One of our local news people posts a lot about his family on Facebook. I've been following Chad since before he and Meredith married, and since then they have added two sweet girls, Carson Parry who is 5 and Pearl Monroe who is 3. He frequently posts cute videos and pictures of his family which I enjoy
.
Well, this morning I looked at Facebook and was shocked to see that little Roe Roe was diagnosed with leukemia last week! Chad posted a very faith-filled message and pictures.
His message begins:
"We all will have storms in life. It’s not “if” but “when” we will
have them. This is the storm of this season and we know God has this.
Our beautiful, spunky Pearl Monroe has leukemia. After a few doctor
visits for aches and pains she was diagnosed last week and started
treatments immediately.
It’s been a whirlwind the past few
days with surgery, medicine and getting use to our new normal. The GOOD
NEWS, — this leukemia is highly curable but it’s going to take several
years of fighting."
Take a look at the rest of his message if you want, but more importantly, please pray for this family if God brings them to your mind. They have strong faith in God, but this is hard for them especially on the little one having to undergo treatment.
Also, the family is expecting a little boy in the spring so I'm sure it's extra-hard on Mama Meredith at this time.
*sniff*
Showing posts with label faith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label faith. Show all posts
Sunday, November 24, 2019
Friday, July 26, 2019
On loving the squad and DJT
After seeing yet another Facebook meme against "the squad" posted by an acquaintance, I was thinking if I were brave I would post something like, "Yeah, it's really too bad Jesus told us to love our enemies, huh? That Jesus is way out-of-touch and clueless about life and how tough it is for us to love these political folks we can't stand."
But then I thought about my own great dislike and disgust of a certain president, and figured I should clean up my own act first (i.e., love my enemy, pray for him, etc., etc.)
*sigh*
I really have tried to pray for him a time or two. And I even asked God to save his soul, and for those who claim to follow Christ to...follow Christ and not DJT.
Just putting it out there. I struggle with loving my enemy. OK, I'm off to read.
But then I thought about my own great dislike and disgust of a certain president, and figured I should clean up my own act first (i.e., love my enemy, pray for him, etc., etc.)
*sigh*
I really have tried to pray for him a time or two. And I even asked God to save his soul, and for those who claim to follow Christ to...follow Christ and not DJT.
Just putting it out there. I struggle with loving my enemy. OK, I'm off to read.
Matthew 5:43-48 New International Version (NIV)
Love for Enemies
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.Sunday, June 2, 2019
The Death and Funeral of Rachel Held Evans
Last month I was shocked to read of Rachel Held Evans's death as her body succumbed to a terrible reaction to the flu plus a UTI plus medication. I remember reading in mid-April that she'd been hospitalized for treatment, and later her husband's updates about the medically-induced coma due to brain seizures. I remember he posted that they were going to try bringing her out of the coma, and had hopes that she'd be OK eventually.
Instead God took her home during the early hours of May 4th. Andrew and I were getting ready to go somewhere together that Saturday around noon, and I glanced at my phone while waiting for him. I was stunned at the headlines I read about her death at age 37!
I don't remember exactly why and when I came to know of Rachel Held Evans, but I have read and own two of her books. (The others I put on my Amazon Wishlist after her death.)
In May 2013, I recorded:
Evolving in Monkey Town: How a Girl Who Knew All the Answers Learned to Ask the Questions by Rachel Held Evans -- If you think a twenty seven year old should never write a memoir, you'd probably not enjoy this, but I read Rachel's other book last year and loved it. This book tells her spiritual journey of how she went from being a fundamentalist-type evangelical (one who knew all the answers) to someone who questioned her faith, and came to different conclusions. I really enjoyed this book especially when she talked about pond-scum theology. I could relate to many of her thoughts.
(this book has been re-titled since I bought it)
I remember Rachel's disclaimer about her 27-year-old self writing a memoir, but now that she's gone just ten years later ... well, I'm not sure how to feel about that. Clearly, I read the book and liked it. I want to read it again now.
A few months earlier, I recorded this about Rachel's definition of biblical womanhood after reading her first book (mentioned in this post).
All that so say, her funeral was just held yesterday. I'd hope to watch it, but we took a day trip to the mountains so I looked for the link and saw I could watch it today. Yay.
Here is the video, and the order of service and liturgy. The PDF also gives the speakers' and singers' names. I didn't watch every minute of her funeral (it's pretty long), but I listened to Rachel's sister's eulogy if not her song to Rachel, and I enjoyed The Rev. Nadia Bolz-Weber's sermon which started around the 50 minute mark. The Communion hymns were delightful to this Baptist girl's heart! And I loved the Benediction (which you can read at the above link, or listen to on the video.)
This was the beginning part of the PDF. It was a beautiful service!
Rachel Grace Held Evans
REQUIEM EUCHARIST
Saturday, June 1st, 2019
The liturgy for the dead is an Easter liturgy. It finds all its meaning in the resurrection. Because Jesus was raised from the dead, we too shall be raised.The liturgy, therefore, is characterized by joy, in the certainty that “neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
This joy, however, does not make human grief un-Christian. The very love we have for each other in Christ brings deep sorrow when we are parted by death. Jesus himself wept at the grave of his friend. So while we rejoice that one we love has entered into the nearer presence of our Lord, we sorrow with those who mourn.
The communion table is open to everyone without a single exception. You are invited to come forward and receive the bread and (non-alcoholic) juice, which, for many, is the body and blood of Christ. If you choose not to commune, you may remain seated or come forward with your arms crossed to receive a blessing. Ask your communion server for the gluten-free option, if needed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion
I remember reading this was the ending of Rachel's final post on her blog. From March 6, 2019
Pray for Rachel's husband, Dan, their two young children (she left behind a 3 year old son, and a little girl not quite one), her parents and sister, and many family and friends who knew her personally, and will miss her incredibly.
Instead God took her home during the early hours of May 4th. Andrew and I were getting ready to go somewhere together that Saturday around noon, and I glanced at my phone while waiting for him. I was stunned at the headlines I read about her death at age 37!
I don't remember exactly why and when I came to know of Rachel Held Evans, but I have read and own two of her books. (The others I put on my Amazon Wishlist after her death.)
In May 2013, I recorded:
Evolving in Monkey Town: How a Girl Who Knew All the Answers Learned to Ask the Questions by Rachel Held Evans -- If you think a twenty seven year old should never write a memoir, you'd probably not enjoy this, but I read Rachel's other book last year and loved it. This book tells her spiritual journey of how she went from being a fundamentalist-type evangelical (one who knew all the answers) to someone who questioned her faith, and came to different conclusions. I really enjoyed this book especially when she talked about pond-scum theology. I could relate to many of her thoughts.
(this book has been re-titled since I bought it)
I remember Rachel's disclaimer about her 27-year-old self writing a memoir, but now that she's gone just ten years later ... well, I'm not sure how to feel about that. Clearly, I read the book and liked it. I want to read it again now.
A few months earlier, I recorded this about Rachel's definition of biblical womanhood after reading her first book (mentioned in this post).
All that so say, her funeral was just held yesterday. I'd hope to watch it, but we took a day trip to the mountains so I looked for the link and saw I could watch it today. Yay.
Here is the video, and the order of service and liturgy. The PDF also gives the speakers' and singers' names. I didn't watch every minute of her funeral (it's pretty long), but I listened to Rachel's sister's eulogy if not her song to Rachel, and I enjoyed The Rev. Nadia Bolz-Weber's sermon which started around the 50 minute mark. The Communion hymns were delightful to this Baptist girl's heart! And I loved the Benediction (which you can read at the above link, or listen to on the video.)
This was the beginning part of the PDF. It was a beautiful service!
Rachel Grace Held Evans
REQUIEM EUCHARIST
Saturday, June 1st, 2019
The liturgy for the dead is an Easter liturgy. It finds all its meaning in the resurrection. Because Jesus was raised from the dead, we too shall be raised.The liturgy, therefore, is characterized by joy, in the certainty that “neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
This joy, however, does not make human grief un-Christian. The very love we have for each other in Christ brings deep sorrow when we are parted by death. Jesus himself wept at the grave of his friend. So while we rejoice that one we love has entered into the nearer presence of our Lord, we sorrow with those who mourn.
The communion table is open to everyone without a single exception. You are invited to come forward and receive the bread and (non-alcoholic) juice, which, for many, is the body and blood of Christ. If you choose not to commune, you may remain seated or come forward with your arms crossed to receive a blessing. Ask your communion server for the gluten-free option, if needed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion
I remember reading this was the ending of Rachel's final post on her blog. From March 6, 2019
It strikes me today that the liturgy of Ash Wednesday teaches something that nearly everyone can agree on. Whether you are part of a church or not, whether you believe today or your doubt, whether you are a Christian or an atheist or an agnostic or a so-called “none” (whose faith experiences far transcend the limits of that label) you know this truth deep in your bones: “Remember that you are dust and to dust you will return.”Death is a part of life.My prayer for you this season is that you make time to celebrate that reality, and to grieve that reality, and that you will know you are not alone.Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.
-- Rachel Held Evans.
Pray for Rachel's husband, Dan, their two young children (she left behind a 3 year old son, and a little girl not quite one), her parents and sister, and many family and friends who knew her personally, and will miss her incredibly.
Saturday, February 27, 2016
"God Can Take It"
One last bit from the book I've written about the last couple of days.
I enjoyed this section under "God Can Take It." I couldn't help but think of an atheist friend whom I've never met, but we've been blogger, and now Facebook friends, for several years. I know bits and pieces about her past so, while she sometimes posts vile things about God and my beliefs in Jesus - some things that make me cringe a little because they are blasphemous, I try to "listen" to her suffering heart, remembering from where she comes, and pray instead that Love will one day reach her and heal her.
Speaking of interpreting the message of Job after "suffering on the scale of the Holocaust," the author says about the Book of Job, "We cannot read into it reassurances that things will work out for us in the end if we just trust God, for things do not always work out. Interpretations of Job that do no more than confirm the absolute wonderfulness of God simply do not speak to the pain and suffering of real people.
... Those of us who choose to believe in a benevolent and powerful God, despite the suffering that we see all around us,...cannot use God, or our belief in God, to dismiss other people's pain. Sometimes, this means listening to things that make us uncomfortable or challenge our beliefs. It means allowing people to speak ill of things that we think well of - including (and perhaps especially) ourselves. And it means listening compassionately to those who criticize, contradict, or seek justice from God or from the human institutions that claim to represent Him. God can take care of Himself; our responsibility is to take care of each other.
To meet our obligations to our fellow human beings, we need not believe that God is lacking in either power or goodness. We just need to understand that He does not require our assistance in dealing with challenges to His authority. We do not have to protect God from criticisms, complaints, and petitions...He can take criticism. He can handle complaints. And He has no need to fear when human beings ask Him to do things differently. Too many people - often from positions of ecclesiastical authority - spend their time trying to make sure that God's feelings do not get hurt. This is how we become the Comforters [used in this book to refer to Job's friends] when we should be listening - really listening with our hearts - to the suffering Job."
An excerpt from page 134 of Re-reading Job:Understanding the Ancient World's Greatest Poem by Michael Austin
I enjoyed this section under "God Can Take It." I couldn't help but think of an atheist friend whom I've never met, but we've been blogger, and now Facebook friends, for several years. I know bits and pieces about her past so, while she sometimes posts vile things about God and my beliefs in Jesus - some things that make me cringe a little because they are blasphemous, I try to "listen" to her suffering heart, remembering from where she comes, and pray instead that Love will one day reach her and heal her.
Speaking of interpreting the message of Job after "suffering on the scale of the Holocaust," the author says about the Book of Job, "We cannot read into it reassurances that things will work out for us in the end if we just trust God, for things do not always work out. Interpretations of Job that do no more than confirm the absolute wonderfulness of God simply do not speak to the pain and suffering of real people.
... Those of us who choose to believe in a benevolent and powerful God, despite the suffering that we see all around us,...cannot use God, or our belief in God, to dismiss other people's pain. Sometimes, this means listening to things that make us uncomfortable or challenge our beliefs. It means allowing people to speak ill of things that we think well of - including (and perhaps especially) ourselves. And it means listening compassionately to those who criticize, contradict, or seek justice from God or from the human institutions that claim to represent Him. God can take care of Himself; our responsibility is to take care of each other.
To meet our obligations to our fellow human beings, we need not believe that God is lacking in either power or goodness. We just need to understand that He does not require our assistance in dealing with challenges to His authority. We do not have to protect God from criticisms, complaints, and petitions...He can take criticism. He can handle complaints. And He has no need to fear when human beings ask Him to do things differently. Too many people - often from positions of ecclesiastical authority - spend their time trying to make sure that God's feelings do not get hurt. This is how we become the Comforters [used in this book to refer to Job's friends] when we should be listening - really listening with our hearts - to the suffering Job."
An excerpt from page 134 of Re-reading Job:Understanding the Ancient World's Greatest Poem by Michael Austin
Friday, January 1, 2016
New Year's Resolution
I think I want to make this my resolution for 2016...
Ephesians 4
29 Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. 32 Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. (NIV)
or if you prefer the King James Version (the version I grew up with, and used for scripture memorization):
29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:
32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you. (emphasis mine)
Beautiful words, really.
Ephesians 4
29 Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. 32 Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. (NIV)
or if you prefer the King James Version (the version I grew up with, and used for scripture memorization):
29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:
32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you. (emphasis mine)
Beautiful words, really.
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Anxiety Help
Someone shared these on Facebook from a book she was reading. I liked them, and wanted to keep them somewhere easy to find.
Monday, May 12, 2014
Original Glory
I "liked" some Facebook page awhile back, and I read this on my news feed today.
What do you think?
"To teach a child from their earliest years that they are inherently bad and capable of all sorts of evil is to mock the divine image in which we were created, and not only provides a license for sin, but subconsciously programs people to live debased and immoral lives. Teach your children that they are the offspring of divine perfection, and that the Father, Son and Spirit smile upon them and all that they are.
Original glory trumps original sin. Original sin is Adamic mythology, but original glory is truth redeemed and revealed through Christ."
"To teach a child from their earliest years that they are inherently bad and capable of all sorts of evil is to mock the divine image in which we were created, and not only provides a license for sin, but subconsciously programs people to live debased and immoral lives. Teach your children that they are the offspring of divine perfection, and that the Father, Son and Spirit smile upon them and all that they are.
Original glory trumps original sin. Original sin is Adamic mythology, but original glory is truth redeemed and revealed through Christ."
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
December Books
Honeymoon with My Brother by Franz Wisner -- I've had this one
for awhile, but never took the time to read it. Pretty neat book. Two
brothers - one left at the altar - travel around the world and record
their experiences. I tend to enjoy these types of books and this was no
exception.
Daisy Fay and the Miracle Man by Fannie Flagg -- A fiction book I got at a book exchange. Rather cute and fun and easy for when you want something light to read.
Jesus Feminist: An Invitation to Revisit the Bible's View of Women
by Sarah Bessey -- I saw Rachel Held Evans mention this as one of her
favorite books of 2013. Since it was near Christmas, I added it to my
Amazon Wishlist and although it was out of stock when I put it on there,
it must have come back in stock 'cause I got it for Christmas. I
received seven new books for Christmas, and decided to read this one
first. It's really not at all like I thought it would be. Maybe I
thought it would be more snarky, have more fightin' words...not sure.
But I found a lady who adores Jesus, and His compassion and grace oozes
from her words! I read this book and found encouragement, hope,
purpose, love and a desire to serve others more. I found a lady who
didn't yell at all those people trying to keep her (and other women)
down, but one who loves anyway. One who seeks to follow Christ, do her
part, but allow HIM to right wrongs. I found a sense of unity that is
rare in my divisive world. What a wonderful book to finish right before
a new year. She leaves me much on which to reflect.
Daisy Fay and the Miracle Man by Fannie Flagg -- A fiction book I got at a book exchange. Rather cute and fun and easy for when you want something light to read.
Jesus, The Middle Eastern Storyteller
by Gary M. Burge -- I got this last Christmas, and had it in my
"to-be-read" pile. I picked it up before Christmas this year and
finished it today. I enjoyed reading this short book and thinking of
Jesus' parables in their cultural context. The author discusses honor
and shame in a community and how people would uphold it. He talked
about the story of the lost sheep, coin and son. He discussed extending
grace, and compassion. I may have to read this one again soon!
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Waiting
To be honest, I struggle with waiting on God. There is one issue in my life that reallllllllllllllllllly makes me angry, and I want God to fix it. Like five years ago. I've prayed about it. I've cried about it. I've railed about it. I've about given up on God about it.
And there are other areas where I no longer wait. I gave up on God ever doing anything in those areas.
So, I saw this in a church newsletter the other evening and have reread it a few times because it speaks to me concerning how I handle waiting.
-- Paul David Tripp, A Shelter in the Time of Storm
And there are other areas where I no longer wait. I gave up on God ever doing anything in those areas.
So, I saw this in a church newsletter the other evening and have reread it a few times because it speaks to me concerning how I handle waiting.
When God asks you to wait, what happens to your spiritual muscles? While you wait, do your spiritual muscles grow bigger and stronger or do they grow flaccid and atrophied? Waiting for the Lord isn't about God forgetting you, forsaking you, or being unfaithful to his promises. It's actually God giving you time to consider his glory and to grow stronger in faith. Remember, waiting isn't just about what you are hoping for at the end of the wait, but also about what you will become while you wait.
Waiting always presents me with a spiritual choice-point. Will I allow myself to question God's goodness and progressively grow weaker in faith, or will I embrace the opportunity of faith that God is giving me and build my spiritual muscles?
It's so easy to question your belief system when you are not sure what God is doing. It's so easy to give way to doubt when you are being called to wait. It's so easy to forsake good habits and to take up habits of unfaith that weaken the muscles of the heart.
-- Paul David Tripp, A Shelter in the Time of Storm
Friday, December 21, 2012
The Book of Mormon Girl
So, I just finished reading The Book of Mormon Girl by Joanna Brooks last night. I'd seen it mentioned by a few Mormon bloggers, most recently by Sarah,
so I checked my library and saw it was on the New Books shelf. I had to
return a book for Andrew so I picked it up that afternoon, and read it
within a day of finishing Rachel Held Evans' A Year of Biblical Womanhood. I
enjoyed learning about the typical Mormon childhood - or, at least, the
cultural one for many of those growing up in the western United
States. I laughed at some of her memories. The bits about church camps, and Marie
Osmond's make-up and fashion tips were especially good. Here are other
things that took my attention.
"No, no, we Mormons were taught that our works must carry us there, that our works would make us perfect enough for God to finally recognize us as worthy of His love." (pg. 63) This contrasts to my own faith where we stress the grace and mercy of God, and His reaching down to us while we were yet sinners (Romans 5:8).
One chapter is "mormons vs. born-agains" because where Joanna Brooks lived, there were apparently enough of both groups to have some conflict between them. Maybe both groups were competing for the same souls. (The born agains were the bad guys in case you were wondering.) I know my own personal experience with Mormons growing up was meeting exactly one when we were pages for the NC House in Raleigh for four days when we were sixteen. Stephanie and I ate lunch together and I remember she had a houseful of siblings all with S names. We got along well. Likely we gravitated to each other because we were not exactly like the other teens serving as pages that week. I can't recall. I just remember her name and what she looked like, and that we talked over lunch. I'm not in a place where many Mormons live - we do have an LDS church or two around so I guess they exist. I've only ever seen the missionaries riding bikes or shopping the dairy section at Walmart.
Anyway, she writes about those California born agains -- "Had they disciplined their minds for the possibility that God would ask them to take a second wife into the family in order to get to heaven?" (pg. 80)
Uh, that would be a big fat NO. Again, we don't believe God requires us to do a whole lot to get into heaven. We believe Jesus did it for us. That's why HE is the Savior. Not us. And we don't believe in heavenly marriages most especially not polygamous ones. I have enough trouble with Islamic heaven which doesn't sound like heaven to me AT ALL what with men having access to 70-some perpetual virgins according to some interpretations. (I personally love the feminist interpretations that those houris are really raisins! Haha...)
I didn't realize how important marriage is to Mormon beliefs. While I'm married, I can't help but feel sad for the many who are not. Are they doomed to lesser heavens simply because - like the apostle Paul or Jesus - they never married?
Brooks didn't mention the need for children, but I'm guessing my choice of not having children isn't a popular one in Mormon circles. (Truthfully, it's not exactly popular in evangelical circles either, but we aren't doomed for a lesser heaven for it that I'm aware of.) Sorry, but the thought of "eternal pregnancy in the company of plural pregnant wives" in order to populate "the highest realms of heaven" with "spirit children" is not my idea of heaven. (pg. 97) I really did understand more why gay marriage is such a threat to many Mormons. You can't procreate naturally with two men or two women.
Something I wondered: can Mormon women remarry if they are widowed? I see where Mormon men who lost a first wife can be sealed to a second wife for eternity as well. (pg. 87) She didn't mention women. Is heavenly polyandry OK in this case? This reminds me of the conversation Jesus had with the Sadducees about marriage at the resurrection.
Never realized Mormons had to confess to a bishop when they did certain sins.
The Mormon preoccupation with the dead is interesting if not a bit creepy with all those files. I do think it's cool that they are interested in where they came from, and trying to save their ancestors by doing things for them now. Dedicated people. For me, it's more interesting on the level that I sometimes wonder about those people who make up me. Really have you ever stopped to think how many thousands of people contributed to who you are today?
I am glad I married within my faith. I'm glad it works for Joanna Brooks and her husband, but it would be difficult for me, I think, to have a husband who is allergic to Jesus since Jesus is so central to my faith. She said she doesn't even celebrate Christmas much any more.
I could never align myself with a church or any organization that keeps files on dissenters with the threat of excommunication and so forth. I like my freedom too much, and suppose I'm not real big on accountability. God keeping a book about my life is one thing. A group of church leaders is quite another. I find God often is much more merciful than we humans are to one another.
Brooks talked about Mormon defensiveness. Probably because of posts like this. I really don't mean it in an evil born-again way. I was just pointing out things that took my attention as one outside the faith. Overall it was nice reading about growing up Mormon and how her path has differed from her more orthodox family and friends.
One last thing...I had to smile at the couple of recipes shared in the book as they are two I'm very familiar with. I like seeing what we have in common. Most Mormons I've met - which is online usually - seem like really, really wonderful people if not a bit cliquish. But I understand better why they are this way, and I'm thankful for the ones who let me butt in with my comments on their blogs and take the time to answer my questions. To you: thanks much!
"No, no, we Mormons were taught that our works must carry us there, that our works would make us perfect enough for God to finally recognize us as worthy of His love." (pg. 63) This contrasts to my own faith where we stress the grace and mercy of God, and His reaching down to us while we were yet sinners (Romans 5:8).
One chapter is "mormons vs. born-agains" because where Joanna Brooks lived, there were apparently enough of both groups to have some conflict between them. Maybe both groups were competing for the same souls. (The born agains were the bad guys in case you were wondering.) I know my own personal experience with Mormons growing up was meeting exactly one when we were pages for the NC House in Raleigh for four days when we were sixteen. Stephanie and I ate lunch together and I remember she had a houseful of siblings all with S names. We got along well. Likely we gravitated to each other because we were not exactly like the other teens serving as pages that week. I can't recall. I just remember her name and what she looked like, and that we talked over lunch. I'm not in a place where many Mormons live - we do have an LDS church or two around so I guess they exist. I've only ever seen the missionaries riding bikes or shopping the dairy section at Walmart.
Anyway, she writes about those California born agains -- "Had they disciplined their minds for the possibility that God would ask them to take a second wife into the family in order to get to heaven?" (pg. 80)
Uh, that would be a big fat NO. Again, we don't believe God requires us to do a whole lot to get into heaven. We believe Jesus did it for us. That's why HE is the Savior. Not us. And we don't believe in heavenly marriages most especially not polygamous ones. I have enough trouble with Islamic heaven which doesn't sound like heaven to me AT ALL what with men having access to 70-some perpetual virgins according to some interpretations. (I personally love the feminist interpretations that those houris are really raisins! Haha...)
I didn't realize how important marriage is to Mormon beliefs. While I'm married, I can't help but feel sad for the many who are not. Are they doomed to lesser heavens simply because - like the apostle Paul or Jesus - they never married?
Brooks didn't mention the need for children, but I'm guessing my choice of not having children isn't a popular one in Mormon circles. (Truthfully, it's not exactly popular in evangelical circles either, but we aren't doomed for a lesser heaven for it that I'm aware of.) Sorry, but the thought of "eternal pregnancy in the company of plural pregnant wives" in order to populate "the highest realms of heaven" with "spirit children" is not my idea of heaven. (pg. 97) I really did understand more why gay marriage is such a threat to many Mormons. You can't procreate naturally with two men or two women.
Something I wondered: can Mormon women remarry if they are widowed? I see where Mormon men who lost a first wife can be sealed to a second wife for eternity as well. (pg. 87) She didn't mention women. Is heavenly polyandry OK in this case? This reminds me of the conversation Jesus had with the Sadducees about marriage at the resurrection.
Never realized Mormons had to confess to a bishop when they did certain sins.
The Mormon preoccupation with the dead is interesting if not a bit creepy with all those files. I do think it's cool that they are interested in where they came from, and trying to save their ancestors by doing things for them now. Dedicated people. For me, it's more interesting on the level that I sometimes wonder about those people who make up me. Really have you ever stopped to think how many thousands of people contributed to who you are today?
I am glad I married within my faith. I'm glad it works for Joanna Brooks and her husband, but it would be difficult for me, I think, to have a husband who is allergic to Jesus since Jesus is so central to my faith. She said she doesn't even celebrate Christmas much any more.
I could never align myself with a church or any organization that keeps files on dissenters with the threat of excommunication and so forth. I like my freedom too much, and suppose I'm not real big on accountability. God keeping a book about my life is one thing. A group of church leaders is quite another. I find God often is much more merciful than we humans are to one another.
Brooks talked about Mormon defensiveness. Probably because of posts like this. I really don't mean it in an evil born-again way. I was just pointing out things that took my attention as one outside the faith. Overall it was nice reading about growing up Mormon and how her path has differed from her more orthodox family and friends.
One last thing...I had to smile at the couple of recipes shared in the book as they are two I'm very familiar with. I like seeing what we have in common. Most Mormons I've met - which is online usually - seem like really, really wonderful people if not a bit cliquish. But I understand better why they are this way, and I'm thankful for the ones who let me butt in with my comments on their blogs and take the time to answer my questions. To you: thanks much!
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
How do you define 'biblical womanhood'?
I love what Rachel Held Evans concluded in her book A Year of Biblical Womanhood which I received for Christmas - yay!
"The Bible does not present us with a single model for womanhood, and the notion that it contains a sort of one-size-fits-all formula for how to be a woman of faith is a myth.
Among the women praised in Scripture are warriors, widows, slaves, sister wives, apostles, teachers, concubines, queens, foreigners, prostitutes, prophets, mothers, and martyrs. What makes these women's stories leap from the page is not the fact that they all conform to some kind of universal ideal, but that, regardless of the culture or context in which they found themselves, they lived their lives with valor. They lived their lives with faith. As much as we may long for the simplicity of a single definition of 'biblical womanhood,' there is no right way to be a woman, no mold into which we must each cram ourselves - not if Deborah, Ruth, Rachel, Tamar, Vashti, Esther, Priscilla, Mary Magdelene, and Tabitha have anything to say about it.
Far too many church leaders have glossed over these stories and attempted to define womanhood by a list of rigid roles. But roles are not fixed. They are not static. Roles come and go; they shift and they change. They are relative to our culture and subject to changing circumstances. It's not our roles that define us, but our character.
A calling, on the other hand, when rooted deep in the soil of one's soul, transcends roles. And I believe that my calling, as a Christian, is the same as that of any other follower of Jesus. My calling is to love the Lord with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love my neighbor as myself. Jesus himself said that the rest of Scripture can be rendered down into these two commands. If love was Jesus' definition of 'bilbical,' then perhaps it should be mine." (pg. 295)
Thursday, July 12, 2012
The Bible as a Mirror
"Every war needs killers and they can always be found. We always put
ourselves in the skin of the victims and not of their killers - we never
put ourselves in the skin of a Nazi or Khmer Rouge. Yet between them
and us there is very little difference, no more than between the victim
and us." (from this post)
Thanks to those who took the time to comment on my last post about those yucky Bible passages. I was nodding my head at times as I read each of them. They are things I've either encountered in this book, The Human Faces of God by Thom Stark, or not so long ago in other books. It was kind of neat seeing them restated by all of you!
So what does the author suggest we do about those disturbing passages in the Bible? Instead of glossing over them, ignoring them, or cutting them out of our text, we should retain and condemn them!
His argument throughout the book is that while the Bible may be inspired by God, it is not inerrant. It argues with itself and he believes God wants us to wrestle with the text, with what is stated and then come to just solutions for our societies.
Why acknowledge these texts are there? Why not cut them out completely? Because they are there. And they shape many of our backgrounds more than we realize. He suggests the Bible is a mirror. It shows the good and bad of human nature. It shows what we are capable of. What we are capable of justifying in God's name! How many of us are appalled at radical Muslims who strap bombs to themselves and say "God is greater" right before blowing themselves up and often killing fellow Muslims? How many of us are stunned that the Crusaders and people today of their same mindset can kill others because they believe God would have it that way? And Jews who believe the land is theirs and if people are in the way they've got to go. Either they need to leave or face unpleasant consequences. All because God - the scapegoat - said so.
The Bible shows not perfect people, but imperfect prophets, kings, patriarchs and ordinary folks. Yes, even amongst the "chosen people." You want to destroy your enemies? You want to keep virgin women as your own after conquering their people? OK, write the history and say God commanded it. Simple as that.
"The Bible reflects our doubt and our mediocrity. It mirrors our best and worst possible selves. It shows us who we can be, both good and evil, and everything in between." (pg. 218)
The author quotes John Collins who states, "There is no reason in principle why a text that is shocking might not be inspired. Such a text can raise our moral consciousness by forcing us to confront the fact that immoral actions are often carried out in the name of religion ... Rather than ask whether a text is revealed (and by what criteria could we possibly decide?), it is better to ask whether a text is revelatory, whether we learn something from it about human nature or about the way the world works. A text that is neither historically reliable nor morally edifying...may be all too revelatory about human nature." (pg. 219)
You may recall this post from the American who was hosting a book club in Kosovo. I remembered her words this morning as I thought about what to write in this post.
...Is their bitterness, their fear so great that they could do to Serbs what Serbs did to them? Could soft-spoken Veton burn a Serb village because his own was burned by Serbs? Would sweet, wide-eyed Enver, who loves basketball and never misses a class, stand by and watch while atrocities were committed? Could any of these bright, kindhearted young people kill Serbs because they are Serbs?
And if I were in their shoes, what would I be capable of? Have I come to grips with the darkness in my own heart?
Thom Stark in The Human Faces of God believes God can speak to us through the texts. Whether they are passages that inspire us, make us feel the love or shock or disgust us. They mirror humanity, and show us what we are capable of doing to each other.
Feel free to share the texts that inspire or disgust you the most. What do you think of the author's idea that "their status as condemned is exactly their scriptural value"? Do you think people are capable of all sorts of evil or just the rare few? Any other thoughts?
Thanks to those who took the time to comment on my last post about those yucky Bible passages. I was nodding my head at times as I read each of them. They are things I've either encountered in this book, The Human Faces of God by Thom Stark, or not so long ago in other books. It was kind of neat seeing them restated by all of you!
So what does the author suggest we do about those disturbing passages in the Bible? Instead of glossing over them, ignoring them, or cutting them out of our text, we should retain and condemn them!
His argument throughout the book is that while the Bible may be inspired by God, it is not inerrant. It argues with itself and he believes God wants us to wrestle with the text, with what is stated and then come to just solutions for our societies.
Why acknowledge these texts are there? Why not cut them out completely? Because they are there. And they shape many of our backgrounds more than we realize. He suggests the Bible is a mirror. It shows the good and bad of human nature. It shows what we are capable of. What we are capable of justifying in God's name! How many of us are appalled at radical Muslims who strap bombs to themselves and say "God is greater" right before blowing themselves up and often killing fellow Muslims? How many of us are stunned that the Crusaders and people today of their same mindset can kill others because they believe God would have it that way? And Jews who believe the land is theirs and if people are in the way they've got to go. Either they need to leave or face unpleasant consequences. All because God - the scapegoat - said so.
The Bible shows not perfect people, but imperfect prophets, kings, patriarchs and ordinary folks. Yes, even amongst the "chosen people." You want to destroy your enemies? You want to keep virgin women as your own after conquering their people? OK, write the history and say God commanded it. Simple as that.
"The Bible reflects our doubt and our mediocrity. It mirrors our best and worst possible selves. It shows us who we can be, both good and evil, and everything in between." (pg. 218)
The author quotes John Collins who states, "There is no reason in principle why a text that is shocking might not be inspired. Such a text can raise our moral consciousness by forcing us to confront the fact that immoral actions are often carried out in the name of religion ... Rather than ask whether a text is revealed (and by what criteria could we possibly decide?), it is better to ask whether a text is revelatory, whether we learn something from it about human nature or about the way the world works. A text that is neither historically reliable nor morally edifying...may be all too revelatory about human nature." (pg. 219)
You may recall this post from the American who was hosting a book club in Kosovo. I remembered her words this morning as I thought about what to write in this post.
...Is their bitterness, their fear so great that they could do to Serbs what Serbs did to them? Could soft-spoken Veton burn a Serb village because his own was burned by Serbs? Would sweet, wide-eyed Enver, who loves basketball and never misses a class, stand by and watch while atrocities were committed? Could any of these bright, kindhearted young people kill Serbs because they are Serbs?
And if I were in their shoes, what would I be capable of? Have I come to grips with the darkness in my own heart?
Thom Stark in The Human Faces of God believes God can speak to us through the texts. Whether they are passages that inspire us, make us feel the love or shock or disgust us. They mirror humanity, and show us what we are capable of doing to each other.
Feel free to share the texts that inspire or disgust you the most. What do you think of the author's idea that "their status as condemned is exactly their scriptural value"? Do you think people are capable of all sorts of evil or just the rare few? Any other thoughts?
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Jesus on The Law and True Liberty
In Jesus Before Christianity, Albert Nolan writes:
(pg. 87)
Later the author claims Jesus was deeply concerned about Jewish liberation yet while the Zealots "wanted a mere change of government - from Roman to Jewish, Jesus wanted a change that would affect every department of life and that would reach down to the most basic assumption of Jew and Roman. Jesus wanted a qualitatively different world - the 'kingdom' of God. He would not have been satisfied with the replacing of one worldly kingdom by another worldly kingdom."
The author believes Jesus was more concerned with "reaching down to the root cause of all oppression and domination: humanity's lack of compassion. If the people of Israel were to continue to lack compassion, would the overthrowing of the Romans make Israel any more liberated than before? If the Jews continued to live off the worldly values of money, prestige, group solidarity** and power, would the Roman oppression not be replaced by an equally loveless Jewish oppression?"
(pg. 116,117)
** What is wrong with group solidarity? you may ask. The author is more concerned with solidarity with all humanity instead of dividing ourselves into tribes, nationalities, parties, sects and so forth. He believes Jesus wanted us to genuinely care for ALL of humankind and not simply our group.
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Do you believe some people want to be slaves? Or do you think the author should have rephrased that because relying on the letter of the law and allowing others to make decisions is anything but slavery to you? What do you think about the idea of Jesus' relationship to the Law? Do you agree or disagree with the author? Do you think Jesus was concerned with liberation of the Jews such as the author described or do you see things differently? Do you believe lawmakers (religious or otherwise) often make laws into "an oppressive power" so that they focus on trivial matters such as control rather than justice, mercy and love? Do you see examples of religious leaders enslaving themselves to the law or rules in order to gain some prestige in society? Do you believe some people truly fear the responsibility of being free? What do you see as the root cause of oppression and domination?
Please share any thoughts that came to mind as you read this.
(In case you wonder about all the ... in the first quote, I decided to leave out the biblical references the author provided for the sake of saving on typing.)
Jesus did not see himself as a legislator. He did not wish to abolish the Mosaic Law...in order to promulgate a new law or in order to do away with all laws. Nor did he wish to add to it or subtract from it or amend it - not one jot or tittle ... What he wanted to do was to fulfill the law - to see to it that it fulfilled the role which God intended for it, that it achieved its purpose ... A person keeps God's law only when she or he fulfills the purpose of even "the least of these commandments" ... And the purpose of the law is service, compassion, love. God wants mercy not sacrifice....
Casuistry exploited the law for its own selfish purposes, thereby destroying the purposes of the law itself. By quibbling about trivialities, "the weightier matters" or purposes of the law, namely "justice, mercy and good faith" were neglected ... The insistence upon clean and unclean foods and the washing of hands and the imposition of these customs upon other people blinded everyone to the evil intentions of people toward one another ... The corban vow was used to evade supporting one's parents, thereby destroying the very purpose of God's commandment.... The scribes had forgotten or preferred to ignore the original purpose behind most of the laws. They had made the law into an oppressive power.
The leaders and scholars of Jesus' time had first enslaved themselves to the law. This not only enhanced their prestige in society, it also gave them a sense of security. We fear the responsibility of being free. It is often easier to let others make the decisions or to rely on the letter of the law. Some people want to be slaves.
After enslaving themselves to the letter of the law, such people always go on to deny freedom to others. They will not rest until they have imposed the same oppressive burdens upon everyone.
(pg. 87)
Later the author claims Jesus was deeply concerned about Jewish liberation yet while the Zealots "wanted a mere change of government - from Roman to Jewish, Jesus wanted a change that would affect every department of life and that would reach down to the most basic assumption of Jew and Roman. Jesus wanted a qualitatively different world - the 'kingdom' of God. He would not have been satisfied with the replacing of one worldly kingdom by another worldly kingdom."
The author believes Jesus was more concerned with "reaching down to the root cause of all oppression and domination: humanity's lack of compassion. If the people of Israel were to continue to lack compassion, would the overthrowing of the Romans make Israel any more liberated than before? If the Jews continued to live off the worldly values of money, prestige, group solidarity** and power, would the Roman oppression not be replaced by an equally loveless Jewish oppression?"
(pg. 116,117)
** What is wrong with group solidarity? you may ask. The author is more concerned with solidarity with all humanity instead of dividing ourselves into tribes, nationalities, parties, sects and so forth. He believes Jesus wanted us to genuinely care for ALL of humankind and not simply our group.
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Do you believe some people want to be slaves? Or do you think the author should have rephrased that because relying on the letter of the law and allowing others to make decisions is anything but slavery to you? What do you think about the idea of Jesus' relationship to the Law? Do you agree or disagree with the author? Do you think Jesus was concerned with liberation of the Jews such as the author described or do you see things differently? Do you believe lawmakers (religious or otherwise) often make laws into "an oppressive power" so that they focus on trivial matters such as control rather than justice, mercy and love? Do you see examples of religious leaders enslaving themselves to the law or rules in order to gain some prestige in society? Do you believe some people truly fear the responsibility of being free? What do you see as the root cause of oppression and domination?
Please share any thoughts that came to mind as you read this.
(In case you wonder about all the ... in the first quote, I decided to leave out the biblical references the author provided for the sake of saving on typing.)
Sunday, January 1, 2012
'Cause they say confession is good for the soul
25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? 26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?
28 “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? 31 So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."
(words from Jesus as recorded in Matthew 6***)
Happy New Year! Can you believe a dozen years have past since the Y2K hype with folks stockpiling food and water in case something bad happened because the computerized world might not be ready for a 2 as the first digit in the date? Really, I can't quite believe how fast the years fly by. I always heard this when I was in school, but, man, back then Chemistry class seemed to drag on forever so I was like "yeah right" when I'd hear an adult say such a thing. Fast forward all these years, and I'm that adult. Grrrrreat!
So today I was reflecting and resolving a bit since it is a brand new year. I decided to go for a walk and I had this brilliant post in mind yet as I sit here hours later, I cannot recall what I wanted to say.
I did want to confess to this bad habit that I have. See, I often approach holidays with some anticipation of all my family being together. I enjoy myself, but there is this niggling thought about "who won't be here next year when Easter (or Thanksgiving or Christmas or the new year) comes?"
And I hate that. I really do. It's like this little thought bent on destroying my peace and joy. It's worry and fear tormenting me!
I want to live each day enjoying the moments, not worrying about future possibilities or probabilities. I truly want to rest in knowing God has the future laid out and I can trust Him and rest completely knowing that my life is in His hands. Yet that side of me that simply won't rest, won't trust, won't just relax and leave it all to God ... *sigh*
For those of you who don't struggle with this either because it's not your personality trait to worry or you have complete faith in God or for whatever other reason that future happenings trouble you not in the slightest, I both admire and envy you.
I was resolving today that I would trust God more. That I would dwell on His goodness and faithfulness instead of worrying about what might happen.
I want the words of my mouth and the thoughts of my heart to be pleasing to God (Psalm 19:14). Last year I was angry and bitter way too much. God has been speaking mercy and grace to me lately. Christmas morning my pastor spoke on mercy. My brother gave me a book - not from my wishlist, but one I decided to start reading first from the pile I got for Christmas. It speaks of grace. And God is speaking to me through this book. The subtitle is "No One is Beyond the Reach of a Loving God" and if you knew the details of my life you'd know how timely this message is for me. Today I was reading the pages about the Prodigal Son and was reminded anew why I adore this parable from Jesus.
 | |
| Books I got for Christmas |
OK, enough from me. How was your New Year's Eve and first day of 2012? I was with my family last night. We met at my brother's house and some watched movies while others of us played Apples to Apples and Scattergories. We were laughing like crazy. Who says alcohol is required for fun? We did just fine with our silly games! :)
Do you have any resolutions for this year? Any words of wisdom? Anything at all that you want to share? Feel free ... the floor is yours.
*** Does it tell you anything about me that this passage was one I read often as a teen?
Friday, December 23, 2011
"Unveiled: Nuns Talking"
Here are a few quotes from Unveiled: Nuns Talking by Mary Louden that I found worthwhile to share.
"When someone dies here the attitude is one of rejoicing: we have an extra recreation day. Yes, really! There've been five old ones go since I've been here, and they've been really beautiful moments, with the whole community gathered around the person that's dying and the priest there as well. It really is lovely, and I don't think I've ever seen anybody shed a tear. They're all thinking, lucky thing!" (pg. 53) -- Angela Therese, Carmelite Community, Darlington, County Durham
I love this attitude about death!
"Within the Church, we're going to be faced with the question: do we really exist to serve people, and to attend to them in their needs? Or do we exist to impose ideologies?" (pg. 178) -- Lavinia, Institute of The Blessed Virgin Mary, Hampstead, London
Yes, really!
"Good does not exist without evil, and you can't have dark without light, but in my own appreciation, if God's hadn't allowed evil, then we would not know it,and we would almost be puppets. If good was all that existed, then I could only choose good, and it wouldn't be a proper choice. ... We search for the light, and it is an ongoing quest of humanity to find answers to these questions. Yet ultimately I believe we cannot find them here. In the end, I have to say, 'I believe this. It doesn't hinder my reasoning, but it is beyond my reasoning.' I have to be prepared all the time to accept that reason is great, but that it isn't infinite. There is a limit to reason." (pg. 198) -- Renate, Community of The Holy Name, Derby
I love that she recognizes that reason has its limits! Tell me again why we expect to fully understand God as if saying our religion is logical means it's better somehow?
"And I believe that the Christian faith is not the faith of a book or dogma: it is the acceptance of a personal invitation. It is like someone saying to you, 'You are important to me, therefore come and join my company.' It sounds very simplistic and very primitive, but I believe that that is what it is." (pg. 204) -- Renate, Community of The Holy Name, Derby
Relationship rather than dogma...yay.
Thoughts?
"When someone dies here the attitude is one of rejoicing: we have an extra recreation day. Yes, really! There've been five old ones go since I've been here, and they've been really beautiful moments, with the whole community gathered around the person that's dying and the priest there as well. It really is lovely, and I don't think I've ever seen anybody shed a tear. They're all thinking, lucky thing!" (pg. 53) -- Angela Therese, Carmelite Community, Darlington, County Durham
I love this attitude about death!
"Within the Church, we're going to be faced with the question: do we really exist to serve people, and to attend to them in their needs? Or do we exist to impose ideologies?" (pg. 178) -- Lavinia, Institute of The Blessed Virgin Mary, Hampstead, London
Yes, really!
"Good does not exist without evil, and you can't have dark without light, but in my own appreciation, if God's hadn't allowed evil, then we would not know it,and we would almost be puppets. If good was all that existed, then I could only choose good, and it wouldn't be a proper choice. ... We search for the light, and it is an ongoing quest of humanity to find answers to these questions. Yet ultimately I believe we cannot find them here. In the end, I have to say, 'I believe this. It doesn't hinder my reasoning, but it is beyond my reasoning.' I have to be prepared all the time to accept that reason is great, but that it isn't infinite. There is a limit to reason." (pg. 198) -- Renate, Community of The Holy Name, Derby
I love that she recognizes that reason has its limits! Tell me again why we expect to fully understand God as if saying our religion is logical means it's better somehow?
"And I believe that the Christian faith is not the faith of a book or dogma: it is the acceptance of a personal invitation. It is like someone saying to you, 'You are important to me, therefore come and join my company.' It sounds very simplistic and very primitive, but I believe that that is what it is." (pg. 204) -- Renate, Community of The Holy Name, Derby
Relationship rather than dogma...yay.
Thoughts?
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Jesus is the answer
This was just something I read in a magazine a few days ago that I liked as it was a timely reminder for me as I've struggled with my thinking on the human condition and the brokenness of life and such things.
"Dramatic testimony or not, Christian home or 'rough background,' life is broken for everyone. But Jesus saves. Regardless of the circumstances, the backgrounds, the histories, the bad deeds and even the good ones, the Gospel is the answer."
I remember "gospel" being defined as "good news." And a friend telling us the good new is Jesus. Not religion. Not Christianity. Not all the stuff people tell you that you have to do to please God and make it to heaven.
It's just Jesus.
Jesus is the answer. He offers good news for my broken life.
Source: "From Death to Life: Redeemed by the Gospel" pg. 17
"Dramatic testimony or not, Christian home or 'rough background,' life is broken for everyone. But Jesus saves. Regardless of the circumstances, the backgrounds, the histories, the bad deeds and even the good ones, the Gospel is the answer."
I remember "gospel" being defined as "good news." And a friend telling us the good new is Jesus. Not religion. Not Christianity. Not all the stuff people tell you that you have to do to please God and make it to heaven.
It's just Jesus.
Jesus is the answer. He offers good news for my broken life.
Source: "From Death to Life: Redeemed by the Gospel" pg. 17
Monday, November 14, 2011
NT Manuscript Variations and Inspiration
For those of you who have been to Sunday School classes or youth events
where your questions were dismissed by your teachers because "you should
just accept things by faith and not question God," I am glad to read
that not everyone is this way. Thankfully many people have questioned
and not simply accepted things blindly, but searched and studied. I
liked this little snippet. Maybe because it's comforting to know scholarly people
have studied and come out stronger in their trust of Jesus as he is presented in the New Testament.
In The Case for the Real Jesus author Lee Strobel recalls an interview he had with Bruce Metzger "a scholar who's universally acknowledged as the greatest textual critic of his generation." Bart Ehrman "even dedicates Misquoting Jesus to him, calling him 'Doctor-Father' and saying he 'taught me the field and continues to inspire me in my work.'"
Strobel was interviewing Metzger about the variations between New Testament manuscripts noting most of them "tend to be minor rather than substantive."
I just wanted to share this for those wondering what the Bible being inspired meant.
In an interview with Dan Wallace ...
"Seeking a crisp summary, I said, 'Complete this sentence: when Christians say the Bible is inspired, they mean that...'"
"'...that it's both the Word of God and the words of men. Lewis Sperry Chafer put it well: "Without violating the authors' personalities, they wrote with their own feelings, literary abilities, and concerns. But in the end, God could say, That's exactly what I wanted to have written."'" (pg. 74)
Good definition or would you say it differently?
Thoughts?
In The Case for the Real Jesus author Lee Strobel recalls an interview he had with Bruce Metzger "a scholar who's universally acknowledged as the greatest textual critic of his generation." Bart Ehrman "even dedicates Misquoting Jesus to him, calling him 'Doctor-Father' and saying he 'taught me the field and continues to inspire me in my work.'"
Strobel was interviewing Metzger about the variations between New Testament manuscripts noting most of them "tend to be minor rather than substantive."
"Yes, yes, that's correct, " Metzger replied, adding: "The more significant variations do not overthrow any doctrine of the church."
Then I recall asking him how his many decades of intensely studying the New Testament's text had affected his personal faith. "Oh," he said, sounding happy to discuss the topic, "it has increased the basis of my personal faith to see the firmness with which these materials have come down to us, with a multiplicity of copies, some of which are very ancient."
"So," I started to say, "scholarship has not diluted your faith ____"
He jumped in before I could finish my sentence. "On the contrary," he stressed, "it has built it. I've asked questions all my life, I've dug into the text, I've studied this thoroughly, and today I know with confidence that my trust in Jesus has been well placed."
He paused while his eyes surveyed my face. Then he added, for emphasis, "Very well placed." (pg. 99)
I just wanted to share this for those wondering what the Bible being inspired meant.
In an interview with Dan Wallace ...
"Seeking a crisp summary, I said, 'Complete this sentence: when Christians say the Bible is inspired, they mean that...'"
"'...that it's both the Word of God and the words of men. Lewis Sperry Chafer put it well: "Without violating the authors' personalities, they wrote with their own feelings, literary abilities, and concerns. But in the end, God could say, That's exactly what I wanted to have written."'" (pg. 74)
Good definition or would you say it differently?
Thoughts?
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Jesus, Judaism/Baseball v. Christianity/Football, Changing Interpretations
The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus by Amy-Jill Levine
Here are my last notes from this book. See this post for more of my thoughts.
First what the author said about herself in the introduction. I especially liked the last sentence.
"I find that the more I study Jesus, Mary Magdalene, James, Peter, and Paul in their own historical contexts, the more I come to appreciate my own Judaism: the diversity of its teachings, the richness of its encounter with the divine, the struggles it faced in accommodating to the Roman world. I appreciate, even find inspirational, the message of the kingdom of heaven, a message that spoke of the time when all debts are forgiven and when those who have willingly give, without thought of reciprocity, to those who need; a time when we no longer ask, 'Who is my neighbor?' but 'Who acts as neighbor?'; a time when we prioritize serving rather than being served. ... But as much as I admire much of the message, I do not worship the messenger. Instead, I find Jesus reflects back to me my own tradition, but in a new key. I also have to admit a bit of pride in thinking about him -- he's one of ours." (pg. 8)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In discussing the "distinct canons" of both Christians and Jews, the author notes that even what ends each canon is significant. For Christian's, the Old Testament ends with Malachi.
1 “Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and the day that is coming will set them on fire,” says the LORD Almighty. “Not a root or a branch will be left to them. 2 But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its rays. And you will go out and frolic like well-fed calves. 3 Then you will trample on the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I act,” says the LORD Almighty.
For Jews, the Tanakh usually ends with II Chronicles 36 and the edict from Cyrus:
"The Tanakh thus ends not with a promise to be fulfilled by something new but with an injunction to return to one's home, to one's roots."
Ms. Levine uses a sports metaphor saying Christianity is more like football. "There is a linear sense to the Christian canon; one moves from the promise of the line of scrimmage to the goal of the (eschatological) end zone. Judaism, at least as understood by the canonical order, is baseball. The concern is to return to Zion, to go home." (pg. 199)
I guess this helps explain why Jews have often longed to return to Jerusalem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
She discussed that Judaism had a more communal approach whereas Christianity in a general sense was more individualistic. Jews were more likely to argue with the texts and with other Jews and realize "in some cases multiple meanings are possible. Jews are more inclined to say, 'I'm right, and you may be right too.'" (pg. 205)
Perhaps related to this - at least in my mind - this midrash which the author gives as an example of "a number of midrashim [that] go out of their way to prevent the view that Moses is divine." She writes,
"Moses receives God's permission to see the great teacher Rabbi Akiva. Seated in the last row of Akiva's school, Moses is so distressed by his inability to follow the discussion that he grows faint. Yet when Akiva's students inquire, 'Master, where did you learn this?' Akiva responds, 'It is a Law given to Moses at Sinai.' In other words, Moses could not understand the interpretation of the Torah that he himself received. The story not only highlights Moses's limited knowledge but simultaneously praises those who continue to interpret the text and celebrates the text's own ability to speak to each generation." (pg. 202)
I believe she's saying the text is not set in stone, but the interpretation should be changeable as people change. Also there is the fact that not even the prophets who gave us the texts can say for certain what they mean especially for all people of all times.
Your thoughts?
Here are my last notes from this book. See this post for more of my thoughts.
First what the author said about herself in the introduction. I especially liked the last sentence.
"I find that the more I study Jesus, Mary Magdalene, James, Peter, and Paul in their own historical contexts, the more I come to appreciate my own Judaism: the diversity of its teachings, the richness of its encounter with the divine, the struggles it faced in accommodating to the Roman world. I appreciate, even find inspirational, the message of the kingdom of heaven, a message that spoke of the time when all debts are forgiven and when those who have willingly give, without thought of reciprocity, to those who need; a time when we no longer ask, 'Who is my neighbor?' but 'Who acts as neighbor?'; a time when we prioritize serving rather than being served. ... But as much as I admire much of the message, I do not worship the messenger. Instead, I find Jesus reflects back to me my own tradition, but in a new key. I also have to admit a bit of pride in thinking about him -- he's one of ours." (pg. 8)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In discussing the "distinct canons" of both Christians and Jews, the author notes that even what ends each canon is significant. For Christian's, the Old Testament ends with Malachi.
1 “Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and the day that is coming will set them on fire,” says the LORD Almighty. “Not a root or a branch will be left to them. 2 But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its rays. And you will go out and frolic like well-fed calves. 3 Then you will trample on the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I act,” says the LORD Almighty.
4 “Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel.
5 “See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. 6
He will turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the
hearts of the children to their parents; or else I will come and strike
the land with total destruction.” For Jews, the Tanakh usually ends with II Chronicles 36 and the edict from Cyrus:
22 In the first year of
Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken
by Jeremiah, the LORD moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a
proclamation throughout his realm and also to put it in writing:
23 “This is what Cyrus king of Persia says:
“‘The
LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and
he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah.
Any of his people among you may go up, and may the LORD their God be
with them.’” "The Tanakh thus ends not with a promise to be fulfilled by something new but with an injunction to return to one's home, to one's roots."
Ms. Levine uses a sports metaphor saying Christianity is more like football. "There is a linear sense to the Christian canon; one moves from the promise of the line of scrimmage to the goal of the (eschatological) end zone. Judaism, at least as understood by the canonical order, is baseball. The concern is to return to Zion, to go home." (pg. 199)
I guess this helps explain why Jews have often longed to return to Jerusalem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
She discussed that Judaism had a more communal approach whereas Christianity in a general sense was more individualistic. Jews were more likely to argue with the texts and with other Jews and realize "in some cases multiple meanings are possible. Jews are more inclined to say, 'I'm right, and you may be right too.'" (pg. 205)
Perhaps related to this - at least in my mind - this midrash which the author gives as an example of "a number of midrashim [that] go out of their way to prevent the view that Moses is divine." She writes,
"Moses receives God's permission to see the great teacher Rabbi Akiva. Seated in the last row of Akiva's school, Moses is so distressed by his inability to follow the discussion that he grows faint. Yet when Akiva's students inquire, 'Master, where did you learn this?' Akiva responds, 'It is a Law given to Moses at Sinai.' In other words, Moses could not understand the interpretation of the Torah that he himself received. The story not only highlights Moses's limited knowledge but simultaneously praises those who continue to interpret the text and celebrates the text's own ability to speak to each generation." (pg. 202)
I believe she's saying the text is not set in stone, but the interpretation should be changeable as people change. Also there is the fact that not even the prophets who gave us the texts can say for certain what they mean especially for all people of all times.
Your thoughts?
Friday, September 16, 2011
Putting Judaism back into Jesus...so the Christians won't hate us!
The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus by Amy-Jill Levine
So I got this book from the library because I thought it would be interesting to read about Jesus as his teachings may have come across to a first-century Jew hearing his parables and teachings, messages of repentance and even prayers. And I guess the book is about that. I mean the first chapter has sections on his parables and prayers (I enjoyed the section on the Lord's Prayer), but much of the book is more or less putting Judaism back into Jesus since the author is a Jew and understandably doesn't like Christians throughout the centuries and even today to say that Judaism is a legalistic burden, misogynistic and overly concerned with purity rules.
I know Jews have been mistreated over the years and I tried to read this book understanding her mindset on that, however, the group of Christians I grew up in is so pro-Jew that the current State of Israel can do the most atrocious things and they chalk it up to "Islam's thugs" doing something to the poor Jews so that the Jews have no choice but to defend themselves. So, I read the author's words putting Judaism back into Jesus (so no one could argue he was anti-Judaism, anti-Law) thinking, "Oh, I didn't realize some Christians wrote/said/taught these things." Well, I guess I did know it on some level. Again, it just wasn't at all what I was taught or even today what most of my family and friends believe about Jews. I suppose the main thing many of them would be guilty of is desiring the Jews to follow Jesus because they believe Jesus is the Way to the Father, the Messiah whom they seek.
But then Ms. Levine said not all Jews were even looking for a Messiah. She explained that just as there were Sadducees who believed only in the Torah and no resurrection of the dead and Pharisees who tended to add fences around the Law and believed in resurrection, there was Shammai's school and Hillel's - not all Jews believed the same. Makes sense. I know Christians and Muslims who hardly believe the same as other Christians and Muslims so why not Jews? There's always a range of thought in groups with some believing more literally and some more metaphorically and so forth.
I shared this story on Facebook because I liked how Rebbe Moshe Leib of Sassov (1745-1807) taught his disciples how to truly love their neighbors.
"Tell me, friend Ivan, do you love me?"
"I love you deeply."
"Do you know, my friend, what gives me pain?"
"How can I, pray, know what gives you pain?"
"If you do not know what gives me pain, how can you say that you truly love me?"
Lesson: "Understand, then,...to love, truly to love, means to know what brings pain to your comrade."
(pg. 116)
Ms. Levine encouraged Jews and Christians to read the texts together and through each other's ears because Christians may not realize how "the Jews" doing such and such in John's or Peter's or Paul's words comes across to a Jewish person. She also pointed out to Jews that most Christians probably do not read anti-Jewish thought into the New Testament texts. I believe Rebbe Leib's illustration goes along with that. If I know that certain texts bring pain to someone because to them it seem accusatory, I can truly love my Jewish neighbors better.
Besides manna, I don't recall food ever coming down from heaven to feed people. Unless you count quail which God used to feed people on occasion. While discussing the "Lord's Prayer" Ms. Levine mentioned the phrase about giving us our daily bread and recalls a Jewish prayer said before eating, "'Blessed are you, Lord our God, King of the Universe, who brings forth bread from the earth." Bread, she notes, does not come forth from the earth. Grain does and then you use the grain to make bread. It's God giving grain from the earth and humans making and baking bread. She says these prayers are each "a concrete petition that God will motivate our hearts to do the right thing. Both insist that humanity and divinity work together." (pg. 49)
Other notable things according to the author:
1. Jewish teaching for some is such that Gentiles do not need to become Jews in order to "have a share in the world to come" as "righteous people of all nations" would be included. (pg. 69) Therefore Jews don't often see any need to convert people to their faith. (There have been times of exception or perhaps this thought is the exception.)
2. One Jewish philosopher's thoughts on why men needed to be circumcised and not women: "Circumcision is required to check male pride as well as male sexual impulses; women, ... have no such problems." - Philo of Alexandria (pg. 71) The author's point of bringing this up is because some have claimed women were perhaps not full members of the Jewish community since God made an outward covenant - circumcision - with only the men. She argued that their community considered women full members without their having to be circumcised. And the bigger reason for this being mentioned is that some have argued that baptism is more egalitarian since both men and women are included in this covenantal sign.
3. "Multiculturalism, then or now, cannot function if there is a homogeneous default that causes one group to give up what is of enormous value to them, especially if what is to be forsaken is divinely mandated Torah." (pg. 76) -- I just read that and found it both understandable and a bit disconcerting. It's fine if you are talking about Jews wanting to eat kosher or observe purity laws. Absolutely no problem. But it gets more questionable when you have a group whose divinely mandated scriptures imposes its will on the full population*, who tells its followers (according to how the majority interpret it) that they are the rulers and the unbelievers are to be protected, yet second-class citizens. I guess I was reading too much of what I fear happening after these revolutions in the Arab world into this statement. I've been all for the uprisings against these brutal dictators and I want the people to enjoy freedom, but I do hope they can avoid bringing Taliban types to power who will rule with iron fists anyone who does not subscribe to their interpretation of religion. Sadly, power is often corrupting unless we remember to keep it in check and stay humble.
* I suppose we do this also when we make laws limiting rights to certain groups because it's against the teaching of our faith. I'm specifically thinking of homosexual groups.
Your thoughts on any of this?
So I got this book from the library because I thought it would be interesting to read about Jesus as his teachings may have come across to a first-century Jew hearing his parables and teachings, messages of repentance and even prayers. And I guess the book is about that. I mean the first chapter has sections on his parables and prayers (I enjoyed the section on the Lord's Prayer), but much of the book is more or less putting Judaism back into Jesus since the author is a Jew and understandably doesn't like Christians throughout the centuries and even today to say that Judaism is a legalistic burden, misogynistic and overly concerned with purity rules.
I know Jews have been mistreated over the years and I tried to read this book understanding her mindset on that, however, the group of Christians I grew up in is so pro-Jew that the current State of Israel can do the most atrocious things and they chalk it up to "Islam's thugs" doing something to the poor Jews so that the Jews have no choice but to defend themselves. So, I read the author's words putting Judaism back into Jesus (so no one could argue he was anti-Judaism, anti-Law) thinking, "Oh, I didn't realize some Christians wrote/said/taught these things." Well, I guess I did know it on some level. Again, it just wasn't at all what I was taught or even today what most of my family and friends believe about Jews. I suppose the main thing many of them would be guilty of is desiring the Jews to follow Jesus because they believe Jesus is the Way to the Father, the Messiah whom they seek.
But then Ms. Levine said not all Jews were even looking for a Messiah. She explained that just as there were Sadducees who believed only in the Torah and no resurrection of the dead and Pharisees who tended to add fences around the Law and believed in resurrection, there was Shammai's school and Hillel's - not all Jews believed the same. Makes sense. I know Christians and Muslims who hardly believe the same as other Christians and Muslims so why not Jews? There's always a range of thought in groups with some believing more literally and some more metaphorically and so forth.
I shared this story on Facebook because I liked how Rebbe Moshe Leib of Sassov (1745-1807) taught his disciples how to truly love their neighbors.
"Tell me, friend Ivan, do you love me?"
"I love you deeply."
"Do you know, my friend, what gives me pain?"
"How can I, pray, know what gives you pain?"
"If you do not know what gives me pain, how can you say that you truly love me?"
Lesson: "Understand, then,...to love, truly to love, means to know what brings pain to your comrade."
(pg. 116)
Ms. Levine encouraged Jews and Christians to read the texts together and through each other's ears because Christians may not realize how "the Jews" doing such and such in John's or Peter's or Paul's words comes across to a Jewish person. She also pointed out to Jews that most Christians probably do not read anti-Jewish thought into the New Testament texts. I believe Rebbe Leib's illustration goes along with that. If I know that certain texts bring pain to someone because to them it seem accusatory, I can truly love my Jewish neighbors better.
Besides manna, I don't recall food ever coming down from heaven to feed people. Unless you count quail which God used to feed people on occasion. While discussing the "Lord's Prayer" Ms. Levine mentioned the phrase about giving us our daily bread and recalls a Jewish prayer said before eating, "'Blessed are you, Lord our God, King of the Universe, who brings forth bread from the earth." Bread, she notes, does not come forth from the earth. Grain does and then you use the grain to make bread. It's God giving grain from the earth and humans making and baking bread. She says these prayers are each "a concrete petition that God will motivate our hearts to do the right thing. Both insist that humanity and divinity work together." (pg. 49)
Other notable things according to the author:
1. Jewish teaching for some is such that Gentiles do not need to become Jews in order to "have a share in the world to come" as "righteous people of all nations" would be included. (pg. 69) Therefore Jews don't often see any need to convert people to their faith. (There have been times of exception or perhaps this thought is the exception.)
2. One Jewish philosopher's thoughts on why men needed to be circumcised and not women: "Circumcision is required to check male pride as well as male sexual impulses; women, ... have no such problems." - Philo of Alexandria (pg. 71) The author's point of bringing this up is because some have claimed women were perhaps not full members of the Jewish community since God made an outward covenant - circumcision - with only the men. She argued that their community considered women full members without their having to be circumcised. And the bigger reason for this being mentioned is that some have argued that baptism is more egalitarian since both men and women are included in this covenantal sign.
3. "Multiculturalism, then or now, cannot function if there is a homogeneous default that causes one group to give up what is of enormous value to them, especially if what is to be forsaken is divinely mandated Torah." (pg. 76) -- I just read that and found it both understandable and a bit disconcerting. It's fine if you are talking about Jews wanting to eat kosher or observe purity laws. Absolutely no problem. But it gets more questionable when you have a group whose divinely mandated scriptures imposes its will on the full population*, who tells its followers (according to how the majority interpret it) that they are the rulers and the unbelievers are to be protected, yet second-class citizens. I guess I was reading too much of what I fear happening after these revolutions in the Arab world into this statement. I've been all for the uprisings against these brutal dictators and I want the people to enjoy freedom, but I do hope they can avoid bringing Taliban types to power who will rule with iron fists anyone who does not subscribe to their interpretation of religion. Sadly, power is often corrupting unless we remember to keep it in check and stay humble.
* I suppose we do this also when we make laws limiting rights to certain groups because it's against the teaching of our faith. I'm specifically thinking of homosexual groups.
Your thoughts on any of this?
Monday, May 30, 2011
Pondering extreme Darwinian thoughts and how they have influenced America
This post kind of goes along with yesterday's on the Darwin/Jesus conflict in Akbar Ahmed's point of view as expressed in Journey Into America.
One example of America's meshing of Christianity and Darwinian thought is evident in the life of former President Theodore Roosevelt who was threatened enough by Catholics and Jews from Europe coming here that he urged the Anglo-Saxon people to have more children in order to avoid "race suicide."
His friend Reverend Josiah Strong wrote a book in 1885 identifying seven "perils" facing America.
1. Catholicism
2. Mormonism
3. socialism
4. intemperance
5. wealth
6. urbanization
7. immigration
The solution: "encourage progress"
Achieved how: "the propagation of the Anglo-Saxon race."
Why? It was God's will "for the white race to spread across the world until it had 'Anglo-Saxonized mankind.'" Indeed, the world was "facing 'a new stage of its history -- the final competition of races, for which the Anglo-Saxon is being schooled,' and that before long the American race would 'move down upon Mexico, down upon Central and South America, out upon the islands of the sea, over upon Africa and beyond. And can any one doubt that the results of this competition of races will be the 'survival of the fittest'?"
This stuff is rich! I'm sure people who would have believed this stuff if they lived today (which we shall bury our heads in the sand and pretend they don't), are related to the ones screeching, "Islam is trying to take over the world! Muslims are trying to make us all submit to Allah! And they think this is God's will for the world!"
Yet here are "perfectly normal" white men of English ancestry - or admirers of the English - saying it was God's will to spread a certain "race" - a very specific one, no less - around the world!
Apparently Hitler was an admirer of the United States' eugenics programs and was especially fond of W. Duncan McKim and Madison Grant who decided "a 'gentle, painless' means of executing those whose hereditary was 'the fundamental cause of human wretchedness' would be gas chambers." Yes, gas chambers! Grant argued the "need to preserve the 'Nordic races' against the Jews and others by 'the obliteration of the unfit' and against the 'sentimental belief in the sanctity of human life.'" Did this gas-chamber thinking fail when presented to civilized, evolved people? Apparently not! Grant's book sold 1.6 million copies in the United States and was to Hitler, his "'Bible.'"
I remember the other day I watched a propaganda documentary from 1945 on Here Is Germany which Samer had seen and recommended. He told me not all of it was factual, but that I might enjoy seeing how Americans thought of Germans after World War II. After I watched it, we talked about it and he asked if I noticed how they didn't focus on the concentration camps. They did show piles of bodies of people who had been starved to death, but Samer was right: there wasn't a lot of focus on the concentration camps per se. And one would think a documentary produced in order to justify American and other Allied occupation of Germany would totally focus on such a damning thing!
Samer said everyone was too shocked about the concentration camps, and they were still trying to process that mass executions of men, women and children by use of gas chambers had actually happened at this time in history.
After reading about Hitler enjoying the fruits of American eugenics programs, I am wondering if some of the shock was guilt. Guilt that maybe we who had claims to such a sensational book and physicians and scientists would have the audacity to admire people who promoted killing off those we deemed as less desirable than our superior white race.
Were we having to come to grips that our thinking was flawed? Have we gotten over it? Or do we still live as if white children are more valuable than children "over there." As long as our kids have food and clean water and education does it really matter what happens to the black or brown children on other continents?
Do we value the least of these or do we believe only the "fittest" survive and we are going to do all we can to ensure we are among that group?
Sarah wisely pointed out on yesterday's post that it's a shame Darwin's ideas have been misused in this way. I doubt he ever had this sort of drastic thing in mind yet people took his theories and applied them in questionable ways. The same with the man who recommended the gas chamber as a way of obliterating the unfit. Did he really mean that? Did he really think someone would take him seriously and follow-through with it? Did he realize Hitler would come along, deem Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and the physically-challenged unfit to live in this world and use his ideas to cleanse the world of these people?
What happens when someone in society decides the traits of you and your loved ones are not acceptable? That you don't belong to the favored race? Favored sex? Already I read of problems India and China may have in coming years when a male population ages and starts looking for wives because many females have been aborted or abandoned because daughters are not as highly valued in some families.
When do we stop deeming who is fit to live and start accepting and loving people as the valuable creations that they are despite how "flawed" they may appear in our eyes?
quotes from pg. 74-75, 81
One example of America's meshing of Christianity and Darwinian thought is evident in the life of former President Theodore Roosevelt who was threatened enough by Catholics and Jews from Europe coming here that he urged the Anglo-Saxon people to have more children in order to avoid "race suicide."
 |
| Please! Have more children like these! |
His friend Reverend Josiah Strong wrote a book in 1885 identifying seven "perils" facing America.
1. Catholicism
2. Mormonism
3. socialism
4. intemperance
5. wealth
6. urbanization
7. immigration
The solution: "encourage progress"
Achieved how: "the propagation of the Anglo-Saxon race."
Why? It was God's will "for the white race to spread across the world until it had 'Anglo-Saxonized mankind.'" Indeed, the world was "facing 'a new stage of its history -- the final competition of races, for which the Anglo-Saxon is being schooled,' and that before long the American race would 'move down upon Mexico, down upon Central and South America, out upon the islands of the sea, over upon Africa and beyond. And can any one doubt that the results of this competition of races will be the 'survival of the fittest'?"
 |
| Did such thinking influence their world race competition? |
This stuff is rich! I'm sure people who would have believed this stuff if they lived today (which we shall bury our heads in the sand and pretend they don't), are related to the ones screeching, "Islam is trying to take over the world! Muslims are trying to make us all submit to Allah! And they think this is God's will for the world!"
Yet here are "perfectly normal" white men of English ancestry - or admirers of the English - saying it was God's will to spread a certain "race" - a very specific one, no less - around the world!
Apparently Hitler was an admirer of the United States' eugenics programs and was especially fond of W. Duncan McKim and Madison Grant who decided "a 'gentle, painless' means of executing those whose hereditary was 'the fundamental cause of human wretchedness' would be gas chambers." Yes, gas chambers! Grant argued the "need to preserve the 'Nordic races' against the Jews and others by 'the obliteration of the unfit' and against the 'sentimental belief in the sanctity of human life.'" Did this gas-chamber thinking fail when presented to civilized, evolved people? Apparently not! Grant's book sold 1.6 million copies in the United States and was to Hitler, his "'Bible.'"
 |
| Meddling where no one should dare to interfere? |
I remember the other day I watched a propaganda documentary from 1945 on Here Is Germany which Samer had seen and recommended. He told me not all of it was factual, but that I might enjoy seeing how Americans thought of Germans after World War II. After I watched it, we talked about it and he asked if I noticed how they didn't focus on the concentration camps. They did show piles of bodies of people who had been starved to death, but Samer was right: there wasn't a lot of focus on the concentration camps per se. And one would think a documentary produced in order to justify American and other Allied occupation of Germany would totally focus on such a damning thing!
Samer said everyone was too shocked about the concentration camps, and they were still trying to process that mass executions of men, women and children by use of gas chambers had actually happened at this time in history.
After reading about Hitler enjoying the fruits of American eugenics programs, I am wondering if some of the shock was guilt. Guilt that maybe we who had claims to such a sensational book and physicians and scientists would have the audacity to admire people who promoted killing off those we deemed as less desirable than our superior white race.
Were we having to come to grips that our thinking was flawed? Have we gotten over it? Or do we still live as if white children are more valuable than children "over there." As long as our kids have food and clean water and education does it really matter what happens to the black or brown children on other continents?
Do we value the least of these or do we believe only the "fittest" survive and we are going to do all we can to ensure we are among that group?
Sarah wisely pointed out on yesterday's post that it's a shame Darwin's ideas have been misused in this way. I doubt he ever had this sort of drastic thing in mind yet people took his theories and applied them in questionable ways. The same with the man who recommended the gas chamber as a way of obliterating the unfit. Did he really mean that? Did he really think someone would take him seriously and follow-through with it? Did he realize Hitler would come along, deem Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and the physically-challenged unfit to live in this world and use his ideas to cleanse the world of these people?
What happens when someone in society decides the traits of you and your loved ones are not acceptable? That you don't belong to the favored race? Favored sex? Already I read of problems India and China may have in coming years when a male population ages and starts looking for wives because many females have been aborted or abandoned because daughters are not as highly valued in some families.
 |
| I, too, have the right to live, don't I? |
When do we stop deeming who is fit to live and start accepting and loving people as the valuable creations that they are despite how "flawed" they may appear in our eyes?
quotes from pg. 74-75, 81
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)