discovered for myself after looking for such a long time is refreshing. You may not agree with my discovery and after much more thorough research, I may not agree with myself, but for now, love is it.

“Where there is love, there is life.” – Mahatma Ghandi

to be continued…

Where you from?

Prompted by a new found friend, I would like to give a bit of a summary from pastor to….whatever I am now. When I left the church I was ministering at in January of 2005, I thought I was just leaving that church to go to another. But what became a quite startling revelation was that I was leaving the ministry period. Not just that church but church as a whole. What really cemented this for me was the fact that I didn’t even feel bad about it. I felt this HUGE weight lifted off of me. I have slept so much better since leaving all of that behind. I have over the last few years been out of church (I have been maybe 12 times in three years) but still in pursuit of finding…something. Leaving the ministry/church at the beginning was not leaving Christianity. To leave something so foundational to my very being seemed impossible. Even now, I don’t know if I have completely abandoned Christianity, but I have definitely re-defined what that means to me. Christianity to me now means to live my life following my understanding of how Jesus lived his. I really don’t know what that means completely but I am trying to. I guess I am headed away from fundamentalism towards a more grace based spirituality. Less “us vs. them” and more “we”.  I don’t believe that Christianity has the monopoly on the how to’s of living in this (and if it turns out to be) the life to come. Leaving religion/church has led me to be more open-minded and free. I used to not give any credence to those not from the same religion and mind set. I just lumped everybody together that didn’t believe what I believed into the lost column. What did they know anyway? They were all going to hell, right? What could a repribate mind have to teach me. Well, how wrong I was. Since leaving, I have literally read 100’s of books from all viewpoints and was really influenced early on by authors like Brennan Manning and Barbara Brown Taylor. I read everything Manning wrote. It was so refreshing to hear words of grace and forgiveness instead of sin and guilt. Lately, I have really been enjoying Karen Armstrong and  Marcus Borg. Borg is an intellectual that I can understand and Armstrong has been on a eerily similiar journey to my own.

I will end this summary with a quick insight. I came to the realization early on this journey that my point of view had changed. Borg calls it a “lens” that has changed. Either is correct. The blinders of my youth and early adulthood came off and a whole new world opened up that I have been enjoying great freedom. If you are deep in Alice’s rabbit hole and are not sure when the floor will come up, don’t worry about that. Instead relax in the unknown. It is not as scary as it sounds.

Damages

Got hooked on another show. F/X’s new drama, Damages starring Glenn Close. This is a dark legal drama that has a great edge. The main character played by Glenn Close is very devious. She can lie oh so well with a straight face. I have dvr’d the episode from last night and will watch it later tonight. If you haven’t, you should check it out.

Update:

Watched the second episode of Damages last night and I am really hooked. The show starts with “the end” and is seen in flashbacks to the past leading up to the opening. Really well acted and very believable. Can’t wait till next week.