You may recall that I started off this year reading Timothy Ware's The Orthodox Church which had been recommended by two friends. It was a great overview of this faith so when Amazon recommended The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy by Alexander Schmemann, I put it on my Wishlist. And a dear friend sent it to me for my birthday! *feels the love* So I just finished reading it and must admit the first book was better, more complete in explaining (so, Amber, your recommendation was better than Amazon's), but this one had many interesting aspects not covered in the first. So I feel a bit more well-rounded after having read both!
Here are a few things that took my attention enough to jot down the page numbers with intent to share. There was other stuff that I just decided not to post although I found it educational as well.
This bit about Constantine was good. I'll let you guess which side I fall under in the East/West divide. I was especially surprised when I read that the Eastern Church puts Constantine up there with the disciples of Jesus!
"For Eastern Christianity, Constantine still remains the holy initiator of the Christian world, the instrument for the victory of light over darkness that crowned the heroic feats of the martyrs. The West, on the other hand, often regards the era of Constantine as the beginning of an enslavement of the Church by the state, or even as the first falling away on the part of the Church from the height of primitive Christian freedom." (pg. 62)
For some reason I found this incredibly interesting although I'm not exactly sure why. Is "becoming a Christian" being baptized, saying a 'sinner's prayer,' following Jesus or what? Reminds me of becoming Muslim being as simple as saying the shahada. For the record, Constantine really wanted to be baptized in the Jordan River so that may be why he waited so long to be baptized.
Constantine did not receive baptism "the only symbol the Church accepts of becoming a Christian" until his deathbed. Thus the "primary, initial paradox" is "that the first Christian emperor was a Christian outside of the Church, and the Church silently but with full sincerity and faith accepted and recognized him." In Constantine's mind his faith in Christ "had been bestowed personally and directly for his victory over the enemy - in other words, as he was fulfilling his imperial duty. Consequently the victory he had won with the help of the Christian God had placed the emperor - and thereby the empire as well - under the protection of the Cross and in direct dependence upon Christ." (pg. 66)
Ever heard how Christianity has a lot of pagan aspects to it? Like Christmas, for instance, isn't talked about in the Bible as being December 25. Easter eggs? Not there. Christmas trees? Nope. Animal sacrifice and circumcision starting with the Jews as something new God gave only to them? No again.
The author talked a bit about paganism and how people back then felt about their religions and in a section speaking of reverence for saints and their relics and the "increasing complexity of worship" and interest in holy places and such, the author notes that many have directly attributed this to "pagan influence in the Church and regarded [it] as a compromise with the world for the sake of a mass victory." Yet the author states that the Christian does not need to apologize for this or try to explain it. "On the contrary, he may boldly accept the charge....Christianity adopted and assimilated many forms of pagan religion, not only because they were the eternal forms of religion in general, but also because the intention of Christianity itself was not to replace all forms in this world by new ones, but to fill them with new and true meaning." Instead of thinking of Christianity borrowing from and being influenced by pagan things, think in reverse. All things were initially good, but due to the fall, it has been distorted. "The Church in its own mind has returned to God what rightly belongs to Him, always and in every way restoring the fallen image." (pg. 98) So in a sense, the pagan rites have been redeemed by Christ!
Even if you come to church for the wrong reasons, it's OK! You can hear about Christ and - who knows? - your life may be changed because of it!
Speaking of the "cult of saints" even when their deeds were distorted greatly, the author says when people came to the Church and learned of the saints, they could see how lives were transformed by Christ. "However much men may have brought into the Church what they had seen and sought in pagan temples, when they entered it they now heard those eternal and immutable words about the Savior crucified for our sins - about the perfect love that God has shown us - and about His kingdom as the final goal of all living beings." (pg. 101)
Notice that last phrase and tell me if that won't make a HUGE difference in your "Christianity." Christian-in-name-only, anyone?
About a "Christian theocracy" -- "State sanctions gave the Church unprecedented strength, and perhaps brought many to faith and new life, but after Theodosius the Great it was no longer a community of believers; it was also a community of those obliged to believe." (pg. 111, emphasis mine)
Well, hey, if many in your community were "obliged to believe," why would you not have this problem? What is our excuse today? This is how John Chrysostom saw the Church
"His central concern was the Christian life of his flock and its variety and everyday reality. Before him was a world that had accepted Christianity but was still so close to paganism, so deeply poisoned by sin and ignorance, that it did not take the faith itself too seriously. People crowded into the churches, but outside church walls - and indeed, sometimes within them - were moral irresponsibility, hatred, and injustice." (pg. 112)
This was the last bit of the whole book, the last sentence is included below. I love the last three words.
"In the record of Orthodoxy, as in the story of Christianity in general, there is no lack of defects and human sins. ... The true Orthodox way of thought has always been historical, has always included the past, but has never been enslaved by it. Christ is 'yesterday and today and forever the same,' and the strength of the Church is not in the past, present, or future, but in Christ." (pg. 341)
Thoughts?
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query christianity today. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query christianity today. Sort by date Show all posts
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Friday, May 1, 2009
May!
Wow, it's the first of May already!
I started two new books this morning: Deuteronomy and A People's History of Christianity: The Other Side of the Story. The first book is from the Old Testament and the second from the local public library. Here is what I got just from the introduction.
After talking with a friend who asked why she could still be a Christian, author Diana Butler Bass replied, "I just can't get away from Jesus. I actually love Jesus and his teachings." Her friend agreed that she had no problems with Jesus, but "'[i]t's all the stuff that happened after Jesus that makes me mad." (pg. 1)
"She had concluded, as many people do, that if God is in the Christian story, then God must be indifferent or evil. If God is not in the story, then why bother?" (pg. 2)
The author mentions "militant Christianity," which is the "usual story ... of 'Big-C' Christianity -- Christ, Constantine, Christendom, Calvin, and Christian America" and then contrasts her goal of sharing "Great Command Christianity." She claims this exists in Christian history: "a different story - one that people want to hear - of folks like themselves who struggled to live as Jesus told them to, loving God and doing right. It is not a militant story. Rather, it is a story of generative Christianity, a kind of faith that births new possibilities of God's love into the world. Whereas militant Christianity triumphs over all, generative Christianity transforms the world through humble service to all. It is not about victory; it is about following Christ in order to seed human community with grace." (pg. 11)
Sounds like a book that will challenge me a lot!
Andrew passed the written test for his scuba class last night. Earlier this week he was bummed because he burst blood vessels behind his ears and thought he'd have to quit the class. Well, he cannot do the water part presently, but his teacher said he could make that up at another time. In fact she said she had done the same thing when she was first learning to dive. And Andrew met someone qualifying as a master diver last night and he told Andrew he'd done the same thing. So Andrew was cheered some.
I went out with three high school friends last night for our Girls' Night Out. It was great seeing them again. I'm glad we still get together periodically.
Had a nice lunch out with my dad, Michael and Stephanie. Then we visited my brother at his work place briefly. I came home and had a small package from Damascus waiting. Samer sent a "God bless our home" wall hanging along with notes from himself, Amer, Jake, Basheer and his sister, Dania. That certainly was a sweet surprise.
Got lots of birthday wishes on Facebook ... ha. It's nice that they remind you of your friends' birthdays. :-)
Andrew gave me a UNC 2009 Championship t-shirt as part of my birthday present. I thanked him and put it aside. About a half hour later, he said, "Ya know, Carolina won that basketball championship THIS year. You can't stash your shirt away for a long time and then wear it in a few years or it will be out of date."
:-P***** He knows me well.
Interesting discussions this week about "swine" flu and Senator Arlen Specter switching parties. I heard Egypt ordered the slaughter of all the pigs in its country. It's a Muslim country so I doubt there were lots and lots of them, but still. I heard the pork industry doesn't want the media to call it "swine" flu because it has hurt their industry. Also VP Biden said something about not traveling in airplanes ... well, enclosed spaces ... and the airlines were upset about that. He later amended it saying he meant traveling to Mexico. I see today that Supreme Court Justice David Souter is wanting to retire. I wonder who Obama will nominate to take his position. As for Specter, I just saw the story breaking on CNN while I was at McDonald's. One thing they kept running along the bottom of the screen was that he faced a tough primary because he angered PA conservatives by siding with the Democrats in passing the stimulus package. So maybe he decided to become a Democrat to avoid a tough fight among the GOP. Who knows? It's amazing what these professional politicians will do in order to keep their positions of power. Definitely most of them are not up there to serve their constituents.
In a bit of good news, I am glad the 8-year-old Saudi girl was allowed to divorce the 50-year-old "man" she was forced to marry when her father accepted $13,000 in exchange for her marrying this creep. I do not understand the mentality of people who do such things. Maybe they justify it because the Muslims' revered prophet did such a thing. Well, he married a young child. I don't know that he paid her father $13,000 for her. Sick people.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Separation of Church/Mosque & State
A good while back Samer and I were talking. He was sharing about the Islamic point of view and how Islam was a complete way of life. How you could not separate the church (errr, mosque) and state in Islam. Islam doesn't just regulate people spiritually, but it governs politically as well. There are rules for engaging in war - some very good rules, I might add. I truly find the Islamic rules of engagement and treatment of prisoners quite good.
So anyway, we were talking and I was in one of my states of disbelief at how all-inclusive Islam was in taking over people's lives when he asked:
"Wouldn't you want to live in a country where your Christian beliefs are what ruled the nation?"
Sounds delightful actually! Can you imagine a country where serving and honoring others was the norm? Where needy people were helped without complaint? Need the oil changed in your car? No problem, let me get my tools. Need your yard cleaned? Let me get my rake. And people loving each other and returning good for evil....utopia!
Sounds, well, divine.
The problem is that this church/state thing was tried before and, sadly, the Church just doesn't do well with a lot of power. It seems power has some magical ability to corrupt. So you start mixing the Church and the State and it becomes more of a control, power issue than spiritual one.
Plus there are various forms of Christians. There are some who just have attended church once in their lives or their families consider themselves Christian so they are as well. Then there are those of differing religious varieties - liberals, literalists, moderates. So whose Christianity will rule in the nation? It's rather subjective.
Just like sharia law is subjective to many Muslims. Whose interpretation will you follow?
Thus, I believe you can influence the State by the way you live and vote, however, you shouldn't use the State to force people to change. Quite frankly, the State is a poor substitute for God in changing people's lives. What we try to legislate (force people to do by law), God can simply do. And His way is more lasting and good because He gets to the heart of the matter by...changing hearts. Not merely outward compliance under threat of punishment.
All that just to say, I want to copy some quotes from God & Government...some of which relate to what I wrote above. I thought the author made some very good points in what he shared.
"The church, while not the Kingdom of God, is to live out the values of the Kingdom of God in this world, resisting the ever-present temptation to usher in the Kingdom of God by political means. Yet this is the temptation to which the church has most commonly succumbed, and certainly this is its greatest temptation today." (pg. 104)
"While human politics is based on the premise that society must be changed in order to change people, in the politics of the Kingdom it is people who must be changed in order to change society." (p. 105)
"If Christianity was true and meaningful, it must go deeper than that [life in Parliament]. It must not only save but serve. It must bring God's compassion to the oppressed as well as oppose the oppressors." (pg. 111)
"The kind of conflict that Wilberforce and other activist Christians experience -- between their Christian conscience and their politician mandates -- is unavoidable. Both church and state assert standards and values in society; both seek authority; both compete for allegiance. As members of both the religious and the political spheres, the Christian is bound to face conflict." (pg. 122)
Prior to Constantine's conversion to Christianity, believers in Jesus were routinely persecuted and martyred. "In A.D. 381 Christianity became the official religion of Rome, and in an ironic turnabout, church leaders began exploiting their new-found power. As historian F.F. Bruce has written: 'Christian leaders ... exploit[ed] the influential favor they enjoyed even when it meant subordinating the cause of justice to the apparent interest of their religion...they were inclined to allow the secular power too much control in church affairs ... Where church leaders were able to exercise political as well as spiritual authority, they did not enjoy any marked immunity from the universally corrupting tendency of power.'" (pg.124)
Heretics were suppressed at the order of this new church-state. In fact "the church turned to military conquest through a series of 'holy wars' that became more racial than religious. Jews, Muslims, and dark-skinned Christians were massacred alike. The goal was not to convert the populace, but to conquer it." (pg.125)
Religions had often been "assaulted but always in the name of other religions." Then came the French Revolution where "'irreligion became an all-prevailing passion, fierce, intolerant and predatory.'" As de Tocqueville put it, "'The total rejection of any religious belief, so contrary to man's natural instincts and so destructive of his peace of mind, came to be regarded by the masses as desirable.' The French Revolution was a conscious effort to replace the Kingdom of God with the kingdoms of man. But the state must have some moral justification for its authority. Thus France's irreligion was soon replaced by a new faith -- man's worship of man." (pg. 125-26)
Social-gospel movement -- "[dissolved] Christian orthodoxy into a campaign to eliminate every social injustice, often through governmental means. Objectives became political and economic to the detriment of the spiritual. The reformers' well-intentioned efforts were shattered as social programs failed to produce the promised utopia, leaving observers to conclude, 'Things are no better. Where is your God now?'"
Today this happens on both the right and left, however, this "preoccupation with the political diverts the church from its primary mission."
"The political right is also subject to this temptation; many want to impose religious and cultural values by force of law, irrespective of the wishes of the electorate. This is as wrong and dangerous, as the secular left attempting to impose its values on society by force --usually via the courts." (pg. 132)
Re: New Jerusalems -- "If we believe that the Kingdom of Heaven can be established by political or economic measures, then we can hardly object to the claims of such a state to embrace the whole of life and to demand the total submission of the individual will and conscience." (pg.132 footnote)
Separation of church and state did not mean "religion and politics could be separated or religious values removed from the public arena. For one's political life is an expression of values, and religion, by definition, most profoundly influences values." (pg. 136)
Therefore "when laws were passed reflecting the consensus of Christian values in the land, no one panicked supposing that the Christian religion was being 'established' or that a sectarian morality was being imposed on an unwilling people. The point of the First Amendment was that such convictions could only become the law of the land if a majority of citizens could be persuaded (without coercion) of the merits of a particular proposition, whether they shared its religious foundation or not. Today's widespread attempt to relegate religion to the privacy of homes or churches would have been unimaginable to the founders of the republic -- even those who personally repudiated orthodox Christian faith. Though America has drifted far from the vision of its founders, this system continues to offer one of the world's most hopeful models in an otherwise contentious history of conflict." (pg. 137)
"Outwardly, we are a religious people, but inwardly our religious beliefs make no difference in how we live. We are obsessed with self; we live, raise families, govern, and die as though God does not exist." (pg. 245)
Thoughts? What do you think about separation of church/mosque and State? Do you agree that it is God who changes hearts and thus society or do you believe politics also plays an important role?
So anyway, we were talking and I was in one of my states of disbelief at how all-inclusive Islam was in taking over people's lives when he asked:
"Wouldn't you want to live in a country where your Christian beliefs are what ruled the nation?"
Sounds delightful actually! Can you imagine a country where serving and honoring others was the norm? Where needy people were helped without complaint? Need the oil changed in your car? No problem, let me get my tools. Need your yard cleaned? Let me get my rake. And people loving each other and returning good for evil....utopia!
Sounds, well, divine.
The problem is that this church/state thing was tried before and, sadly, the Church just doesn't do well with a lot of power. It seems power has some magical ability to corrupt. So you start mixing the Church and the State and it becomes more of a control, power issue than spiritual one.
Plus there are various forms of Christians. There are some who just have attended church once in their lives or their families consider themselves Christian so they are as well. Then there are those of differing religious varieties - liberals, literalists, moderates. So whose Christianity will rule in the nation? It's rather subjective.
Just like sharia law is subjective to many Muslims. Whose interpretation will you follow?
Thus, I believe you can influence the State by the way you live and vote, however, you shouldn't use the State to force people to change. Quite frankly, the State is a poor substitute for God in changing people's lives. What we try to legislate (force people to do by law), God can simply do. And His way is more lasting and good because He gets to the heart of the matter by...changing hearts. Not merely outward compliance under threat of punishment.
All that just to say, I want to copy some quotes from God & Government...some of which relate to what I wrote above. I thought the author made some very good points in what he shared.
"The church, while not the Kingdom of God, is to live out the values of the Kingdom of God in this world, resisting the ever-present temptation to usher in the Kingdom of God by political means. Yet this is the temptation to which the church has most commonly succumbed, and certainly this is its greatest temptation today." (pg. 104)
"While human politics is based on the premise that society must be changed in order to change people, in the politics of the Kingdom it is people who must be changed in order to change society." (p. 105)
"If Christianity was true and meaningful, it must go deeper than that [life in Parliament]. It must not only save but serve. It must bring God's compassion to the oppressed as well as oppose the oppressors." (pg. 111)
"The kind of conflict that Wilberforce and other activist Christians experience -- between their Christian conscience and their politician mandates -- is unavoidable. Both church and state assert standards and values in society; both seek authority; both compete for allegiance. As members of both the religious and the political spheres, the Christian is bound to face conflict." (pg. 122)
Prior to Constantine's conversion to Christianity, believers in Jesus were routinely persecuted and martyred. "In A.D. 381 Christianity became the official religion of Rome, and in an ironic turnabout, church leaders began exploiting their new-found power. As historian F.F. Bruce has written: 'Christian leaders ... exploit[ed] the influential favor they enjoyed even when it meant subordinating the cause of justice to the apparent interest of their religion...they were inclined to allow the secular power too much control in church affairs ... Where church leaders were able to exercise political as well as spiritual authority, they did not enjoy any marked immunity from the universally corrupting tendency of power.'" (pg.124)
Heretics were suppressed at the order of this new church-state. In fact "the church turned to military conquest through a series of 'holy wars' that became more racial than religious. Jews, Muslims, and dark-skinned Christians were massacred alike. The goal was not to convert the populace, but to conquer it." (pg.125)
Religions had often been "assaulted but always in the name of other religions." Then came the French Revolution where "'irreligion became an all-prevailing passion, fierce, intolerant and predatory.'" As de Tocqueville put it, "'The total rejection of any religious belief, so contrary to man's natural instincts and so destructive of his peace of mind, came to be regarded by the masses as desirable.' The French Revolution was a conscious effort to replace the Kingdom of God with the kingdoms of man. But the state must have some moral justification for its authority. Thus France's irreligion was soon replaced by a new faith -- man's worship of man." (pg. 125-26)
Social-gospel movement -- "[dissolved] Christian orthodoxy into a campaign to eliminate every social injustice, often through governmental means. Objectives became political and economic to the detriment of the spiritual. The reformers' well-intentioned efforts were shattered as social programs failed to produce the promised utopia, leaving observers to conclude, 'Things are no better. Where is your God now?'"
Today this happens on both the right and left, however, this "preoccupation with the political diverts the church from its primary mission."
"The political right is also subject to this temptation; many want to impose religious and cultural values by force of law, irrespective of the wishes of the electorate. This is as wrong and dangerous, as the secular left attempting to impose its values on society by force --usually via the courts." (pg. 132)
Re: New Jerusalems -- "If we believe that the Kingdom of Heaven can be established by political or economic measures, then we can hardly object to the claims of such a state to embrace the whole of life and to demand the total submission of the individual will and conscience." (pg.132 footnote)
Separation of church and state did not mean "religion and politics could be separated or religious values removed from the public arena. For one's political life is an expression of values, and religion, by definition, most profoundly influences values." (pg. 136)
Therefore "when laws were passed reflecting the consensus of Christian values in the land, no one panicked supposing that the Christian religion was being 'established' or that a sectarian morality was being imposed on an unwilling people. The point of the First Amendment was that such convictions could only become the law of the land if a majority of citizens could be persuaded (without coercion) of the merits of a particular proposition, whether they shared its religious foundation or not. Today's widespread attempt to relegate religion to the privacy of homes or churches would have been unimaginable to the founders of the republic -- even those who personally repudiated orthodox Christian faith. Though America has drifted far from the vision of its founders, this system continues to offer one of the world's most hopeful models in an otherwise contentious history of conflict." (pg. 137)
"Outwardly, we are a religious people, but inwardly our religious beliefs make no difference in how we live. We are obsessed with self; we live, raise families, govern, and die as though God does not exist." (pg. 245)
Thoughts? What do you think about separation of church/mosque and State? Do you agree that it is God who changes hearts and thus society or do you believe politics also plays an important role?
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
The Faith, Attentive Life, Called to Die (book reviews)
The Faith by Charles Colson and Harold Fickett is a book seeking to answer the questions about "what Christians believe, why they believe it and why it matters. The authors note
"Christians must see that the faith is more than a religion or even a relationship with Jesus; the faith is a complete view of the world and humankind's place in it. Christianity is a worldview that speaks to every area of life, and its foundational doctrines define its content. If we don't know what we believe -- even what Christianity is -- how can we live it and defend it? Our ignorance is crippling us."
Charles Colson argues that the truth "is the faith given once (Jude 3) and shared by all true Christians from the apostolic era to today."
This books covers topics such as God Is, He Has Spoken, Truth, The Invasion (God became flesh and invaded our world), God Above, God Beside, God Within, Exchanging Identities, Reconciliation, Be Holy - Transform the World, The Sanctity of Life, The Joy of Orthodoxy and more. I enjoyed the examples and stories shared including the Amish community in Nickel Mines, PA, Speratus from North Africa in AD 180, the Chinese house church movement, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Jesus Amado Sarria, Theo van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Mohammed Bouyeri.
A few things that I made note of include the following:
The Trinity "answers the deepest needs of the human heart, offering a depth of spirituality unknown in any other religion." The authors state, "The Creator God of Christianity is not a distant, unapproachable, judging God as in Islam. Neither is God so diffuse within creation as in Eastern religion that God cannot be found. The Father is close beside us in the Son, as we encounter this God in the person of Jesus: 'God with a human face,' as Pope Benedict likes to say. Further, through the power of the Holy Spirit this God comes to dwell within us -- God gives us His life. The Holy Spirit enables us to live out God's will with its heroic demands." (pg. 104)
Concerning time -- "As Christians we do not need to live oppressed by the ticking clock -- the tyranny of the urgent. Life's value doesn't depend upon where we are in time; whether we are young,middle aged or old. We see life, all of life and all of the time that God created for us, as a gift. The greatest time of our life, then, may occur at any point in our lives. Maybe the most important insight we'll ever have or the greatest contribution we'll ever make is in our dying words or in a youthful experience of learning. Maybe it will come during our most productive years. But the point is we are not restricted. Each moment of life is a gift open to the possibility of eternity, and so what we do now matters for eternity. The gift of time enables us to prepare ourselves for an everlasting relationship with God. This is what gives significance to every one of our actions." (pg. 109)
"In Beijing, an American journalist recently encountered one of China's foremost scholars, a man who had spent long years studying the West. His colleagues and he had investigated the reasons for the West's success and preeminence, examining our history, politics, economics and culture. Their first conclusion was the West's success was due to its more advanced military; later they believed it might have been the political system; or perhaps the economic system. But 'in the past twenty years,' one investigator said, 'we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don't have any doubt about this.'" (pg. 215)
"The orthodox Christian faith is the one source that can renew culture because it relies on a wisdom far beyond humankind's own that can yet be known by reason. It constantly calls people to the practice of virtue and charity guided by this greater wisdom." (pg. 224)
"Chesterton explains why Christians are change agents. There are, he says, optimists and pessimists in the world. The optimists are always trying to do good things, and the pessimists are always wringing their hands in despair. But the Christian, he argues, is the only one with a balanced view -- a pessimist because he knows that this is a fallen world and things do need fixing, but an optimist because he knows that God is all powerful and in charge and that all things therefore can be fixed." (pg. 225)
"Christianity does not seek to impose, it proposes. The Gospel is the great proposal: Come to the wedding feast, one and all -- black, white, rich, poor, East, West, Muslim, Jew, Christian -- all are welcome, and it's never too late. God turns no man or woman away, not one. Through His Son, Jesus Christ, the Father brings us into His Kingdom. This is the promise He holds out to individuals and nations alike, a Kingdom not of eating and drinking or of marching armies and clashing swords, but a Kingdom of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." (pg. 225)
In closing, I want to make note of a verse that the Mr. Colson uses in his prison ministry. It was taken from Jesus' message in the Nazareth synagogue as he read from Isaiah's scroll: "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor (Luke 4:18,19 & Isaiah 61:1,2).
The Attentive Life by Leighton Ford caused me to ponder many things. In defining attentiveness, he said it "may be just the opposite of ' fixing our attention.' Instead it involves a letting go of our usual need to control, an opening of ourselves to what we are being told or shown. Our instinct is to hold on." This book was one you had to read slowly and with care. Things that stood out to me include the following:
* This quote from French philosopher Emile Caillet's account of his own discovery of the Bible as "the book that understood me." (pg. 73)
* A prayer from the Bible,
To you, O LORD, I lift up my soul;
in you I trust, O my God ...
Show me your ways, O LORD,
teach me your paths;
guide me in your truth and teach me,
for you are God my Savior,
and my hope is in you all day long. (Psalm 25:1-2,4-5 NIV)
* This quote from Henri Nouwen about prayer
* Robert Llewelyn wrote about the "'constancy of God's love. No power in heaven or on earth - and that includes sin -- can stop God loving us.' When we fall into sin, said Julian, it may seem that God is angry with us, but actually we are often projecting our own disappointment onto God. The truth is that God is present with his forgiveness whether we choose to take it or not." (pg. 128)
* Something about Mother Teresa: '"We do our work for Jesus and with Jesus and to Jesus,' ... ' and that's what keeps it simple. It's not a matter of praying some times and working others. We pray the work.' She also told us how she and the other sisters sought to see Christ in the face of each one they served." (pg. 132)
* From Hwee Hwee Tan -- "That's the profound truth: you are what your mind looks at. You are what you contemplate." (pg. 199)
* "The destination is Christlikeness. The wonder is not only that we will be like him, but that when we are like him we will most truly be ourselves." (pg. 203)
* "Love is seeking us, the only Love that redeems time, that takes the fragments of what is past and the hope of what is coming and binds them together in the 'love of God which is in Jesus Christ our Lord.' That love is reaching out even now, calling us to our heart's true home." (pg. 204)
* Paying attention to our tears
Called to Die by Steve Estes is a book I received from The Voice of the Martyrs and is the story of American linguist Chet Bitterman who died at the hands of a terrorist group in Colombia after being held hostage for many days. The terrorists wanted the linguistics missionaries to leave Colombia because they said the Westerners were trying to destroy the native cultures. When the linguistics institute refused to meet their demands, they killed Chet. I especially enjoyed the talk of called to missions (pg. 83-85-- instead of asking "why go?" it changed to "why not go?"), and the story of how Wycliffe Translators was born (p.89 "if your God is so great, why doesn't He speak our language?" -- from a bilingual Cakchiquel), and also the responses to Chet's murder (pg. 251 -- "The guerrillas had intended to oust the translators; instead, they entrenched them. Almost a decade of negative press gave way to supportive editorials. ... Strangers embraced Al in the streets, tearful and smiling. 'I saw you on television,' they would say. 'We're glad you stayed.'" In the US people stepped up to fill the ranks and applications for overseas service with Wycliffe Bible Translators doubled and this trend has continued.) What M-19 guerrillas meant for evil, God meant for good.
Romans 8:28, And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.
"Christians must see that the faith is more than a religion or even a relationship with Jesus; the faith is a complete view of the world and humankind's place in it. Christianity is a worldview that speaks to every area of life, and its foundational doctrines define its content. If we don't know what we believe -- even what Christianity is -- how can we live it and defend it? Our ignorance is crippling us."
Charles Colson argues that the truth "is the faith given once (Jude 3) and shared by all true Christians from the apostolic era to today."
This books covers topics such as God Is, He Has Spoken, Truth, The Invasion (God became flesh and invaded our world), God Above, God Beside, God Within, Exchanging Identities, Reconciliation, Be Holy - Transform the World, The Sanctity of Life, The Joy of Orthodoxy and more. I enjoyed the examples and stories shared including the Amish community in Nickel Mines, PA, Speratus from North Africa in AD 180, the Chinese house church movement, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Jesus Amado Sarria, Theo van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Mohammed Bouyeri.
A few things that I made note of include the following:
The Trinity "answers the deepest needs of the human heart, offering a depth of spirituality unknown in any other religion." The authors state, "The Creator God of Christianity is not a distant, unapproachable, judging God as in Islam. Neither is God so diffuse within creation as in Eastern religion that God cannot be found. The Father is close beside us in the Son, as we encounter this God in the person of Jesus: 'God with a human face,' as Pope Benedict likes to say. Further, through the power of the Holy Spirit this God comes to dwell within us -- God gives us His life. The Holy Spirit enables us to live out God's will with its heroic demands." (pg. 104)
Concerning time -- "As Christians we do not need to live oppressed by the ticking clock -- the tyranny of the urgent. Life's value doesn't depend upon where we are in time; whether we are young,middle aged or old. We see life, all of life and all of the time that God created for us, as a gift. The greatest time of our life, then, may occur at any point in our lives. Maybe the most important insight we'll ever have or the greatest contribution we'll ever make is in our dying words or in a youthful experience of learning. Maybe it will come during our most productive years. But the point is we are not restricted. Each moment of life is a gift open to the possibility of eternity, and so what we do now matters for eternity. The gift of time enables us to prepare ourselves for an everlasting relationship with God. This is what gives significance to every one of our actions." (pg. 109)
"In Beijing, an American journalist recently encountered one of China's foremost scholars, a man who had spent long years studying the West. His colleagues and he had investigated the reasons for the West's success and preeminence, examining our history, politics, economics and culture. Their first conclusion was the West's success was due to its more advanced military; later they believed it might have been the political system; or perhaps the economic system. But 'in the past twenty years,' one investigator said, 'we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don't have any doubt about this.'" (pg. 215)
"The orthodox Christian faith is the one source that can renew culture because it relies on a wisdom far beyond humankind's own that can yet be known by reason. It constantly calls people to the practice of virtue and charity guided by this greater wisdom." (pg. 224)
"Chesterton explains why Christians are change agents. There are, he says, optimists and pessimists in the world. The optimists are always trying to do good things, and the pessimists are always wringing their hands in despair. But the Christian, he argues, is the only one with a balanced view -- a pessimist because he knows that this is a fallen world and things do need fixing, but an optimist because he knows that God is all powerful and in charge and that all things therefore can be fixed." (pg. 225)
"Christianity does not seek to impose, it proposes. The Gospel is the great proposal: Come to the wedding feast, one and all -- black, white, rich, poor, East, West, Muslim, Jew, Christian -- all are welcome, and it's never too late. God turns no man or woman away, not one. Through His Son, Jesus Christ, the Father brings us into His Kingdom. This is the promise He holds out to individuals and nations alike, a Kingdom not of eating and drinking or of marching armies and clashing swords, but a Kingdom of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." (pg. 225)
In closing, I want to make note of a verse that the Mr. Colson uses in his prison ministry. It was taken from Jesus' message in the Nazareth synagogue as he read from Isaiah's scroll: "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor (Luke 4:18,19 & Isaiah 61:1,2).
The Attentive Life by Leighton Ford caused me to ponder many things. In defining attentiveness, he said it "may be just the opposite of ' fixing our attention.' Instead it involves a letting go of our usual need to control, an opening of ourselves to what we are being told or shown. Our instinct is to hold on." This book was one you had to read slowly and with care. Things that stood out to me include the following:
* This quote from French philosopher Emile Caillet's account of his own discovery of the Bible as "the book that understood me." (pg. 73)
* A prayer from the Bible,
To you, O LORD, I lift up my soul;
in you I trust, O my God ...
Show me your ways, O LORD,
teach me your paths;
guide me in your truth and teach me,
for you are God my Savior,
and my hope is in you all day long. (Psalm 25:1-2,4-5 NIV)
* This quote from Henri Nouwen about prayer
Prayer can only become unceasing prayer when all our thoughts -- beautiful or ugly, high or low, proud or shameful, sorrowful or joyful -- can be thought and expressed in the presence of God ... This requires that we turn all our thoughts into conversation. The main question, therefore, is not so much what we think, but to whom we present our thoughts ... Prayer is an outward, careful attentiveness to the One who invites us to unceasing conversation. (pg. 93)
* Robert Llewelyn wrote about the "'constancy of God's love. No power in heaven or on earth - and that includes sin -- can stop God loving us.' When we fall into sin, said Julian, it may seem that God is angry with us, but actually we are often projecting our own disappointment onto God. The truth is that God is present with his forgiveness whether we choose to take it or not." (pg. 128)
* Something about Mother Teresa: '"We do our work for Jesus and with Jesus and to Jesus,' ... ' and that's what keeps it simple. It's not a matter of praying some times and working others. We pray the work.' She also told us how she and the other sisters sought to see Christ in the face of each one they served." (pg. 132)
* From Hwee Hwee Tan -- "That's the profound truth: you are what your mind looks at. You are what you contemplate." (pg. 199)
* "The destination is Christlikeness. The wonder is not only that we will be like him, but that when we are like him we will most truly be ourselves." (pg. 203)
* "Love is seeking us, the only Love that redeems time, that takes the fragments of what is past and the hope of what is coming and binds them together in the 'love of God which is in Jesus Christ our Lord.' That love is reaching out even now, calling us to our heart's true home." (pg. 204)
* Paying attention to our tears
The old spiritual teachers used to say that it is very important to pay attention to our tears. Athanasius prized ' the gift of tears" as the outward sign of God's puncturing of our heart. Deborah Smith Douglas recalls hearing a wise priest say that we should be grateful for whatever breaks our heart: "Reflecting on God's promise to write 'upon' our hearts, rather than 'within' them, he suggested that our own hearts are so hard that all God can do is write upon the surface (Jeremiah 31:33). It is only when our hearts break, that they break open: then the word of God can enter deeply, like a seed in a harrowed field."
We should prize the gift of tears? What a hard saying that is. Yet I concur with Leon Blum: "Man has places in his heart which do not yet exist, and into them enters suffering in order that they may have existence." Looking back, I know there are in me "places of the heart" that have opened to God's presence, or to welcome the hurt of others, places that I might never have explored had it not been for the dark passages I have come through. In a very strange and mysterious way the light shone in and opened up the darkness. So when tears come, instead of avoiding them I am trying to learn to pay attention, to pause and ask: What makes these tears come? (pg. 145)
Called to Die by Steve Estes is a book I received from The Voice of the Martyrs and is the story of American linguist Chet Bitterman who died at the hands of a terrorist group in Colombia after being held hostage for many days. The terrorists wanted the linguistics missionaries to leave Colombia because they said the Westerners were trying to destroy the native cultures. When the linguistics institute refused to meet their demands, they killed Chet. I especially enjoyed the talk of called to missions (pg. 83-85-- instead of asking "why go?" it changed to "why not go?"), and the story of how Wycliffe Translators was born (p.89 "if your God is so great, why doesn't He speak our language?" -- from a bilingual Cakchiquel), and also the responses to Chet's murder (pg. 251 -- "The guerrillas had intended to oust the translators; instead, they entrenched them. Almost a decade of negative press gave way to supportive editorials. ... Strangers embraced Al in the streets, tearful and smiling. 'I saw you on television,' they would say. 'We're glad you stayed.'" In the US people stepped up to fill the ranks and applications for overseas service with Wycliffe Bible Translators doubled and this trend has continued.) What M-19 guerrillas meant for evil, God meant for good.
Romans 8:28, And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Jesus in Islam
My Syrian friend who is working in London sent me this interesting article earlier today. It discusses Jesus in Islam and Christianity mostly majoring on the similarities. The author mentions some interesting aspects including Sufism. Check it out. Here are just three blurbs from it to whet your appetite for more (hopefully!)
I thought the first part about Muslims defending traditional Christian beliefs against liberal interpreters was a bit amusing. Feel free to share your thoughts if you have any.
But the real significance of Mary is that Islam considers her a virgin and endorses the Christian concept of the Virgin Birth. "She was the chosen woman, chosen to give birth to Jesus, without a husband," says Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, an imam in Leicester and assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). This is the orthodox Islamic position and, paradoxically, as Seyyed Hossein Nasr notes in The Heart of Islam, "respect for such teachings is so strong among Muslims that today, in interreligious dialogues with Christians . . . Muslims are often left defending traditional . . . Christian doctrines such as the miraculous birth of Christ before modernist interpreters would reduce them to metaphors."
...
However, for Muslims, the Virgin Birth is not evidence of Jesus's divinity, only of his unique importance as a prophet and a messiah. The Trinity is rejected by Islam, as is Jesus's Crucifixion and Resurrection. The common theological ground seems to narrow at this point - as Jonathan Bartley, co-director of the Christian think tank Ekklesia, argues, the belief in the Resurrection is the "deal-breaker". He adds: "There is a fundamental tension at the heart of interfaith dialogue that neither side wants to face up to, and that is that the orthodox Christian view of Jesus is blasphemous to Muslims and the orthodox Muslim view of Jesus is blasphemous to Christians." He has a point. The Quran singles out Christianity for formulating the concept of the Trinity.
...
[As] A N Wilson wrote in the Daily Express a decade ago: "Islam is a moral and intellectual acknowledgement of the lordship of God without the encumbrance of Christian mythological baggage . . . That is why Christianity will decline in the next millennium, and the religious hunger of the human heart will be answered by the Crescent, not the Cross."
I thought the first part about Muslims defending traditional Christian beliefs against liberal interpreters was a bit amusing. Feel free to share your thoughts if you have any.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
American Jesus -- Enlightened Sage, Sweet Savior
So Monday I went to a different branch of our county library system and found three books that seemed interesting. Well, I found plenty more that looked interesting, but only brought home three. The one I've started is American Jesus by Stephen Prothero. The subtitle is "How the Son of God Became a National Icon." I have questions for you at the end. Read them first if you'd like and then I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments.
ENLIGHTENED SAGE
The first chapter presents the Jesus of Thomas Jefferson who cut and pasted his own version of the Gospels based on Jefferson's opinion of what Jesus likely said or did. He took out anything that wasn't reasonable or logical and was left with a fraction of what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John presented. "Jefferson hated what Christianity had become,not despite his love for Jesus, but because of it. And he was able to admire, respect, and perhaps even love 'the first of all Sages' only because he was able to separate the religion of Jesus from the religion of Christianity." (pg. 42)
The author claims Jefferson's views have expanded mostly among Unitarians, Reformed Jews and Liberal Protestants. "By the end of the nineteenth century many Americans, both Christian and otherwise, had begun to disentangle Jesus from rites and creeds, affirming that his exemplary life was more important than his atoning death. Today, U.S. suburbs are filled with 'Golden Rule Christians' who, like Jefferson, believe that the essence of true religion lies in right living rather than right thinking, and that service to others is the highest form of prayer." (pg. 33)
The Jesus Seminar is also given as an example in this chapter. Arguing that the "creedal Christ must die...so that the real Jesus can rise again," this "radical interpretation of the incarnation abolished the distinction between the sacred and the profane, freeing Jesus to be fully human and allowing Christians to celebrate life in the world as he did -- wholeheartedly and without reservation."
SWEET SAVIOR
The author claims we were not always a Jesus nation. The Puritans - strict Calvinists - "were a God-fearing rather than a Jesus-loving people, obsessed not with God's mercy but with His glory, not with the Son but with the Father."
About a half century after the Revolution our "spiritual landscape" started to change into more of what we have today. "Disestablishment supplanted the European-style state church system with a market model that continues to characterize American religion. This new spiritual marketplace produced unprecedented religious creativity and intense religious competition." (pg. 46)
"Across these diverse religious communities, a new spirit of liberty took hold. After their successful revolt against England, Americans thought nothing of rebelling against traditional Christianity. For obvious reasons, they rebuffed the Anglicanism of the crown, sending what came to be known as Episcopalianism on a long downward slide. Peace churches such as the Quakers, Mennonites, and Moravians also suffered after the war. Americans did far more than reject the denominations of loyalists and pacifists,however. Inspired by republican rhetoric of liberty and equality, and by a popular revolt against deference and hierarchy, they rejected as well the authority of ministers, the veracity of creeds, and the importance of theology. The Bible remained authoritative, of course, but now Americans insisted on interpreting it for themselves. In that effort, they were assisted by a new culture hero: the populist preacher, who combined evangelicalism and egalitarianism in daring new ways. ... These religious entrepreneurs thrilled their populist parishioners with declarations of religious independence from elitist ministers, established churches, and outmoded creeds. Not surprisingly, this new combination of individual conscience led to a wide variety of interpretations, and First Amendment guarantees of religious freedom saw to it that those interpretations flourished." (pg. 47)
The author then told how evangelicalism formed, spread and popularized Jesus in its hymns, preaching and later books. Jesus even went through a feminizing aspect as recognition was given to the role women played in the spiritual upbringing of their children and how they influenced society in a variety of community groups. He told of Elizabeth Stuart Phelps' book which was the "first full-length feminist interpretation of Jesus." She said men had been talking about the gospels for centuries as translators, preachers and commentators. "Her goal was to supplement that record with a female voice, and according to that voice Jesus was a 'great democrat' who undertook a 'social revolution' on behalf of women. Convinced 'that men and women stood before God upon the same moral plane, and that they ought so to stand before human society,' he always showed the utmost 'respect for womanhood.' He was, Phelps concluded, 'the only man who ever understood' the plight of women." (pg. 84)
"While Calvinists had maximized the distance between God and humanity and evangelicals had narrowed it, liberal Protestants all but obliterated it. Drawing on the doctrine of the imago Dei, they argued that humans were created good, in the image of god, not sinful, in the image of a fallen Adam." They considered the Bible a "good book" rather than "God's book" and focused on Jesus. (pg.82)
QUESTIONS
Did anything stand out to you? Any "aha!" moments? What do you think of the author's words about our religion being market-driven? Did it surprise you to read that America wasn't always a Jesus nation? Do you agree or disagree? Do you think the Liberal Protestants are good to "all but obliterate" the distance between us and God? Do you see the progression of shedding established churches and creeds to being Scriptural based to later being solely Jesus based as a good thing? Why or why not? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson's approach to creating his own gospel? What do you think of Elizabeth Stuart Phelps' thoughts on Jesus as one who respected womanhood? Do you agree? Do you think the Jesus Seminar has done a good thing by freeing Jesus from creeds so that he could be human and thus we can enjoy the world wholeheartedly? Other thoughts or impressions?
ENLIGHTENED SAGE
The first chapter presents the Jesus of Thomas Jefferson who cut and pasted his own version of the Gospels based on Jefferson's opinion of what Jesus likely said or did. He took out anything that wasn't reasonable or logical and was left with a fraction of what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John presented. "Jefferson hated what Christianity had become,not despite his love for Jesus, but because of it. And he was able to admire, respect, and perhaps even love 'the first of all Sages' only because he was able to separate the religion of Jesus from the religion of Christianity." (pg. 42)
The author claims Jefferson's views have expanded mostly among Unitarians, Reformed Jews and Liberal Protestants. "By the end of the nineteenth century many Americans, both Christian and otherwise, had begun to disentangle Jesus from rites and creeds, affirming that his exemplary life was more important than his atoning death. Today, U.S. suburbs are filled with 'Golden Rule Christians' who, like Jefferson, believe that the essence of true religion lies in right living rather than right thinking, and that service to others is the highest form of prayer." (pg. 33)
The Jesus Seminar is also given as an example in this chapter. Arguing that the "creedal Christ must die...so that the real Jesus can rise again," this "radical interpretation of the incarnation abolished the distinction between the sacred and the profane, freeing Jesus to be fully human and allowing Christians to celebrate life in the world as he did -- wholeheartedly and without reservation."
SWEET SAVIOR
The author claims we were not always a Jesus nation. The Puritans - strict Calvinists - "were a God-fearing rather than a Jesus-loving people, obsessed not with God's mercy but with His glory, not with the Son but with the Father."
About a half century after the Revolution our "spiritual landscape" started to change into more of what we have today. "Disestablishment supplanted the European-style state church system with a market model that continues to characterize American religion. This new spiritual marketplace produced unprecedented religious creativity and intense religious competition." (pg. 46)
"Across these diverse religious communities, a new spirit of liberty took hold. After their successful revolt against England, Americans thought nothing of rebelling against traditional Christianity. For obvious reasons, they rebuffed the Anglicanism of the crown, sending what came to be known as Episcopalianism on a long downward slide. Peace churches such as the Quakers, Mennonites, and Moravians also suffered after the war. Americans did far more than reject the denominations of loyalists and pacifists,however. Inspired by republican rhetoric of liberty and equality, and by a popular revolt against deference and hierarchy, they rejected as well the authority of ministers, the veracity of creeds, and the importance of theology. The Bible remained authoritative, of course, but now Americans insisted on interpreting it for themselves. In that effort, they were assisted by a new culture hero: the populist preacher, who combined evangelicalism and egalitarianism in daring new ways. ... These religious entrepreneurs thrilled their populist parishioners with declarations of religious independence from elitist ministers, established churches, and outmoded creeds. Not surprisingly, this new combination of individual conscience led to a wide variety of interpretations, and First Amendment guarantees of religious freedom saw to it that those interpretations flourished." (pg. 47)
The author then told how evangelicalism formed, spread and popularized Jesus in its hymns, preaching and later books. Jesus even went through a feminizing aspect as recognition was given to the role women played in the spiritual upbringing of their children and how they influenced society in a variety of community groups. He told of Elizabeth Stuart Phelps' book which was the "first full-length feminist interpretation of Jesus." She said men had been talking about the gospels for centuries as translators, preachers and commentators. "Her goal was to supplement that record with a female voice, and according to that voice Jesus was a 'great democrat' who undertook a 'social revolution' on behalf of women. Convinced 'that men and women stood before God upon the same moral plane, and that they ought so to stand before human society,' he always showed the utmost 'respect for womanhood.' He was, Phelps concluded, 'the only man who ever understood' the plight of women." (pg. 84)
"While Calvinists had maximized the distance between God and humanity and evangelicals had narrowed it, liberal Protestants all but obliterated it. Drawing on the doctrine of the imago Dei, they argued that humans were created good, in the image of god, not sinful, in the image of a fallen Adam." They considered the Bible a "good book" rather than "God's book" and focused on Jesus. (pg.82)
QUESTIONS
Did anything stand out to you? Any "aha!" moments? What do you think of the author's words about our religion being market-driven? Did it surprise you to read that America wasn't always a Jesus nation? Do you agree or disagree? Do you think the Liberal Protestants are good to "all but obliterate" the distance between us and God? Do you see the progression of shedding established churches and creeds to being Scriptural based to later being solely Jesus based as a good thing? Why or why not? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson's approach to creating his own gospel? What do you think of Elizabeth Stuart Phelps' thoughts on Jesus as one who respected womanhood? Do you agree? Do you think the Jesus Seminar has done a good thing by freeing Jesus from creeds so that he could be human and thus we can enjoy the world wholeheartedly? Other thoughts or impressions?
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The Orthodox Church -- Evangelizing the Slavs & The Rise of Russia Within Orthodoxy
Unbelievably I finished a whole chapter in The Orthodox Church today! You'll recall the past chapters where I had to divide them up in order to cover all the topics involved. I certainly have learned quite a lot from the first chapters of this book. I hope others have enjoyed the lessons and learned from them as well! Chapter 4 dealt with the Orthodox Church and the Slavs.
Greek brothers, Cyril and Methodius, "Apostles of the Slavs," knew a variety of languages one of which was Slavonic. When they went north into Moravia to share Christianity with the Slavs, they translated the Scriptures into the local tongue. The author mentions that this was different from Rome which tended to allow only Latin Scriptures and services. Orthodox holds no such rigidity and "its normal policy is to hold services in the language of the people." Of course I love this since I do not believe God limits Himself to speaking the best in only one language -- Hebrew, Greek, Latin or Arabic! Not even American English with a southern drawl!
Sadly the German and Greek missionaries clashed in Moravia and when the brothers died, the Germans expelled their followers. So the followers moved on to Bulgaria which became the first national Church of the Slavs. Serbia was next.
Romania's history was a bit different. While Latin in national identity, they have the second largest Orthodox Church as of this book's writing.
The bulk of this chapter spoke of Orthodoxy in Russia especially Kiev.
Around 988 when Vladimir was converted to Christianity and married Anna, sister of the Orthodox Emperor, Orthodoxy became the national religion and remained this way until 1917. He took his duty towards taking care of the poor seriously and "nowhere else in medieval Europe were there such highly organized 'social services' as tenth century Kiev." (pg. 79) Additionally "Vladimir was also deeply conscious of the Christian law of mercy, and when he introduced the Byzantine law code at Kiev, he insisted on mitigating its more savage and brutal features. There was no death penalty in Kievan Russia, no mutilation, no torture; corporal punishment was very little used."
Vladimir's two sons, Boris and Gleb, chose to be murdered by their older brother's emissaries than put up any political resistance to Svyatopolk's desire for their principalities. These "Passion Bearers" took the Gospel literally and offered no resistance. The author notes, "Russians have always laid great emphasis on the place of suffering in the Christian life."
Theodosius was born into a noble life, yet "emptied himself" as Christ did and lived a humble existence. Even as a child he worked alongside the slaves in the field. He founded the Monastery of the Caves at Kiev.
These four saints, Vladimir, Boris, Gleb and Theodosius, "embody some of the most attractive features in Kievan Christianity" -- social justice, mercy, voluntary suffering and death and "self-identification with the humble."
Kiev enjoyed good relationships with both Byzantium and Rome.
In 1237 the Mongols came and sacked Kiev. Nearly all of Russia was overrun. When another Russian city finally rose to leadership position, it was not Kiev, but Moscow.
Three saints emerged in the Russian Church during the Mongolian rule. The author thought these deserved special attention.
1. Alexander Nevsky -- as a "warrior saint" this man preferred siding with the Tartars who did not interfere in the Russian Church rather than the Germans, Swedes and Lithuanians eager to bring the "Russian 'schismatics'" under Papal jurisdiction. (This was not unlike the Church in Constantinople preferring Muslims to German Crusaders if you recall. Boy, these Germans are feisty folks! I see them mentioned often in this book and they most always are fighting!)
2. Stephen of Perm -- "Like many other of the early Russian missionaries, he did not follow in the wake of military and political conquest, but was ahead of it." (pg.84) Russians liked to evangelize their pagan conquerors .. get that? not those they - the Russians - conquered, but those who conquered them. Can you imagine the oppressed of today caring that much about those oppressing them that they share their faith? I am seriously having my image of Russians shattered here! I grew up with Russia equaling Big Bad Communism and still don't think very highly of it due to all that childhood conditioning. :)
3. Sergius -- "the greatest national saint of Russia," like Theodosius of Kiev, he founded a famous monastery. He would go to the forest (the North's equivalent to the desert monasteries of Egypt, the author states) for silence and as people followed and communities formed, he would move on. In the process he push[ed] forward the boundaries of civilization and subject[ed] the forest to cultivation."
Sergius, called the "Builder of Russia," encouraged the rise of Moscow and the opposition to the Tartars, expanded the country through monks-through-the-forests treks and succeeded in "balancing [the] social and mystical aspects of monasticism."
Sixty-one years after Sergius died, "the Byzantine Empire fell to the Turks. The new Russia...was now called to take Byzantium's place as protector of the Orthodox world."
Thoughts? Corrections?
Greek brothers, Cyril and Methodius, "Apostles of the Slavs," knew a variety of languages one of which was Slavonic. When they went north into Moravia to share Christianity with the Slavs, they translated the Scriptures into the local tongue. The author mentions that this was different from Rome which tended to allow only Latin Scriptures and services. Orthodox holds no such rigidity and "its normal policy is to hold services in the language of the people." Of course I love this since I do not believe God limits Himself to speaking the best in only one language -- Hebrew, Greek, Latin or Arabic! Not even American English with a southern drawl!
Sadly the German and Greek missionaries clashed in Moravia and when the brothers died, the Germans expelled their followers. So the followers moved on to Bulgaria which became the first national Church of the Slavs. Serbia was next.
Romania's history was a bit different. While Latin in national identity, they have the second largest Orthodox Church as of this book's writing.
The bulk of this chapter spoke of Orthodoxy in Russia especially Kiev.
Around 988 when Vladimir was converted to Christianity and married Anna, sister of the Orthodox Emperor, Orthodoxy became the national religion and remained this way until 1917. He took his duty towards taking care of the poor seriously and "nowhere else in medieval Europe were there such highly organized 'social services' as tenth century Kiev." (pg. 79) Additionally "Vladimir was also deeply conscious of the Christian law of mercy, and when he introduced the Byzantine law code at Kiev, he insisted on mitigating its more savage and brutal features. There was no death penalty in Kievan Russia, no mutilation, no torture; corporal punishment was very little used."
 |
| Hopefully I got the right Vlad here! |
Vladimir's two sons, Boris and Gleb, chose to be murdered by their older brother's emissaries than put up any political resistance to Svyatopolk's desire for their principalities. These "Passion Bearers" took the Gospel literally and offered no resistance. The author notes, "Russians have always laid great emphasis on the place of suffering in the Christian life."
Theodosius was born into a noble life, yet "emptied himself" as Christ did and lived a humble existence. Even as a child he worked alongside the slaves in the field. He founded the Monastery of the Caves at Kiev.
These four saints, Vladimir, Boris, Gleb and Theodosius, "embody some of the most attractive features in Kievan Christianity" -- social justice, mercy, voluntary suffering and death and "self-identification with the humble."
Kiev enjoyed good relationships with both Byzantium and Rome.
In 1237 the Mongols came and sacked Kiev. Nearly all of Russia was overrun. When another Russian city finally rose to leadership position, it was not Kiev, but Moscow.
 |
| A modern church in Moscow |
Three saints emerged in the Russian Church during the Mongolian rule. The author thought these deserved special attention.
1. Alexander Nevsky -- as a "warrior saint" this man preferred siding with the Tartars who did not interfere in the Russian Church rather than the Germans, Swedes and Lithuanians eager to bring the "Russian 'schismatics'" under Papal jurisdiction. (This was not unlike the Church in Constantinople preferring Muslims to German Crusaders if you recall. Boy, these Germans are feisty folks! I see them mentioned often in this book and they most always are fighting!)
2. Stephen of Perm -- "Like many other of the early Russian missionaries, he did not follow in the wake of military and political conquest, but was ahead of it." (pg.84) Russians liked to evangelize their pagan conquerors .. get that? not those they - the Russians - conquered, but those who conquered them. Can you imagine the oppressed of today caring that much about those oppressing them that they share their faith? I am seriously having my image of Russians shattered here! I grew up with Russia equaling Big Bad Communism and still don't think very highly of it due to all that childhood conditioning. :)
3. Sergius -- "the greatest national saint of Russia," like Theodosius of Kiev, he founded a famous monastery. He would go to the forest (the North's equivalent to the desert monasteries of Egypt, the author states) for silence and as people followed and communities formed, he would move on. In the process he push[ed] forward the boundaries of civilization and subject[ed] the forest to cultivation."
Sergius, called the "Builder of Russia," encouraged the rise of Moscow and the opposition to the Tartars, expanded the country through monks-through-the-forests treks and succeeded in "balancing [the] social and mystical aspects of monasticism."
Sixty-one years after Sergius died, "the Byzantine Empire fell to the Turks. The new Russia...was now called to take Byzantium's place as protector of the Orthodox world."
Thoughts? Corrections?
Friday, January 14, 2011
Celebrate! A 'Random Stuff' Post Means A Break From TOC Notes!
Whoa, looking at my list of posts there on the right, I see I have overloaded January with talk of the Orthodox Church! I appreciate those who have attempted to read and offer feedback. I've found quite a bit of it fascinating and new, but I know not everyone appreciates history and more specifically Christian church history. So...thanks for putting up with those. Unbelievably I'm not even finished the book so I will likely have many more posts if I keep up my current trend of discussing each chapter. But since I've gotten vibes that I'm going too fast - and I know the posts are so long, but they just have too much stuff in those chapters! - I will try to space them out a bit more. I heard those sighs of relief! :-)
Today I wanted to just record a few random things.
Like the fact that every time I go to the library, I see more and more books I want to read! All this history I've been reading has made me more curious about life back then so yesterday I found a section on European history, the rise of Christianity there and life in a medieval city...such things that made me jot down their titles and shelf numbers. I even started keeping a list in a notebook (I'll call it The List) so I can easily find books that for one reason or another caught my eye. I have books concerning North Korea, American politics, the 9/11 terrorists, the Appalachian culture, India's part in this global age, Islam, Christianity, the Bible, on and on. Some are books others recommended on their blogs that I found in my county's libraries. (Thank you, online catalog!)
Another thing: I watched a movie last Saturday! Church friends, Mike and Cindy (the one who owns 90% of the fiction books I read last year), had us over for supper (soup, sandwiches and salad...and chocolate pie) and then we watched The Bucket List. I loved the funny parts, but the movie was a bit sad because I knew the whole time the two friends were dying. Death lingering over the movie just...well, it was a touching movie. I was wiping tears off my face towards the end.
I've finished two books recently, but neither are the two I started on January 1. Both were on Africa. And not on The List so you see how The List is only going to continue growing in numbers of books to-be-read if I keep getting distracted by other random books that jump off library shelves. I really need to stay away from the library so I can read the books I got for Christmas! But - I tell myself - many of those are books I may want to blog about and I'm already blogging The Orthodox Church to death and don't want to have too many irons in the fire.
Speaking of that, I love idioms! Especially ones that I know. Occasionally I teach Samer new idioms like yesterday when we were talking of Tunisia and I said "He (meaning the President) saw the handwriting on the wall" and got to explain that one! Do you know I attempted to teach Samer idioms before he took the TOEFL a couple of years ago. Sadly there are many more than we could cover, but he did fantastically well on the test....not to my credit since he started learning English when he was 8 and met me when he was 22! He is trying to pick up my southern accent, but, ehhhh, southern talk on an Arabic speaker just doesn't quite fit! I tell him his accent is fine to me as it is and there is absolutely no need to say "tiiiin" for "ten" as I do!
I won a contest! OK, I was one of five winners actually. Organica had a giveaway. Initially people were supposed to offer a hadeeth that wasn't very common, but pertained to life today. I told her the idea was cute, but hadeeths aren't my thing and I have no clue what is well-known since I'm not Muslim. She opened it up to all faiths so I offered a saying of Jesus that I thought would be appropriate. I got the colorful bag in Monday's mail!
I was reading through a modern version of the New Testament that I bought just prior to our trip to Syria. It is small and I wanted to take it since it would more easily fit in my luggage. Anyway, I was reading through some chapters in Matthew, trying to meditate on things rather than breeze through it quickly as I am prone to do. Reading without thinking about stuff deeply isn't always good. 'Specially when it's Jesus' words and life being discussed! I got stuck on the first line of Matthew 12:12 which in that version reads: "Surely a human being is more important than a sheep." See how normally that would be breeze-worthy? Yet this time I stopped and thought of that simple sentence. What did sheep represent back then? Wealth. Property. Livelihood. Maybe food for the family. Or a sacrifice for sins. Possibly, but not as likely, a pet. Jesus recognized this and knew the Jews would rescue a sheep that "fell into a ditch" even if it were on their Sabbath. Yet the self righteous people faulted Jesus for healing on that holy day! Surely, you people do realize a human life is more important than your wealth, your property, your livelihood, your food, your sacrifice, your pet. Jesus' lesson to me: PEOPLE MATTER TO HIM. And they should, by extension, matter to those who follow him.
Another reminder for me from a publication: Is anything too hard for The Almighty? I love being reminded of this. It seems so simple written there, but very profound.
One last thing. Imagine your heart as a house with a few rooms. Now when difficulties and disappointments come into your life (and they inevitably do arrive at some point), complaint comes in and makes itself at home. He is a very tough guest to rid...probably because we often welcome him by joining along in his complaining. Which continues filling the house. Instead,the author reminds us to invite trust into the house. "Trust and complaint are incompatible roommates. One inevitably pushes the other out,depending on who is made to feel more at home."* I don't know about you, but I want to make trust in God more welcome in my heart. Join me and let's start praising God and remembering that nothing is too hard for Him! Let's have faith that our God is the God who can do that which seems impossible and find joy and peace as we rest in His love and care.
Have a wonderful weekend!
* quoted from "The Land Between" by Jeff Manion, InTouch, January 2011
Today I wanted to just record a few random things.
Like the fact that every time I go to the library, I see more and more books I want to read! All this history I've been reading has made me more curious about life back then so yesterday I found a section on European history, the rise of Christianity there and life in a medieval city...such things that made me jot down their titles and shelf numbers. I even started keeping a list in a notebook (I'll call it The List) so I can easily find books that for one reason or another caught my eye. I have books concerning North Korea, American politics, the 9/11 terrorists, the Appalachian culture, India's part in this global age, Islam, Christianity, the Bible, on and on. Some are books others recommended on their blogs that I found in my county's libraries. (Thank you, online catalog!)
Another thing: I watched a movie last Saturday! Church friends, Mike and Cindy (the one who owns 90% of the fiction books I read last year), had us over for supper (soup, sandwiches and salad...and chocolate pie) and then we watched The Bucket List. I loved the funny parts, but the movie was a bit sad because I knew the whole time the two friends were dying. Death lingering over the movie just...well, it was a touching movie. I was wiping tears off my face towards the end.
I've finished two books recently, but neither are the two I started on January 1. Both were on Africa. And not on The List so you see how The List is only going to continue growing in numbers of books to-be-read if I keep getting distracted by other random books that jump off library shelves. I really need to stay away from the library so I can read the books I got for Christmas! But - I tell myself - many of those are books I may want to blog about and I'm already blogging The Orthodox Church to death and don't want to have too many irons in the fire.
Speaking of that, I love idioms! Especially ones that I know. Occasionally I teach Samer new idioms like yesterday when we were talking of Tunisia and I said "He (meaning the President) saw the handwriting on the wall" and got to explain that one! Do you know I attempted to teach Samer idioms before he took the TOEFL a couple of years ago. Sadly there are many more than we could cover, but he did fantastically well on the test....not to my credit since he started learning English when he was 8 and met me when he was 22! He is trying to pick up my southern accent, but, ehhhh, southern talk on an Arabic speaker just doesn't quite fit! I tell him his accent is fine to me as it is and there is absolutely no need to say "tiiiin" for "ten" as I do!
I won a contest! OK, I was one of five winners actually. Organica had a giveaway. Initially people were supposed to offer a hadeeth that wasn't very common, but pertained to life today. I told her the idea was cute, but hadeeths aren't my thing and I have no clue what is well-known since I'm not Muslim. She opened it up to all faiths so I offered a saying of Jesus that I thought would be appropriate. I got the colorful bag in Monday's mail!
I was reading through a modern version of the New Testament that I bought just prior to our trip to Syria. It is small and I wanted to take it since it would more easily fit in my luggage. Anyway, I was reading through some chapters in Matthew, trying to meditate on things rather than breeze through it quickly as I am prone to do. Reading without thinking about stuff deeply isn't always good. 'Specially when it's Jesus' words and life being discussed! I got stuck on the first line of Matthew 12:12 which in that version reads: "Surely a human being is more important than a sheep." See how normally that would be breeze-worthy? Yet this time I stopped and thought of that simple sentence. What did sheep represent back then? Wealth. Property. Livelihood. Maybe food for the family. Or a sacrifice for sins. Possibly, but not as likely, a pet. Jesus recognized this and knew the Jews would rescue a sheep that "fell into a ditch" even if it were on their Sabbath. Yet the self righteous people faulted Jesus for healing on that holy day! Surely, you people do realize a human life is more important than your wealth, your property, your livelihood, your food, your sacrifice, your pet. Jesus' lesson to me: PEOPLE MATTER TO HIM. And they should, by extension, matter to those who follow him.
Another reminder for me from a publication: Is anything too hard for The Almighty? I love being reminded of this. It seems so simple written there, but very profound.
One last thing. Imagine your heart as a house with a few rooms. Now when difficulties and disappointments come into your life (and they inevitably do arrive at some point), complaint comes in and makes itself at home. He is a very tough guest to rid...probably because we often welcome him by joining along in his complaining. Which continues filling the house. Instead,the author reminds us to invite trust into the house. "Trust and complaint are incompatible roommates. One inevitably pushes the other out,depending on who is made to feel more at home."* I don't know about you, but I want to make trust in God more welcome in my heart. Join me and let's start praising God and remembering that nothing is too hard for Him! Let's have faith that our God is the God who can do that which seems impossible and find joy and peace as we rest in His love and care.
Have a wonderful weekend!
* quoted from "The Land Between" by Jeff Manion, InTouch, January 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
Defining Things
A few things I noted from The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization by Columbia University history professor Richard Bulliet ...
"Books offering new looks at Islam -- this one included -- appear every month. The problem is integrating this mass of information about Islam with the perspectives of those charged with determining government policies. The policy community, and the scholars on its fringes, continue to shun alternative visions of modernity that might embody a Muslim rather than a western perspective. At worst, they posit Islamic politics as a malignant and inveterate foe, debating the best strategies for holding the Muslims at bay while simultaneously whining 'Why do they hate us?'" (pg. 115)
This made me wonder how people view modernity. How would you describe it? Must you own a smart phone or Kindle in order to be modern? How might a Muslim differ from a Western perspective on this subject? What mights an alternative view of modernity include or exclude?
"Like latter day missionaries, we want the Muslims to love us, not just for what we can offer in the way of a technological society, but for who we are - for our values. But we refuse to countenance the thought of loving them for their values." (pg. 116)
Do you think this is true? If so, how do we remedy this problem?
"Virtually all thoughtful Americans shudder at the idea of Islamists forming governments, even through free elections. But they are generally hazy on what the world 'Islamist" actually means. Liberals shudder because of the illiberalism they see at the heart of Islamic movements. Conservatives shudder because of the anti-Americanism they see in those same movements." (pg. 125)
This reminds me so much of what is happening in the Arab world this year. I recall when Egypt was going through its peaceful revolution, many people here kept saying the Muslim Brotherhood was behind it and they might gain power and put in some very anti-American government that kept minorities within Egypt (whether that were the Coptic Christians or women) down. How do you define Islamist for yourself? And does the thought of Islamists in power make you shudder or squirm? Why or why not?
"From the dawn of Christianity down to the nineteenth century - and still today in evangelical Christian circles - the winning of souls took precedence over wealth and power as a sign of success." (pg. 41)
This was said in context of Islam and Christianity spreading. The author noted that Islam spread to many areas that already had a monotheistic view of God compared to Europe which tended to have the idea of many gods or spirits. But what I wanted to ask about this is how do you define success? For yourself and/or for others (i.e., societies, governments, etc.)?
You know how you often read about Westerners not crediting Muslims for the scientific achievements and not recognizing cultural superiority during the time when Europe was in its dark ages? The author draws this parallel.
Thoughts?
P.S. -- I hope you all had a nice Easter yesterday!
"Books offering new looks at Islam -- this one included -- appear every month. The problem is integrating this mass of information about Islam with the perspectives of those charged with determining government policies. The policy community, and the scholars on its fringes, continue to shun alternative visions of modernity that might embody a Muslim rather than a western perspective. At worst, they posit Islamic politics as a malignant and inveterate foe, debating the best strategies for holding the Muslims at bay while simultaneously whining 'Why do they hate us?'" (pg. 115)
This made me wonder how people view modernity. How would you describe it? Must you own a smart phone or Kindle in order to be modern? How might a Muslim differ from a Western perspective on this subject? What mights an alternative view of modernity include or exclude?
"Like latter day missionaries, we want the Muslims to love us, not just for what we can offer in the way of a technological society, but for who we are - for our values. But we refuse to countenance the thought of loving them for their values." (pg. 116)
Do you think this is true? If so, how do we remedy this problem?
"Virtually all thoughtful Americans shudder at the idea of Islamists forming governments, even through free elections. But they are generally hazy on what the world 'Islamist" actually means. Liberals shudder because of the illiberalism they see at the heart of Islamic movements. Conservatives shudder because of the anti-Americanism they see in those same movements." (pg. 125)
This reminds me so much of what is happening in the Arab world this year. I recall when Egypt was going through its peaceful revolution, many people here kept saying the Muslim Brotherhood was behind it and they might gain power and put in some very anti-American government that kept minorities within Egypt (whether that were the Coptic Christians or women) down. How do you define Islamist for yourself? And does the thought of Islamists in power make you shudder or squirm? Why or why not?
"From the dawn of Christianity down to the nineteenth century - and still today in evangelical Christian circles - the winning of souls took precedence over wealth and power as a sign of success." (pg. 41)
This was said in context of Islam and Christianity spreading. The author noted that Islam spread to many areas that already had a monotheistic view of God compared to Europe which tended to have the idea of many gods or spirits. But what I wanted to ask about this is how do you define success? For yourself and/or for others (i.e., societies, governments, etc.)?
You know how you often read about Westerners not crediting Muslims for the scientific achievements and not recognizing cultural superiority during the time when Europe was in its dark ages? The author draws this parallel.
Postcolonial thinkers from lands subjected to imperialism concentrate on forms of subjection involved with European imperialism that were virtually unperceivable to past generations of traditional European intellectuals. The latter were prone to stress the economic and technical benefits of relations with Europe in the imperialist era, a phenomenon usually described as westernization or modernization, even as they grudgingly acknowledged the oppressive nature of the colonial system. People from formerly colonized societies see these as benefits for which no one is owed any gratitude, given the immensity of the burdens inflicted by the putative imperialist benefactors. In exactly the same manner, the Latin Christian of the twelfth through fourteenth centuries (as well as their descendants today) saw no reason to express gratitude toward, or to recognize the scientific and artistic superiority of, the Muslims societies from whence they were obtaining the ideas, techniques, and industrial processes that would soon catapult Latin Europe along a new and immensely fruitful developmental path. Borrowers have their pride. (pg. 32)
Thoughts?
P.S. -- I hope you all had a nice Easter yesterday!
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
May Books
Another month is nearly over, and I don't think I'll finish another book
by tomorrow so I'll go ahead and post this now. I'm still making
pretty good progress on From Plato to Nato which is the somewhat intimidating book I started one month ago today. For those asking, I am on page 398.
What Saint Paul Really Said by N.T. Wright -- the author claims Paul was not the founder of Christianity rather a "faithful witness and herald of Jesus Christ"; this book was a bit difficult for me to get into, but had some interesting points. I especially enjoyed the thoughts of Jesus within Jewish monotheism and how Paul's views of creation, for instance, would contrast with the pagans - as well as what many of us believe today
The Aquariums of Pyongyang by Kang Chol-Hwan -- My friend Adam has lived in Seoul for several years now and he recommended this book which I got for my birthday. Political prisoners' families often are taken to camps to serve sentences. The author was ten years old when his grandmother, uncle, father, sister and himself were taken to such a place. This book tells the story of life inside the camp and Kang's escape to China and later South Korea.
Can you imagine? -- So in this book I'm reading on North Korea, Kang Chol-Hwan talks about a Confucian tradition "which continues to hold sway in present-day* Korea." This happened in his family**: "a married woman BELONGS to her HUSBAND'S FAMILY and remains so, irrespective of divorce or separation. If she tries to return to her parents' home, she will most likely be turned away." (emphasis mine)
* This book was published in 2000 in France so maybe things have changed since then.
** His father at age 15 was forced to marry a girl about the same age. They didn't love each other so when he divorced her, she had to live with HIS parents. He went to Japan, married again and then brought his new bride to live at his parents' house. Where his exwife still lived. Awkward.
When Kang finally made it to South Korea he had a hard time adjusting at first. He was one of the oldest at college, yet students would sit in front of him and smoke - something you didn't do to an older person where he came from. He said "The North is hypertraditionalist. Friendships between members of the opposite sex is not the norm. When a man speaks to a woman his own age, he employs the familiar form of address, she the formal. Relations follow a strict hierarchy. Here, we were equal! Some of the female students were so self-confident, they hardly paid me any attention when I spoke to them." (pg. 228)
I posted these notes on Facebook, and Adam and I discussed them somewhat. That was interesting hearing his thoughts on Korean culture.
Not a Fan. by Kyle Idleman -- This pastor challenges us to be followers of Jesus, not just fans.
"For many Christians the concept of denying themselves was not part of the deal. They grew up with the message that such a radical decision really isn't necessary. So they signed up to follow Jesus, but if denying themselves was part of the explanation, it was definitely the fine print. That's especially true of American Christians. In part, this is due to the collision of Christianity with American capitalism. It has created a culture of consumers in our churches. Instead of approaching their faith with a spirit of denial that says, 'What can I do for Jesus?' they have a consumer mentality that says, 'What can Jesus do for me?'" (pg. 148)
If Walls Could Talk: An Intimate History of the Home by Lucy Worsley -- see previous post on childbirth and bicycling
"Before 1696, the basic tax upon a household was levied upon the number of hearths. But the 'hearth tax' was difficult to collect because tax inspectors needed to enter people's houses to check the number of fireplaces. Clearly they weren't going to be welcome visitors. When in 1696 a new tax was levied instead upon windows, the inspectors had only to walk round the outside of the house and count." Detractors called this "a tax upon light and air." (pg. 196)
"In 1908, Ellen Richards calculated that an eight-room house required eighteen hours of cleaning time a week just to remove dust. Washing the windows and walls would take the total up to twenty-seven hours a week, even before the clothes-washing, bed-making and cooking began. This was simply unsustainable after the two world wars removed the huge infrastructure of servants who had done such work in the past." So labor-saving tips were needed and "books for the newly servantless middle classes began to appear." One taught how to break an egg, and advised "them not to chop onions with raw hands because the smell will linger and spoil the enjoyment of a later cigarette." (pg. 266)
"[Refrigerators] were initially rather glamorous possessions, and in the 1930s their owners might invite their friends to a 'refrigerator party' where each course was pre-prepared and then whipped from its own shelf in the fridge. Cookbooks from the period show guests in evening dress gathered in the kitchen to enjoy the novelty of eating an entire meal of cold food." (pg.271)
Memories of Eden by Violette Shamash -- This book was the memoir of a Jewish lady who grew up in Baghdad before it was Iraq. Well, it became Iraq during her time there. I enjoyed reading about interactions with the neighbors (she said they got along well with the Muslims and, in fact, often acted like mediators between Shias and Sunnis who argued with each other more than they did the Jews.) By the way, Jews made up 40% of the population of Baghdad at this time. I found the Jewish culture aspects interesting though I think none of it really surprised me. They favored sons. Mother in laws were upset when mothers produced more daughters. Same old stupid stuff. Did you know haircuts were immodest?
"Before the 1930s, the mere idea of having a haircut was unthinkable, a girl's hair being considered her crowning glory. The only way to tame such a lot of thick and wavy hair was to wear it in two ringlet-like plaits. Almost all of us wore it this way, but it was time consuming and seemed old fashioned. The breakthrough came when the first ladies' hairdressing salon opened and was patronised by the younger element - a controversial break with tradition. A popular song that captured the disapprobation of our elders went "...'The chaste daughter [of the house] has had her hair cut! God help us, where will that lead us? She's taken leave of her modesty.'" (pg. 30)
And a girl's life mission - of course - was to get married, keep house and raise babies. Education was not necessary for girls although Violette's dad let his daughters attend school. Working outside the home was seen as something only girls from poor families would do. So well-to-do ladies would never stoop so low as to work.
The chapter on love and marriage was good as was her discussion of sabbath and "high holy days."
Also I was under the impression that Muslims welcomed Jews into the Middle East when it was awful Christians in Europe who persecuted Jews. Well, I suppose to some degree this was true, but not the entire truth. I was shocked to read of the Arabs embracing Nazism and turning on their Jewish neighbors and friends. Not all of them. The author gave very sweet examples of Muslims who protected scores of Jews. But still, I didn't realize the Arab Muslims (and maybe Christians?) embraced Hitler's ideas of ridding the world of Jews. That was sad for me to read.
The author and her family ended up leaving Iraq for India, later Palestine, then Cyprus and finally London.
In the Steps of St. Paul by H.V. Morton -- This book was given to me by a thoughtful friend for my birthday. Initially I thought I'd have to wait until I read the other big book I'm reading, but later when I was flipping through this one, I saw where it was not overly-deep and would be a nice book to read at the same time as the other book (From Plato to Nato). In the past year or so I've enjoyed travel books from Vietnam, through various other parts of Asia, Iraq and the Middle East and even the one about the family who took a whole year to travel around the world. This book tells of the author's journey to the various places mentioned in the Bible where Paul traveled - anywhere from his journey to Damascus to persecute Christians to his missionary travels to his imprisonment and supposed death in Rome.
The author talked of ruins he saw (he especially admired the Parthenon p. 312), customs of the people then and now, how Paul would have seen the cities (it was quite thought-provoking when he would describe the ghost towns some places now were compared to how they would have been back in their primes), people he met, how these certain 'races' were (sometimes these were a bit off-putting [i.e., describing how current Greeks were unlike the ones depicted on statues and the impression that they were not as pretty; how he described Arabs and Jews], but in the introduction Bruce Feiler warned about this so it wasn't as surprising). Actually that part was also rather interesting because his honesty revealed quite a bit about how people were perceived back then. Oh, did I mention this travel was in the mid 1930s? So, yeah, I do wonder how things have changed in these cities/towns/ports in these last 75 years!
Some brief notes I took:
-- impressions of Tarsus - how St. Paul was born at this place that bridged East and West; rather fitting for a man who took an eastern faith into the western world (pg. 68)
-- in Aleppo he met a sheik with four wives listed on his British passport (pg. 88)
-- he mentioned a custom of salting Arab babies (pg. 91)
-- he discussed Antioch's scientific achievements, modernity (pg. 99)
-- mused on Paul's 'thorn in the flesh' - could it be malaria, headaches? (pg. 104)
-- talked about the destruction goats have caused by eating vegetation and seedlings and leaving lands barren (p. 125)
-- he met a Cypriot who could "speak American" (pg. 125) -- did I mention the author was English?
-- the author greatly admired the progress made by Ataturk and told of the great changes in Turkey; once he made me laugh when a Turk told a sexist joke and the author said with the new modernity in Turkey, he (the Turk who made the joke) should be a feminist (pg. 201)
-- I enjoyed the section on Paul "the babbler" which was when the Athenians wanted Paul to explain himself more. The author said Paul didn't speak from an Old Testament knowledge of religion which would have made no sense to these people. Instead he used common religious terms and ideas in order to establish some commonality. (pg. 318)
-- The authors impressions of Greece and the Greeks in particular was interesting especially as I compared what a couple Greek men told him about their own people. "'That is the curse of my country,' said Sophocles. 'We all know. We all think we could do so much better than the people in charge. We all believe that if we were in control of the country everything would be all right. Every Greek rules Greece in his own mind.'" (pg. 329)
-- The author mentioned the love of the sea is a modern notion because often in ancient writing the sea is an enemy. I enjoyed his musings on this. (pg. 428)
What Saint Paul Really Said by N.T. Wright -- the author claims Paul was not the founder of Christianity rather a "faithful witness and herald of Jesus Christ"; this book was a bit difficult for me to get into, but had some interesting points. I especially enjoyed the thoughts of Jesus within Jewish monotheism and how Paul's views of creation, for instance, would contrast with the pagans - as well as what many of us believe today
The Aquariums of Pyongyang by Kang Chol-Hwan -- My friend Adam has lived in Seoul for several years now and he recommended this book which I got for my birthday. Political prisoners' families often are taken to camps to serve sentences. The author was ten years old when his grandmother, uncle, father, sister and himself were taken to such a place. This book tells the story of life inside the camp and Kang's escape to China and later South Korea.
Can you imagine? -- So in this book I'm reading on North Korea, Kang Chol-Hwan talks about a Confucian tradition "which continues to hold sway in present-day* Korea." This happened in his family**: "a married woman BELONGS to her HUSBAND'S FAMILY and remains so, irrespective of divorce or separation. If she tries to return to her parents' home, she will most likely be turned away." (emphasis mine)
* This book was published in 2000 in France so maybe things have changed since then.
** His father at age 15 was forced to marry a girl about the same age. They didn't love each other so when he divorced her, she had to live with HIS parents. He went to Japan, married again and then brought his new bride to live at his parents' house. Where his exwife still lived. Awkward.
When Kang finally made it to South Korea he had a hard time adjusting at first. He was one of the oldest at college, yet students would sit in front of him and smoke - something you didn't do to an older person where he came from. He said "The North is hypertraditionalist. Friendships between members of the opposite sex is not the norm. When a man speaks to a woman his own age, he employs the familiar form of address, she the formal. Relations follow a strict hierarchy. Here, we were equal! Some of the female students were so self-confident, they hardly paid me any attention when I spoke to them." (pg. 228)
I posted these notes on Facebook, and Adam and I discussed them somewhat. That was interesting hearing his thoughts on Korean culture.
Not a Fan. by Kyle Idleman -- This pastor challenges us to be followers of Jesus, not just fans.
"For many Christians the concept of denying themselves was not part of the deal. They grew up with the message that such a radical decision really isn't necessary. So they signed up to follow Jesus, but if denying themselves was part of the explanation, it was definitely the fine print. That's especially true of American Christians. In part, this is due to the collision of Christianity with American capitalism. It has created a culture of consumers in our churches. Instead of approaching their faith with a spirit of denial that says, 'What can I do for Jesus?' they have a consumer mentality that says, 'What can Jesus do for me?'" (pg. 148)
If Walls Could Talk: An Intimate History of the Home by Lucy Worsley -- see previous post on childbirth and bicycling
"Before 1696, the basic tax upon a household was levied upon the number of hearths. But the 'hearth tax' was difficult to collect because tax inspectors needed to enter people's houses to check the number of fireplaces. Clearly they weren't going to be welcome visitors. When in 1696 a new tax was levied instead upon windows, the inspectors had only to walk round the outside of the house and count." Detractors called this "a tax upon light and air." (pg. 196)
"In 1908, Ellen Richards calculated that an eight-room house required eighteen hours of cleaning time a week just to remove dust. Washing the windows and walls would take the total up to twenty-seven hours a week, even before the clothes-washing, bed-making and cooking began. This was simply unsustainable after the two world wars removed the huge infrastructure of servants who had done such work in the past." So labor-saving tips were needed and "books for the newly servantless middle classes began to appear." One taught how to break an egg, and advised "them not to chop onions with raw hands because the smell will linger and spoil the enjoyment of a later cigarette." (pg. 266)
"[Refrigerators] were initially rather glamorous possessions, and in the 1930s their owners might invite their friends to a 'refrigerator party' where each course was pre-prepared and then whipped from its own shelf in the fridge. Cookbooks from the period show guests in evening dress gathered in the kitchen to enjoy the novelty of eating an entire meal of cold food." (pg.271)
Memories of Eden by Violette Shamash -- This book was the memoir of a Jewish lady who grew up in Baghdad before it was Iraq. Well, it became Iraq during her time there. I enjoyed reading about interactions with the neighbors (she said they got along well with the Muslims and, in fact, often acted like mediators between Shias and Sunnis who argued with each other more than they did the Jews.) By the way, Jews made up 40% of the population of Baghdad at this time. I found the Jewish culture aspects interesting though I think none of it really surprised me. They favored sons. Mother in laws were upset when mothers produced more daughters. Same old stupid stuff. Did you know haircuts were immodest?
"Before the 1930s, the mere idea of having a haircut was unthinkable, a girl's hair being considered her crowning glory. The only way to tame such a lot of thick and wavy hair was to wear it in two ringlet-like plaits. Almost all of us wore it this way, but it was time consuming and seemed old fashioned. The breakthrough came when the first ladies' hairdressing salon opened and was patronised by the younger element - a controversial break with tradition. A popular song that captured the disapprobation of our elders went "...'The chaste daughter [of the house] has had her hair cut! God help us, where will that lead us? She's taken leave of her modesty.'" (pg. 30)
And a girl's life mission - of course - was to get married, keep house and raise babies. Education was not necessary for girls although Violette's dad let his daughters attend school. Working outside the home was seen as something only girls from poor families would do. So well-to-do ladies would never stoop so low as to work.
The chapter on love and marriage was good as was her discussion of sabbath and "high holy days."
Also I was under the impression that Muslims welcomed Jews into the Middle East when it was awful Christians in Europe who persecuted Jews. Well, I suppose to some degree this was true, but not the entire truth. I was shocked to read of the Arabs embracing Nazism and turning on their Jewish neighbors and friends. Not all of them. The author gave very sweet examples of Muslims who protected scores of Jews. But still, I didn't realize the Arab Muslims (and maybe Christians?) embraced Hitler's ideas of ridding the world of Jews. That was sad for me to read.
The author and her family ended up leaving Iraq for India, later Palestine, then Cyprus and finally London.
In the Steps of St. Paul by H.V. Morton -- This book was given to me by a thoughtful friend for my birthday. Initially I thought I'd have to wait until I read the other big book I'm reading, but later when I was flipping through this one, I saw where it was not overly-deep and would be a nice book to read at the same time as the other book (From Plato to Nato). In the past year or so I've enjoyed travel books from Vietnam, through various other parts of Asia, Iraq and the Middle East and even the one about the family who took a whole year to travel around the world. This book tells of the author's journey to the various places mentioned in the Bible where Paul traveled - anywhere from his journey to Damascus to persecute Christians to his missionary travels to his imprisonment and supposed death in Rome.
The author talked of ruins he saw (he especially admired the Parthenon p. 312), customs of the people then and now, how Paul would have seen the cities (it was quite thought-provoking when he would describe the ghost towns some places now were compared to how they would have been back in their primes), people he met, how these certain 'races' were (sometimes these were a bit off-putting [i.e., describing how current Greeks were unlike the ones depicted on statues and the impression that they were not as pretty; how he described Arabs and Jews], but in the introduction Bruce Feiler warned about this so it wasn't as surprising). Actually that part was also rather interesting because his honesty revealed quite a bit about how people were perceived back then. Oh, did I mention this travel was in the mid 1930s? So, yeah, I do wonder how things have changed in these cities/towns/ports in these last 75 years!
Some brief notes I took:
-- impressions of Tarsus - how St. Paul was born at this place that bridged East and West; rather fitting for a man who took an eastern faith into the western world (pg. 68)
-- in Aleppo he met a sheik with four wives listed on his British passport (pg. 88)
-- he mentioned a custom of salting Arab babies (pg. 91)
-- he discussed Antioch's scientific achievements, modernity (pg. 99)
-- mused on Paul's 'thorn in the flesh' - could it be malaria, headaches? (pg. 104)
-- talked about the destruction goats have caused by eating vegetation and seedlings and leaving lands barren (p. 125)
-- he met a Cypriot who could "speak American" (pg. 125) -- did I mention the author was English?
-- the author greatly admired the progress made by Ataturk and told of the great changes in Turkey; once he made me laugh when a Turk told a sexist joke and the author said with the new modernity in Turkey, he (the Turk who made the joke) should be a feminist (pg. 201)
-- I enjoyed the section on Paul "the babbler" which was when the Athenians wanted Paul to explain himself more. The author said Paul didn't speak from an Old Testament knowledge of religion which would have made no sense to these people. Instead he used common religious terms and ideas in order to establish some commonality. (pg. 318)
-- The authors impressions of Greece and the Greeks in particular was interesting especially as I compared what a couple Greek men told him about their own people. "'That is the curse of my country,' said Sophocles. 'We all know. We all think we could do so much better than the people in charge. We all believe that if we were in control of the country everything would be all right. Every Greek rules Greece in his own mind.'" (pg. 329)
-- The author mentioned the love of the sea is a modern notion because often in ancient writing the sea is an enemy. I enjoyed his musings on this. (pg. 428)
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Notes on Quran - Sura 47
This one came with a warning. :)
Sura 47 -- Muhammad
OK, I'll admit it: I sometimes don't know how to take these suras! Are the promises for Muslims now? Muslims back then? Or Muslims of the future? Or maybe all three since Islam is said by most Muslims to be timely for all generations. I ask because many verses in this sura made me wonder if these were time/event-specific for back then or something Muslims of today count on. I see quite a case for spreading Islam by sword in this chapter. Yet I know most Muslims today will declare Islam a religion of peace and that only extremists try to spread it by force. Indeed we wouldn't dare call Muhammad "extreme" as he was the ideal Muslim, the example for future generations yet this sura which bears his name conveys the spread-by-fighting method. Granted I'm simply reading the chapter and don't know all the background information, but if Islam is for all time and I were just the average nonMuslim off the street curious to see what Muslims believe I'd take sura 47 as one that is rather harsh on anyone who disbelieves.
I know many in the past have wrongly tried to spread "Christianity" by the sword. I say Christianity in quotes because how does one spread Christ's message by sword and it still remain Christ's message? While Jesus does make reference to not bringing peace, but a sword as I discussed here in this post on Jesus' Divisive Sword, most followers of Christ agree that his message was of loving and serving others, even our enemies. In fact this is what makes Jesus' message so different from Muhammad's. Most followers of Jesus will try to take to heart - or aspire to - Paul's words in his letter to the Romans.
17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"says the Lord. 20On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
See there that quote about vengeance ... it is God's to repay. This is why we can relax as we trust in God to rectify situations and not seek to avenge ourselves.
This sura speaks of the importance of obeying God and Muhammad. The two go hand in hand as I suppose for Muslims one cannot obey God unless she also obeys the prophet of Islam. Sadly, his message differs quite a bit from Jesus' message. I've never seen justification in Jesus' message to spread his teachings by fighting others. This is why those who say they are fighting for Christ are so shameful and wrong! Uh, how exactly does one spread a message of "loving your enemies" by sword? I say people are free to choose whatever they want. God will settle things in His own time, like Judgment Day. We can share our faiths with others, but never try to force the message by threatening "you convert or else" as we brandish our swords.
And if these verses were just for one time, I still don't really like the idea of spreading a religion by sword. I don't like that about any group willing to kill others who won't convert to their faith.
Here are the verses I noted from this chapter.
4. So, when you clash with the unbelievers, smite their necks until you overpower them, then hold them in bondage. Then either free them graciously or after taking a ransom, until war shall have come to end. If God had pleased He could have punished them (Himself), but He wills to test some of you through some others. He will not allow the deeds of those who are killed in the cause of God to go waste.
5. He will show them the way, and better their state, 6. And will admit them into gardens with which he has acquainted them. 7. O you who believe, if you help (in the cause of) God He will surely come to your aid, and firmly plant your feet. 8. As for the unbelievers, they will suffer misfortunes, and their deeds will be rendered ineffective.
I see in verse 4 where God "wills to test some of you through some others." Does this also hold true to Muslim lands who are currently being "tested" by others such as the Palestinians who have suffered quite a lot under the oppressive Zionists? So is this merely something God has allowed as a test for the Palestinians? And the same for Iraqi Muslims who have been suffering for many years now. And when God tests us this way is it OK to fight the testing or do we endure it until His will is accomplished in our lives?
I see in the last part of verse 4 through verse 6 what I call the Martyrs' Creed. I have heard of families who seem overjoyed when their children are killed fighting so they will be considered martyrs. And why not when instant paradise with 72 virgins is promised! If I had a choice between instant heaven vs. waiting around for Judgment Day while lying in a grave to see if I MIGHT make it in, I'd want to be a martyr as well!
And verse 7 ... is this one for people now as well? Because in my opinion, it doesn't seem as if God has come to the aid of the Palestinians. Maybe this is a future promise for them? As they endure their testing from God (vs. 4) they will later be given aid from Him? Is this why most Muslims only given token aid to Gaza? They speak of it on blogs and such, but nothing much is actually done for them despite their numbers being bigger than most countries!
35. So do not become weak-kneed and sue for peace, for you will have the upper hand as God is with you and will not overlook your deeds.
Yeah, we all know peace is something only weak-kneed people can handle. Is this why the Muslim world is often a constant pot of turmoil?
Warning: sura 48 also struck a nerve! I'll post those notes tomorrow, Lord willing.
Sura 47 -- Muhammad
OK, I'll admit it: I sometimes don't know how to take these suras! Are the promises for Muslims now? Muslims back then? Or Muslims of the future? Or maybe all three since Islam is said by most Muslims to be timely for all generations. I ask because many verses in this sura made me wonder if these were time/event-specific for back then or something Muslims of today count on. I see quite a case for spreading Islam by sword in this chapter. Yet I know most Muslims today will declare Islam a religion of peace and that only extremists try to spread it by force. Indeed we wouldn't dare call Muhammad "extreme" as he was the ideal Muslim, the example for future generations yet this sura which bears his name conveys the spread-by-fighting method. Granted I'm simply reading the chapter and don't know all the background information, but if Islam is for all time and I were just the average nonMuslim off the street curious to see what Muslims believe I'd take sura 47 as one that is rather harsh on anyone who disbelieves.
I know many in the past have wrongly tried to spread "Christianity" by the sword. I say Christianity in quotes because how does one spread Christ's message by sword and it still remain Christ's message? While Jesus does make reference to not bringing peace, but a sword as I discussed here in this post on Jesus' Divisive Sword, most followers of Christ agree that his message was of loving and serving others, even our enemies. In fact this is what makes Jesus' message so different from Muhammad's. Most followers of Jesus will try to take to heart - or aspire to - Paul's words in his letter to the Romans.
17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"says the Lord. 20On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
See there that quote about vengeance ... it is God's to repay. This is why we can relax as we trust in God to rectify situations and not seek to avenge ourselves.
This sura speaks of the importance of obeying God and Muhammad. The two go hand in hand as I suppose for Muslims one cannot obey God unless she also obeys the prophet of Islam. Sadly, his message differs quite a bit from Jesus' message. I've never seen justification in Jesus' message to spread his teachings by fighting others. This is why those who say they are fighting for Christ are so shameful and wrong! Uh, how exactly does one spread a message of "loving your enemies" by sword? I say people are free to choose whatever they want. God will settle things in His own time, like Judgment Day. We can share our faiths with others, but never try to force the message by threatening "you convert or else" as we brandish our swords.
And if these verses were just for one time, I still don't really like the idea of spreading a religion by sword. I don't like that about any group willing to kill others who won't convert to their faith.
Here are the verses I noted from this chapter.
4. So, when you clash with the unbelievers, smite their necks until you overpower them, then hold them in bondage. Then either free them graciously or after taking a ransom, until war shall have come to end. If God had pleased He could have punished them (Himself), but He wills to test some of you through some others. He will not allow the deeds of those who are killed in the cause of God to go waste.
5. He will show them the way, and better their state, 6. And will admit them into gardens with which he has acquainted them. 7. O you who believe, if you help (in the cause of) God He will surely come to your aid, and firmly plant your feet. 8. As for the unbelievers, they will suffer misfortunes, and their deeds will be rendered ineffective.
I see in verse 4 where God "wills to test some of you through some others." Does this also hold true to Muslim lands who are currently being "tested" by others such as the Palestinians who have suffered quite a lot under the oppressive Zionists? So is this merely something God has allowed as a test for the Palestinians? And the same for Iraqi Muslims who have been suffering for many years now. And when God tests us this way is it OK to fight the testing or do we endure it until His will is accomplished in our lives?
I see in the last part of verse 4 through verse 6 what I call the Martyrs' Creed. I have heard of families who seem overjoyed when their children are killed fighting so they will be considered martyrs. And why not when instant paradise with 72 virgins is promised! If I had a choice between instant heaven vs. waiting around for Judgment Day while lying in a grave to see if I MIGHT make it in, I'd want to be a martyr as well!
And verse 7 ... is this one for people now as well? Because in my opinion, it doesn't seem as if God has come to the aid of the Palestinians. Maybe this is a future promise for them? As they endure their testing from God (vs. 4) they will later be given aid from Him? Is this why most Muslims only given token aid to Gaza? They speak of it on blogs and such, but nothing much is actually done for them despite their numbers being bigger than most countries!
35. So do not become weak-kneed and sue for peace, for you will have the upper hand as God is with you and will not overlook your deeds.
Yeah, we all know peace is something only weak-kneed people can handle. Is this why the Muslim world is often a constant pot of turmoil?
Friday, January 1, 2010
Broke My New Year's Resolution Already!
Happy New Year and all that good stuff! Hope 01.01.10 has been a good one for ya. Mine started a bit rough, but ended up pretty well, thankfully. I cleaned toilets and vacuumed the house and got a lot of stuff done for my workplace that needs doing in January. Aaaaaaaaand I watched some of the Florida State football game (that's American football with the brown ball, helmets, tackles) and was happy to see them win. This was their eighty-year-old coach's last game and I wanted to see Bobby Bowden go out with a win. So, yay for beating the West Virginia Mountaineers!
Since it's supposed to get bone-chillingly cold here for the next week, I decided today I needed to walk outdoors and get some fresh air, bask in the sunshine and just enjoy the mid-forties temperature. And while doing so I was looking skyward and noticed a hawk gliding in the breeze so majestically. I kept watching it as I walked and the thought came to mind of "the Wild Goose."
Yeah, yeah, yeah, well, this is a hawk, not a goose. Plus I said I wasn't going to read books that encourage me to chase the Wild Goose this year. I even told Andrew that a few weeks ago and reiterated it on my blog just days ago! I get frustrated when I read them with high hopes and then settle back into my ordinary, purposeless life.
Here's what I wrote:
2. Did you keep your new years’ resolutions, and will you make more for next year?
I didn't make any resolutions really. I do recall now that I wanted to live by faith, not fear, and I think I did better than some years, PTL! Next year...I won't read any books that urge me to chase the Wild Goose.
And what do you know! I made ONE resolution I thought I'd have little trouble keeping. Yet . . .
I already broke it.
*ahem*
Didn't even last a day!
Wellllllllllllllll, when I saw that majestic bird, I was reminded of the Wild Goose and then, then I remembered, "Ah, it's about the Holy Spirit" and what do you know? just yesterday I said I would soon write about the Holy Spirit here.
Hmmm
Have you ever just felt lead to read something or watch or do something? Like you get an impression that you should just do it despite what resolution you made?
The other resolution I made to myself today is to see how long I can avoid dwelling on or mentioning the "S" word. I'm sure Andrew is ready for me to move on so I think I'll see how many days I can go without talking about it.
Re: the Wild Goose -- If you are wondering what I'm talking about and are interested, here are posts I wrote last year when I read about the Wild Goose. They are in reverse order, but if you click HERE and then read from the bottom up, you will get the idea. I just felt I needed to read it again and why not start on the first day of the new year? Resolutions are made for breaking, right? It's part of American tradition. :-)
---------------------------------------------------
Notes to ponder from chapters 1 & 2
Have I settled for inverted Christianity? Instead of following the Spirit have I "invited" him to follow me? Instead of serving God's purposes have I demanded God serve mine? Result of this "inverted relationship with God is not just a self-absorbed spirituality that leaves us feeling empty, it's also the difference between spiritual boredom and spiritual adventure." (pg. 4)
"Jesus speaks to that deep-seated longing for adventure by challenging us to come out of the cage. But coming out of the cage means giving up the very thing in which we find our security and identity outside of Christ." For the rich young ruler this cage was financial security. (pg. 9)
"When God puts a passion in your heart ... that God-ordained passion becomes your responsibility." (pg. 20)
What kind of God-ordained passion has been conceived in your spirit? (pg. 25)
Reminders:
Christianity was never intended to a noun. It should be an action verb. Think: Book of Acts (not Thoughts or Sayings or Theories) (pg. 29)
Most often in the Bible, signs follow faith (pg. 32). If you have signs first, faith isn't really required.
Pray for the favor of God (pg. 34)
When you can't figure out how to get from where you are to where you want to be, "be the best cupbearer you can be." (Nehemiah -- pg. 37)
Since it's supposed to get bone-chillingly cold here for the next week, I decided today I needed to walk outdoors and get some fresh air, bask in the sunshine and just enjoy the mid-forties temperature. And while doing so I was looking skyward and noticed a hawk gliding in the breeze so majestically. I kept watching it as I walked and the thought came to mind of "the Wild Goose."
Yeah, yeah, yeah, well, this is a hawk, not a goose. Plus I said I wasn't going to read books that encourage me to chase the Wild Goose this year. I even told Andrew that a few weeks ago and reiterated it on my blog just days ago! I get frustrated when I read them with high hopes and then settle back into my ordinary, purposeless life.
Here's what I wrote:
2. Did you keep your new years’ resolutions, and will you make more for next year?
I didn't make any resolutions really. I do recall now that I wanted to live by faith, not fear, and I think I did better than some years, PTL! Next year...I won't read any books that urge me to chase the Wild Goose.
And what do you know! I made ONE resolution I thought I'd have little trouble keeping. Yet . . .
I already broke it.
*ahem*
Didn't even last a day!
Wellllllllllllllll, when I saw that majestic bird, I was reminded of the Wild Goose and then, then I remembered, "Ah, it's about the Holy Spirit" and what do you know? just yesterday I said I would soon write about the Holy Spirit here.
Hmmm
Have you ever just felt lead to read something or watch or do something? Like you get an impression that you should just do it despite what resolution you made?
The other resolution I made to myself today is to see how long I can avoid dwelling on or mentioning the "S" word. I'm sure Andrew is ready for me to move on so I think I'll see how many days I can go without talking about it.
Re: the Wild Goose -- If you are wondering what I'm talking about and are interested, here are posts I wrote last year when I read about the Wild Goose. They are in reverse order, but if you click HERE and then read from the bottom up, you will get the idea. I just felt I needed to read it again and why not start on the first day of the new year? Resolutions are made for breaking, right? It's part of American tradition. :-)
---------------------------------------------------
Notes to ponder from chapters 1 & 2
Have I settled for inverted Christianity? Instead of following the Spirit have I "invited" him to follow me? Instead of serving God's purposes have I demanded God serve mine? Result of this "inverted relationship with God is not just a self-absorbed spirituality that leaves us feeling empty, it's also the difference between spiritual boredom and spiritual adventure." (pg. 4)
"Jesus speaks to that deep-seated longing for adventure by challenging us to come out of the cage. But coming out of the cage means giving up the very thing in which we find our security and identity outside of Christ." For the rich young ruler this cage was financial security. (pg. 9)
"When God puts a passion in your heart ... that God-ordained passion becomes your responsibility." (pg. 20)
What kind of God-ordained passion has been conceived in your spirit? (pg. 25)
Reminders:
Christianity was never intended to a noun. It should be an action verb. Think: Book of Acts (not Thoughts or Sayings or Theories) (pg. 29)
Most often in the Bible, signs follow faith (pg. 32). If you have signs first, faith isn't really required.
Pray for the favor of God (pg. 34)
When you can't figure out how to get from where you are to where you want to be, "be the best cupbearer you can be." (Nehemiah -- pg. 37)
Monday, September 12, 2011
Thoughts on Pagans, Christians, Constantine, Julian, Polytheism and Monotheism
For some reason I just can't get into the writing mood enough to make sense of this post. OK, maybe I got the writing part down, but the editing suffers.
Yet I wanted to record a few things from God Against The Gods by Jonathan Kirsch that I found interesting. Overall I really enjoyed the book. The chapters on Constantine and Julian were good. I know I've read some about them in the past, but it's been awhile so reading their stories - from this author's perspective and from my grown-up one (ha) - was good for me. Kirsch asked if Constantine were really a Christian noting how he was labeled "the Great" in Catholic tradition and "St. Constantine" for the Orthodox. Perhaps Kirsch recognized Constantine didn't seem all that devoted to the faith he claimed to fight for. He wasn't even baptized until he was close to dying. Maybe he wanted to commit all the sins he could in life before taking this crucial step because during his life as a so-called "Christian emperor," I surely wouldn't say by his fruits that I knew he was a follower of Jesus. He had his own son killed for goodness sake! I even went back and read where the Bible teaches
10By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. (I John 3)
So does this mean if you kill your own son, you are not a child of God?
After reading all this about Constantine, I made the observation on Facebook:
Other bits from the book that made it on Facebook as well as other notes of interest.
"'Paganism' to the pagan never existed, ... It is not far from the truth to say that before Christianity invented it, there was no Roman religion, but only worship, expressed in a hundred-and-one different ways." -- John Holland Smith in The Death of Classical Paganism (Kirsch quoted from this guy on pg. 9)
The author shares that paganus is really just a villager and in Roman military terms it differentiated the civilian from the soldier. Christian "rigorists" ready to be soldiers for the One True God "characterized anyone who refused to take up arms...as a civilian, a slacker, a 'paganus.'" Interestingly Christians were called "atheists" because they were against most of the gods, goddesses and godlings (as this author puts it) except the One True God.
This next bit was wild because the author talks about the fight between Christians because of the wording of Jesus being of similar substance to God vs. the same substance as God. He said in Greek the only difference in the two (similar and same) was an iota. Kirsch writes,
"The question of whether God and Jesus were made of the same stuff or different stuff was and is ultimately unanswerable - indeed, that was what church authorities meant when they characterized the Trinity as a mystery - but that did not stop ordinary men and women throughout the Christian community from literally brawling with one another over an iota." (pg. 161)
Charming, no? Seriously I wonder sometimes what God thinks of such things. Does He watch and shake His head at how we treat one another? Especially those of us who say we know and follow and serve and submit to Him.
"At the heart of polytheism is an open-minded and easygoing approach to religious belief and practice, a willingness to entertain the idea that there are many gods and many ways to worship them. At the heart of monotheism, by contrast, is the sure conviction that only a single god exists, a tendency to regard one's own rituals and practices as the only proper way to worship the one true god." (pg. 2)
The heart of polytheism sounds somewhat like Universalism, doesn't it? Actually the author ends the book claiming western countries with religious liberty and cultural diversity are honoring pagan values.
"Contrary to what we have been encouraged to believe by the teachings of monotheism, the phrase 'pagan morality' is not a contradiction in terms. The pagans may have been guilty of hypocrisy, praising virginity and fidelity while indulging in sexual adventures of various kinds, but they were no more hypocritical than worshippers of the Only True God who have shown themselves to be equally capable of failing to practice what they preach." (pg. 59)
I just thought this was ouch-worthy. Too bad it's true too often concerning us hypocritical believers.
"No wild beasts are so hostile to mankind as are most of the Christians in their savagery toward one another." - Ammianus (pg. 211)
It seems Christianity the Religion lost its Jesus roots a long, long time ago. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus or any of the apostles tell us to be unkind to others. Instead Jesus tells us to love our enemies. So if your fellow Christian is an enemy, love him. And for those who believe Paul invented Christianity, he says pretty much the same thing in his letter to the Romans (see chapter 12 here). These people of the Roman empire taking up arms for Jesus are just in error. And killing fellow believers? Wow.
Again, no wonder Julian decided to serve other gods.
Though Julian didn't have much use for Christianity, the author claims he "admired and envied the superior organizational skills that the Christians brought to bear in setting up and running their churches." (He liked organized religion...which I find in contrast to more and more people today who want to find God in their own ways.) He decided to copy them and "invented" a "pagan 'church' with its own all-encompassing theology and its own unified clerical hierarchy...He established a unified pagan priesthood. ... He encouraged the Hellenes, the term he used to describe what Christians called 'pagans,' to follow the Christian example in both chastity and philanthropy. Pagan priests were to avoid the excesses of the tavern, the distractions of the theatre and the seductions of erotic literature, and they must shun the company of actors, jockeys and dancers. He even prescribed a set of dietary laws that he extracted from the cult of the Great Mother - root vegetables, pomegranates and pork were forbidden, and fish was to be eaten only when prescribed." Additionally he made all the gods and goddesses subservient to the "the most high god whom Constantine had once worshipped, the solar deity variously called Apollo, Sol Invictus and King Helios." (pg. 255)
I thought the dietary restriction part was fascinating! Bye bye, morning glass of carrot juice! And does this mean french fries were forbidden, too? Ah!
To really get back at the Christians, Julian decided to allow the Jews (whom the Christians now regarded as their worst enemies) to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem. Although the Jews were monotheists and Julian not, he saw the commonalities between the Hellenes and Jews. "'We have all else in common - temples, sacred precincts, altars for sacrifice, and purifications,...in all of which we differ not at all from one another." (pg. 260)
A series of natural disasters coupled with a rising threat from Persia got in the way of this Spite the Christians rebuilding project.
This quote was at the beginning of one of the later chapters. Made me of think of morality police who make people keep outward rules - for God's sake of course!
"What should be said of us, who are forced to live piously, not by devotion but by terror?" - Maximus of Turin (pg. 269)
Your thoughts on any of this? I'd love to hear 'em!
Yet I wanted to record a few things from God Against The Gods by Jonathan Kirsch that I found interesting. Overall I really enjoyed the book. The chapters on Constantine and Julian were good. I know I've read some about them in the past, but it's been awhile so reading their stories - from this author's perspective and from my grown-up one (ha) - was good for me. Kirsch asked if Constantine were really a Christian noting how he was labeled "the Great" in Catholic tradition and "St. Constantine" for the Orthodox. Perhaps Kirsch recognized Constantine didn't seem all that devoted to the faith he claimed to fight for. He wasn't even baptized until he was close to dying. Maybe he wanted to commit all the sins he could in life before taking this crucial step because during his life as a so-called "Christian emperor," I surely wouldn't say by his fruits that I knew he was a follower of Jesus. He had his own son killed for goodness sake! I even went back and read where the Bible teaches
10By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. (I John 3)
So does this mean if you kill your own son, you are not a child of God?
After reading all this about Constantine, I made the observation on Facebook:
If my only examples of Christians were the people Julian saw, I think I'd be "apostate" too. Whew!
Yes, I sometimes express my thoughts on books on my Facebook statuses. Just so you know.Other bits from the book that made it on Facebook as well as other notes of interest.
"'Paganism' to the pagan never existed, ... It is not far from the truth to say that before Christianity invented it, there was no Roman religion, but only worship, expressed in a hundred-and-one different ways." -- John Holland Smith in The Death of Classical Paganism (Kirsch quoted from this guy on pg. 9)
The author shares that paganus is really just a villager and in Roman military terms it differentiated the civilian from the soldier. Christian "rigorists" ready to be soldiers for the One True God "characterized anyone who refused to take up arms...as a civilian, a slacker, a 'paganus.'" Interestingly Christians were called "atheists" because they were against most of the gods, goddesses and godlings (as this author puts it) except the One True God.
This next bit was wild because the author talks about the fight between Christians because of the wording of Jesus being of similar substance to God vs. the same substance as God. He said in Greek the only difference in the two (similar and same) was an iota. Kirsch writes,
"The question of whether God and Jesus were made of the same stuff or different stuff was and is ultimately unanswerable - indeed, that was what church authorities meant when they characterized the Trinity as a mystery - but that did not stop ordinary men and women throughout the Christian community from literally brawling with one another over an iota." (pg. 161)
Charming, no? Seriously I wonder sometimes what God thinks of such things. Does He watch and shake His head at how we treat one another? Especially those of us who say we know and follow and serve and submit to Him.
"At the heart of polytheism is an open-minded and easygoing approach to religious belief and practice, a willingness to entertain the idea that there are many gods and many ways to worship them. At the heart of monotheism, by contrast, is the sure conviction that only a single god exists, a tendency to regard one's own rituals and practices as the only proper way to worship the one true god." (pg. 2)
The heart of polytheism sounds somewhat like Universalism, doesn't it? Actually the author ends the book claiming western countries with religious liberty and cultural diversity are honoring pagan values.
"Contrary to what we have been encouraged to believe by the teachings of monotheism, the phrase 'pagan morality' is not a contradiction in terms. The pagans may have been guilty of hypocrisy, praising virginity and fidelity while indulging in sexual adventures of various kinds, but they were no more hypocritical than worshippers of the Only True God who have shown themselves to be equally capable of failing to practice what they preach." (pg. 59)
I just thought this was ouch-worthy. Too bad it's true too often concerning us hypocritical believers.
"No wild beasts are so hostile to mankind as are most of the Christians in their savagery toward one another." - Ammianus (pg. 211)
It seems Christianity the Religion lost its Jesus roots a long, long time ago. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus or any of the apostles tell us to be unkind to others. Instead Jesus tells us to love our enemies. So if your fellow Christian is an enemy, love him. And for those who believe Paul invented Christianity, he says pretty much the same thing in his letter to the Romans (see chapter 12 here). These people of the Roman empire taking up arms for Jesus are just in error. And killing fellow believers? Wow.
Again, no wonder Julian decided to serve other gods.
Though Julian didn't have much use for Christianity, the author claims he "admired and envied the superior organizational skills that the Christians brought to bear in setting up and running their churches." (He liked organized religion...which I find in contrast to more and more people today who want to find God in their own ways.) He decided to copy them and "invented" a "pagan 'church' with its own all-encompassing theology and its own unified clerical hierarchy...He established a unified pagan priesthood. ... He encouraged the Hellenes, the term he used to describe what Christians called 'pagans,' to follow the Christian example in both chastity and philanthropy. Pagan priests were to avoid the excesses of the tavern, the distractions of the theatre and the seductions of erotic literature, and they must shun the company of actors, jockeys and dancers. He even prescribed a set of dietary laws that he extracted from the cult of the Great Mother - root vegetables, pomegranates and pork were forbidden, and fish was to be eaten only when prescribed." Additionally he made all the gods and goddesses subservient to the "the most high god whom Constantine had once worshipped, the solar deity variously called Apollo, Sol Invictus and King Helios." (pg. 255)
I thought the dietary restriction part was fascinating! Bye bye, morning glass of carrot juice! And does this mean french fries were forbidden, too? Ah!
To really get back at the Christians, Julian decided to allow the Jews (whom the Christians now regarded as their worst enemies) to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem. Although the Jews were monotheists and Julian not, he saw the commonalities between the Hellenes and Jews. "'We have all else in common - temples, sacred precincts, altars for sacrifice, and purifications,...in all of which we differ not at all from one another." (pg. 260)
A series of natural disasters coupled with a rising threat from Persia got in the way of this Spite the Christians rebuilding project.
This quote was at the beginning of one of the later chapters. Made me of think of morality police who make people keep outward rules - for God's sake of course!
"What should be said of us, who are forced to live piously, not by devotion but by terror?" - Maximus of Turin (pg. 269)
Your thoughts on any of this? I'd love to hear 'em!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)