Meme Drop

Day 1 Promises: Calling Londontown

If those promised executive orders on Day 1 happen (the ones from the 2023 speech) I could be on the frontline to face a civil rights suit as long as I continue to support and validate my trans students and accept them as they are. My options are either shut up and hide or speak out boldly, and as those who know me know, I don't do "shut up and hide" very well. 

#NotGoingBack
#TheEnemyWithin

Years ago, Geoff Moore and the Distance recorded a song written by Dave Perkins called "Calling Londontown." I'm sure they were thinking ahead to those days when Christians would be persecuted by the followers of the Beast, but I'm seeing that song a lot differently as we begin our baby steps into a Christian Nationalist State.

She said, run, take the radio

Keep your head low tonight

Lights through the tree line, no time

I can hear the sirens calling

I can hear their footsteps falling, oh...

Calling Londontown

Calling Londontown

Can you hear me now

Calling Londontown

Pressed to the cold ground

Writing these words down

Pray for the others

Your sisters and brothers

The underground

My secret obligation

Transmit our situation, oh...

Calling Londontown

Calling Londontown

Can you hear me now

Calling Londontown

Nobody thought these days would come

Days of martyrdom

But now, if you believe

If you believe at all

You will go to the wall!

I can hear the sirens calling

I can hear their footsteps falling, oh...

Calling Londontown

Calling Londontown

Can you hear me now

Calling Londontown

Liberated?!

Well, I think worship pastor Rob Frazier, also a CCM artist, uses satire to best sum up my thoughts on the matter. #theenemywithin

#TheEnemyWithin

Viva la revolution. As long as I believe this, I guess I will now be considered #theenemywithin

Don't worry. It won't be hard to find me when you need to report me to the Gestapo for continuing to support and fight for:

• Women's reproductive rights at the national level
• Equal marriage protection for lgbtqia+ 
• Acceptance for my trans brothers and sisters
• Open paths to citizenship for documented and undocumented immigrants and migrants
• Restrictions on weapons designed to kill many quickly
• Safe schools where active shooter drills become a footnote in our history
• Restrictions to keep convicted felons out of public office
• A world where we embrace kindness over bullying and name-calling
• A world where we choose humility over braggart hyperbole
• A world where facts, research, and expertise actually matter
• Presidents who don't use hateful rhetoric to incite insurrections

So, rather than hide it, I made a shirt to make myself easier to find in the wild.

One of Them

Dear women, POC, immigrants, LGBTQIA+ folks who are feeling the impact of being disenfranchised and distanced today, please know that there are still people who see you, still people who support you, still people who love you, still people who are your allies, and still people who will fight for you. 

I'm one of them.

I say that as an old, white, straight man who personally loses nothing thanks to the election. Technically, I'm still golden. 

Except I'm not because it's not about me. It's about you. 

#TheEnemyWithin

Church History, Abortion, and Ensoulment

It's sad that for so many of us religious people, we have so little knowledge of the long history of adaptation within our beliefs. We tend to focus on the way our church or temple has been since either The Great Awakening of the 1700s or the Revivalism of the 1900s that led to the growth of Pentecostalism and a settling in of Dispensationalism. We have thousands of years of theological history prior to those events that are equally valid as the "faith and message" doctrines of today. 

Among those is the idea of ensoulment, or when the soul and the body join together, particularly in the area of abortion and how the church understands it, which, like all theological understanding has a larger scope and understanding in the faith at large and beyond merely what you denomination or church stance it. 

For reference, here's just one article about church history on the matter.  Apologies. It's quite long. 

From: "The Breath of Life: Christian Perspectives on Conception and Ensoulment" by Lindsey Disney and Larry Poston 

But the conviction that “human life begins at the moment of conception” is not the historic norm among religions in general. Even in the history of Christianity, there has never been a united voice on this issue. In actuality, neither the Christian Scriptures nor modern science provide sufficient data to enable us to draw indisputable conclusions regarding this topic. Much of our confusion may be attributed to our failure to distinguish between the concepts of “life” and “ensoulment.”

Distinguishing Between “Life” and “Ensoulment”

Our first order of business must be to define and discuss the distinction between “life” and “ensoulment.” There are several extant definitions and lists of criteria for establishing what comprises “life,” but a comprehensive definition may be found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which states that “living entities [are those which] metabolize, grow, die, reproduce, respond, move, have complex organized functional structures, heritable variability, and lineages which can evolve over generational time, producing new and emergent functional structures that provide increased adaptive fitness in changing environments.”

Using such a definition leads to the conclusion that “life” is certainly not exclusive to human beings. The term “living” may be just as applicable to animals or even plants. Cows and owls, dogs and frogs, mice and lice; all are “alive” according to science. Until quite recently, however, no non-human creature has been accorded the same status as a human being. Each lacks “something” that distinguishes humans from all other living forms on the planet. Philosophically and religiously speaking, this distinctive aspect is called “the soul”: an immaterial “something” that endows a human being with an intellect, emotions, a will, and an autonomous “sense of self.” This “something” cannot be identified under a microscope; it cannot be described in terms of size, shape, texture, color, or the like. But it is presumed to exist nonetheless.

It is the matter of “ensoulment”—of when a soul becomes present in a human—that most concerns us in this essay. For it is one thing to speak of “when life begins,” but quite another to speak of when “the soul” enters or is present in a human body. These are entirely distinguishable items, and though they may be simultaneous in their origins, they are not necessarily so. One can maintain that “life” begins at the moment of conception without holding that “ensoulment” occurs at that same time, and such a distinction could potentially lead to very controversial convictions regarding various moral and ethical issues extant today.

Ensoulment in the History of Religions

Christianity

We will begin our study of ensoulment with the Christian religion. Views regarding the time and means of this phenomenon vary greatly even within this single religious system, and so Christianity’s theological considerations of this subject will provide us with a template for classifying the views of other religious systems of thought, both Eastern and Western.

It is important to note that when dealing with the topic of “ensoulment” within the parameters of Christianity, we will mainly be examining “Christian,” not necessarily “biblical,” views. Despite claims to the contrary, the canonical Scriptures of the Christian faith do not directly answer the question of when “life” begins or when “ensoulment” occurs. To illustrate: Psalm 139:13, which contains David’s conviction that “you [God] created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb,”6 is often used as a model verse for Christian pro-life activists. But what does this passage actually teach us? The literary genre of the Psalms in general, as well as the context of this particular psalm, are not scientific in orientation. The intent of the psalmist is to praise God, and David is using the forms that are appropriate in a psalm—poetry and metaphor—to get his point across: that God is to be praised because God cares enough to know David intimately.

Even if for the sake of argument we were to consider Psalm 139:13 literally rather than metaphorically, the passage could still be construed as saying no more than that God sovereignly brought about the life of David, one of God’s closest followers and “a man after his own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14). The passage does not necessarily imply that God “creates the inmost being” of every fetus in every womb; it could well be that God sovereignly chooses to “create the inmost being” only of those that he knows through his foreknowledge will reach full-term in their development. Neither does the passage address the issue of when such an inner-being creation occurs for those in which God does choose to do so.

A parallel example would be that of Jeremiah 1:5, which says: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.” Some have concluded that this verse proves that God considers fetuses in the womb to be human beings, loved and known by him. Others, however, are persuaded that the passage says only that God knew that this particular fetus in this particular womb would become Jeremiah—an important prophet—and indicates that God in his sovereignty planned the creation of Jeremiah even before his conception, just as Ephesians 1:4 indicates that all of God’s elect were chosen “before the creation of the world.”

Because of the ambiguity of these and other scriptural passages, the history of Christianity has seen the development of three distinct views with respect to ensoulment: Pre-existentianism, Traducianism, and Creationism.

Pre-existentianism. 

Pre-existentianism is the belief that souls are preexistent entities who await bodies to enter. According to this concept, the body is essentially “accidental” and relatively unimportant; a human being is complete without a physical body. Historically, very few within Christian circles have held or taught this view, though the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints adopted it in the nineteenth century...

Traducianism. 

The doctrine of Traducianism teaches that the “soul” is present in both the sperm and the egg when they unite. The combination forms a new “soul” automatically and immediately. Traducianism has been held by at least some Christians since the church’s earliest years. Tertullian (c.160–c.225), for instance, wrote that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does.”7 

Clement of Alexandria presented a much more detailed description: The embryo is a living thing; for that the soul entering into the womb after it has been by cleansing prepared for conception, and introduced by one of the angels who preside over generation, and who knows the time for conception, moves the woman to intercourse; and that, on the seed being deposited, the spirit, which is in the seed, is, so to speak, appropriated, and is thus assumed into conjunction in the process of formation.8

The Traducianist view was also held by Gregory of Nyssa (335–c.394) and Maximus the Confessor (c.580–662). The latter’s argument was based on the example of Christ, who had been pronounced by the Ecumenical Church councils to be fully human and fully divine from the first moment of his conception—implying that he possessed a spiritual soul from that instant. If, as the Bible teaches, Christ was like us (humans) in all things except for sin, then it must be true that all human beings receive a spiritual soul at conception as well.9 

Some scholars hold that the Traducianist view best explains the transmission of original sin. Bruce Waltke, for instance, concludes that “on the basis of inherited sin, . . . man’s spiritual element is passed on mediately from Adam and not as the immediate creation of God, who does not author sin.”10 If the soul is automatically generated by the joining of sperm and egg, God avoids the accusation that he has indirectly been party to the transmission of sin. But here a question arises: if the soul is brought forth by the union of the parents, then are they to be seen as the true creators of life and God only an interested (or even disinterested) observer? Traducianism is essentially deistic in that God’s creative powers are held to have initiated life—including the soul—only in the case of Adam and Eve. Since that time, the generation of “life” and “soul” has been the prerogative of humans alone.

Creationism. 

The doctrine of Creationism maintains that the “soul” is created and introduced into a fetus by God at a point of his choosing, either at the time of a fetus’s first breath, as was the case with Adam in Genesis 2:7, or when God in his sovereignty knows that a fetus is not going to be spontaneously (meaning “naturally”) or intentionally aborted.

Theologian Louis Berkhof—a staunch proponent of Creationism—sees a marked distinction in the Bible between the body, which is taken from earth, and the soul, which is given by God. Significantly, the creation story is the first example of this distinction. Genesis 2:7 says that “God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” Ecclesiastes 12:7 adds the comment that “the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.” And Hebrews 12:9 makes the distinction between “human fathers” and the “Father of spirits,” concerning which the seventeeth-century Swiss Reformed clergyman Francis Turretin comments, “Why should God be called ‘the Father of spirits’ in contradistinction to ‘the fathers of the flesh’ unless the origin of each was different?”11 While these passages are not sufficient to bring us to a conclusion as to when the soul is introduced into the body, they do allow us to conclude that “body and soul are not only represented as different substances, but also as having different origins.”12 

Physical substance comes from physical origins, and spiritual essence from a spiritual source. Berkhof maintains that Creationism is the most biblically-based view, claiming that “it is more consistent with the prevailing representations of Scripture than Traducianism.”13 

Berkhof is just one of the more recent representatives of a stream of thought that is rooted both in ancient Hebrew beliefs and in Aristotelian philosophy, a stream that is shared today by rabbinic Judaism and by much of Islam. Aristotle equated “life” and “soul,” but described different kinds of the latter: vegetative, sensitive, locomotive, and intellectual. 

“In general,” Aristotle believed, “soul is imparted to the body in stages as each part is formed, and the specific soul is not actually present until the form is complete.”14 This “completion of form” takes place on the fortieth day after conception for males, and on the eightieth day for females. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) was a proponent of this view, and Thomas Aquinas (1205–1274) adopted Aristotle’s schema practically in its entirety. Aquinas held that the body was formed gradually through the power transmitted by the male seed but the spiritual soul was directly created by God when the body was ready to receive it. Thus the embryo was believed to live at first the life of a plant, then the life of a simple animal, and only after all its organs, including the brain, had been formed, was it given, by the direct and creative act of God, an immortal spiritual soul.15

The Creationist views of Augustine and Aquinas were the norm in the Christian West from the early fifth century to the late nineteenth century. The Justinian Code of the sixth century excused from penalty abortions performed prior to forty days after conception.

Pope Innocent III (c. 1216) and Pope Gregory IX (c. 1241) both affirmed the distinction between "vivified” fetuses (older than forty days) and those younger than so.16 Not until the Effraenatum of Pope Sixtus V in 1588 did the forty-day rule vanish and abortion was declared illegal at any stage of fetal existence. But this ruling was rescinded by Sixtus’s successor Gregory XIV, and this repeal lasted until 1869, when Pius IX reinstated the earlier decision. Even so, Pius’s decree did not become canon law until 1918—a mere ninety years ago.17

With respect to Protestantism, the writings of John Calvin and Martin Luther were interpreted by their immediate successors as supportive of the Traducianist position. Over time, however, many in the Calvinistic stream returned to the Creationist position, while Evangelical Protestants—derived mainly from Lutheran Pietism—have remained nearly unanimous today in their advocacy of Traducianism.

Judaism

In Jewish law, a fetus becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before that moment, the principle that applies is that of ubar yerekh imo: “the fetus is the thigh of its mother,” meaning that it may not be considered an independent entity but is instead a “partial life.”18 This view is based on Exodus 21:22, which says that if a woman miscarries due to being struck by men fighting, and she herself is not seriously injured, the offender is to pay the husband of the woman a monetary fine for the loss. What is significant here is that the Mosaic Law requires “life for life” (Exodus 21:23). The above scenario, then, implies that the fetus is of worth (since payment is required for its destruction) but not of equal worth to, say, the life of the mother (or the punishment of the offender would have been death). The distinction is made here because the fetus is not considered to be nefesh adam (“a man”) but rather lav nefesh hu (“not a person”) until it is born.19 

Philo (20 bce – 50 ce) was the first to address seriously the issue of ensoulment, using the scenario of Exodus 21:22 as his starting point. The Septuagint translation of the Tanakh had rendered the word ason in this passage as “form” rather than “harm,” thus changing the meaning from “if [there be] no harm [that is, death, to the mother], he shall be fined” to “if [there be] no form [yet, to the fetus], he shall be fined.... But if [there be] form, then shalt thou give life for life.”20

Whereas the previous (and correct) translation would require only a fine for an abortion at any stage of a pregnancy, Philo makes a “before and after” distinction. He writes: If one have a contest with a woman who is pregnant, and strike her a blow on her belly, and she miscarry; if the child which was conceived within her is still unfashioned and unformed, he shall be punished by a fine, both for the assault which he committed and also because he has prevented nature—which was fashioning and preparing that most excellent of all creatures, a human being—from bringing him into existence. But if the child which was conceived has assumed a distinct shape in all its parts, having received all its proper connective and distinctive qualities, he shall die; for such a creature as that is a man, whom he has slain while still in the workshop of nature, which had not thought it as yet a proper time to produce him to the light, but had kept him like a statue lying in a sculptor’s workshop, requiring nothing more than to be released and sent into the world.21

Philo held that the time of having assumed “a distinct shape in all its parts” was the fortieth day after conception, following the Aristotelian line of thinking.

Another context bearing upon this issue is that of the Sabbath laws, which contain no general permission for a violation in order to save a fetus. The wording of the Talmudic discussion of this issue suggests two conclusions: “The fetus is not a person, not a man; but the fetus is indeed potential life and is to be treated as such.”22 

One further illustration will serve to show just how complex this subject can actually become. There is within Judaism a factor known as “doubtful viability,” which holds that an embryo remains an embryo until thirty days after its birth, becoming only then a bar kayyama, a viable, living being.23 We find, then, in Judaism the same ambiguity regarding fetal life that we noted in Christianity. ...

First, we must teach in our classrooms and in other venues in such a way that the general public learns that the matter of ensoulment is an enormously complex issue. We must show by example that the implications of such an issue should not be undermined by denial or neutrality, but should be approached in a loving, fair, and nonjudgmental fashion. We must explain that religious beliefs regarding this subject—even within a single religion such as Christianity—span a very wide spectrum, and all attempts to simplify these matters in an unrealistic manner will doom us to continued misunderstanding and acrimony. Neither natural science nor revelation—natural or special— has produced sufficient data for surety regarding these issues. Consequently, discussion and debate regarding contraception, abortion, in vitro fertilization, and stem cell research must be brought to a higher level of sophistication than is currently extant.

Second, in the course of our discussions we should adopt a vocabulary that avoids hyperbole and unwarranted assumptions. Terminology that is brutal and accusatory, such as “murderers” and “baby-killers,” should be eliminated. After all, can we know with absolute certainty that the abovementioned activities do indeed involve “murder”? If there is no incontrovertible revelational teaching regarding this issue, might one not essentially be violating a moral requirement that is incontrovertible (for example, “Thou shalt not bear false witness”) by misinforming the public concerning “what God has said” regarding these subjects? Why not focus our attention and resources on larger issues, such as the spiritual, sociological, psychological, and physiological tragedies that give rise to the very ethical issues we are discussing?

...It is a tragedy that the church is often the last place a woman who has had an abortion will go. A simplistic judgmentalism will succeed only in polarizing individuals and groups. Anonymous letters such as one received by Dr. George Woodward that threatened, “If you continue I will hunt you down like any other wild beast and kill you,”54 are all too often highlighted by the media and do nothing to resolve the situation.

We believe that a majority of Christians do not condone such behavior. They are instead embarrassed by and apologetic concerning such fanatical attitudes. But separating themselves from extremists in the eyes of a watching world will require more from spirituallyminded persons than pink-cheeked apologies. Such separation will require patient listening, careful and thoughtful discussion, and selfsacrificing compassion. It will require a frank willingness to acknowledge a multitude of possible truths, and, therefore, a necessary change in the overall approach of opponents to abortion to these issues.

These are truly awesome responsibilities. As ambassadors of the kingdom of heaven, our words and our actions concerning these issues can have profound implications for social structures, for moral and ethical considerations, and for the psyches of both women and men. Let us therefore be “shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16) in our stewardship of the concept of “ensoulment” and of its implications for humanity.

Politics and Jesus

True Religion Is This...

[Link] A Dr. Seuss Expert Cuts Through the Noise on the Cancel Culture Controversy

By Adrienne Westenfeld

On March 2, the nation’s annual Read Across America Day (a holiday once synonymous with Dr. Seuss, designated on this date to honor his birthday), Dr. Seuss Enterprises released an unexpected statement. The venerable author’s estate announced that it has decided to end publication and licensure of six books by Theodor Seuss Geisel, including his first book under his celebrated pen name, And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street (published in 1937), and If I Ran the Zoo (published in 1950). “These books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong,” the statement read, alluding to their appalling racial and ethnic stereotypes.

The estate’s decision prompted days of relentless cable news coverage from Fox News, as well as cries about “cancel culture” from prominent conservatives, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who accused Democrats of “outlawing Dr. Seuss” on the House floor. Sales of Seuss’ most-beloved books skyrocketed amid the discourse, topping Amazon and Barnes and Noble’s online bestseller charts throughout the week. Meanwhile, copies of the now-discounted books soared in price, with resellers listing those titles for up to $500 on eBay.

Dr. Philip Nel, a distinguished professor of children’s literature at Kansas State University and the author of Was The Cat in the Hat Black?, tells Esquire that this conversation about racism and prejudice in Seuss’ books has been underway for decades. Even during the author’s lifetime, Nel reports, Seuss was roundly criticized for racial and gender stereotypes in his books, yet he was also the author of actively anti-racist narratives, like Horton Hears a Who and The Sneetches. Nel spoke with Esquire by phone to explain how we should understand this ongoing conversation about updating and curating Seuss' legacy, as well as how we should talk to children about books that contain racist content.

Read the full article: https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a35738910/dr-seuss-racism-books-cancel-culture-interview/

The Post Evangelical Dylan on Faith and the Church -- Still a Man of Faith?

A Facebook friend asked for my take on a few of Bob Dylan's albums (Particularly INFIDELS -- my favorite and I believe the most spiritual of his releases), and as anyone who knows what a huge Dylan-phile I am would guess, I jumped at the opportunity.

However, as you read it, bear in mind this caveat:

The beauty of a Dylan album for me is that it could mean one thing, or another, or any number of things, or perhaps nothing at all. The lyrics are like the Book of Revelation. They can be interpreted and defended from many vantage points. My views are no doubt interpreted through my own experiences (like any exegete) and failure to be a non-attached third person objective listener. Music doesn't allow you that option.

Okay, enough set-up . Here's what I had to say...

===================================

Okay, you asked for my analysis, and here it is, like it or not...

"Jokerman" is about Christ, how he was misunderstood by the world and the powers that be. He was just a joker to them, standing on the water, casting his bread. He defeated the serpent (born with a snake in both his fists) while being hunted (a hurricane was blowing). He's a friend to the martyr, friend to the woman of shame, looks into the furnace and sees the rich man who wanted Lazarus to warn his family. At twilight, he rides a white horse. While he's the "fool" a woman gave birth to a prince today (Antichrist) and dressed him in scarlet, and he will have the church and political system in his pocket. Christ knows his plan, but it doesn't faze him or worry him.

"Sweetheart Like You" is a story of the church symbolized as a falling (not fallen) woman looking for love in every place she shouldn't be. Even the demons recognize her and try to woo her. Dylan's still hanging onto his theology but he's had it with the church at this point.

"Neighborhood Bully" is a song about Israel, and how the world is set against "him." Again, looking at biblical prophecy, but tying it to contemporary politics.

"Licensed To Kill" and "Sundown On The Union" are seen though a "least of these" set of lenses.

"I And I" covers the church again, as a woman sleeping around on her husband. The world is going to hell, and she's in his bed. He's still fascinated by her, but he doesn't want to talk. He's over that scene. He's got nothing left to say to her (i.e., the SAVED and SHOT OF LOVE period is over).

"Don't Fall Apart On Me Tonight" is another song about the church as a woman, only he's wistful, not wanting to see her fall or their relationship end. I'm willing to bet this was a holdover from one of the previous albums or an early song in the writing for INFIDELS.

This heartbreaking relationship with the church as a woman is something he'll cover again during EMPIRE BURLESQUE and OH MERCY. Not only that, but he's still dealing out the cards of theology in those, from the sinfulness that destroyed everything ("Everything Is Broken") to call for the least of these ("Ring Them Bells").

The wistfulness to the church (girl) is back again in "What Was It You Wanted" with lines like:

"Is the scenery changing
Am I getting it wrong
Is the whole thing going backwards
Are they playing our song?"

He's still wondering about faith at this point, still thinking about what's he's put behind him, as in "What Good Am I?":

"What good am I if I know and don’t do
If I see and don’t say, if I look right through you
If I turn a deaf ear to the thunderin’ sky
What good am I? ...

"What good am I then to others and me
If I’ve had every chance and yet still fail to see
If my hands are tied must I not wonder within
Who tied them and why and where must I have been?"

But before he can temper his attitude toward her (the church), he has to get through the bitterness of EMPIRE BURLESQUE (which could be seen as a rip at the dog and pony show the church in American had become at this point), with songs like "Tight Connection To My Heart" (while she ignores the beating of a John the Baptist type, no doubt in reference to racial tension also) and "Seeing The Real You At Last":

"Well, didn’t I risk my neck for you
Didn’t I take chances?
Didn’t I rise above it all for you
The most unfortunate circumstances? ...

"I’m hungry and I’m irritable
And I’m tired of this bag of tricks
At one time there was nothing wrong with me
That you could not fix...

"When I met you, baby
You didn’t show no visible scars...

"Well, I’m gonna quit this baby talk now
I guess I should have known
I got troubles, I think maybe you got troubles
I think maybe we’d better leave each other alone"

And perhaps my single favorite song in Dylan's love/hate relationship with faith and religion is "Never Gonna Be The Same Again." I so often find myself echoing these thoughts in regard to my own feelings about the church:

"Sorry if I hurt you, baby
Sorry if I did
Sorry if I touched the place
Where your secrets are hid
But you meant more than everything
And I could not pretend
I ain’t never gonna be the same again

"You give me something to think about, baby
Every time I see ya
Don’t worry, baby, I don’t mind leaving
I’d just like it to be my idea

"You taught me how to love you, baby
You taught me, oh, so well
Now, I can’t go back to what was, baby
I can’t unring the bell
You took my reality
And cast it to the wind
And I ain’t never gonna be the same again"

I've often thought of preparing a scholarly paper on Dylan's love/hate for faith and religion, but I never seem to find the time. It's sort of like actual scripture for me in one way anyway -- once you open your mind to the idea that it's in his work, you suddenly see evidence of it everywhere.

[Link] What Non-Christians Want Christians To Hear

by John Shore

Blog Editor's Note: Interesting article. And the kind of thing I think it would do us Christians good to just listen too without reacting to immediately to either defend ourselves or debate any theological clarifications. This is one of those "stop talking and just listen" moments that my wife tells me about.

By way of researching my book I’m OK – You’re Not: The Message We’re Sending Nonbelievers and Why We Should Stop, I posted a notice on Craigslist sites all over the country asking non-Christians to send me any short, personal statement they would like Christians to read.

“Specifically,” I wrote, “I’d like to hear how you feel about being on the receiving end of the efforts of Christian evangelicals to convert you. I want to be very clear that this is not a Christian-bashing book; it’s coming from a place that only means well for everyone. Thanks.”

Within three days I had in my inbox over 300 emails from non-Christians across the country. Reading them was one of the more depressing experiences of my life. I had expected their cumulative sentiment to be one of mostly anger. But if you boiled down to a single feeling what was most often expressed in the nonbelievers’ statements, it would be Why do Christians hate us so much?

Read the full article: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2013/07/what-non-christians-want-christians-to-hear/

Fred Phelps is Dead

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/20/us/westboro-church-founder-dead/

Fred Phelps did not represent my understanding of what it means to be a Christian. But if I treat his death like a holiday or rejoice in it (or Ted Bundy's or even Hitler's death) then I also  fail to represent my understanding of what it means to be a Christian.

As John Donne said so long ago, no man is an island, and every man's death diminishes me. We are all grains in the sand of humanity, and to encourage and be entertained by the death or destruction of another makes me less of a person in the long run. It's a tough line to walk because I want to hate Phelps. I want to despise him for his venomous statements and his hate-mongering and his propensity to showboating and grandstanding at what should have been personal, private occasions. But if I do, I fail as a member of my own faith, and I fail myself.

So, I'll let Donne sum up my thoughts with his own words:

No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

And besides, I'm lying if I even try to believe my filthy rags aren't just as dirty as Fred's or anybody else. I'm just better at hiding them behind civil behavior.

To hate is the devil's work

So, a friend of mine posted this: "If God is love then why do Christians spread so much hate? Rather than cast a stone, love and pray for the person. To hate is the devil's work."

Because he asked, I responded, and I figured I'd share it here too because I get asked this a great deal by people who know me, both my faith and my personality (and try to make sense of putting the two together).

Speaking as a Christian, by and large it's a cultural thing. Since Constantine, Christians have held the power to define morality for the rest of culture. And as we're starting to lose that, it has a lot of us in a sort of attack mode in order to safeguard our territory morally. That's it, I think, in a nutshell for the bulk of cultural Christians nowadays.

On the other hand, there are those who genuinely are trying to show their love by trying to encourage others to "turn from sin." And too often because the language used is "we're right, you're wrong" it comes off as hateful, when even in many cases, it's not hate, it's zeal to see their friends and love ones "get saved" or become "right."

However, in many times, even that seemingly hateful speech is coming from a heart that loves, but doesn't know how to get attention other than shouting rather than taking the time to get to know people as people first.

A friend of mine once compared it to this story, which I think really helped me have more patience for those folks...

A man drove along in a torrential downpour, and just barely missed driving off a cliff where a bridge had been washed away. He looked around for a "bridge out" sign but the rain was too heavy and no one could see it. So he started running through the street trying to stop the oncoming traffic and tell them that the bridge was out and they were rushing to their doom.

In doing so, though, some thought he was crazy, and others thought he was rude. I'll believe it when I see it, others thought.

A simplistic tale, I'll warrant, but it does help to explain the viewpoint of a person of faith and zeal. If someone truly believes he or she is doing a good and loving thing by shouting that the "bridge is out," it is an action done out of love, no matter how the hearer interprets the words or actions.

Now, that doesn't mean that the warn-er doesn't need to learn to speak with compassion and tact, and the onus should be on him or her to do so.

And then there are those who have redefined anything short of abject approval as hate. I only use gay rights here below because it's the most violently discussed among such topics, it seems.

There is the acceptance of a person as a person of value and worth, and then there is the full acceptance of everything that person believes and does -- and we currently live in a world that seems to be unable to realize (or value) the difference between those two things. To be able to value and love a gay person and yet not condone everything that person does should be one of the things that makes us human -- the ability to disapprove of someone's actions and still approve of him or her as a human being created in God's image. Telling someone you believe their actions are wrong isn't hate speech. Calling out violence against someone because you disagree with their lifestyle or actions, however, is hate speech. No matter the issue -- abortion, politics, gender rights, sexual preferences, religion, etc. -- we are each created in the image of God, and therefore we have the ability to form our own opinions. That also means we should be able to hold such opinions in a world where we will be disagreed with often, period.

And we need to all put on our big-boy and big-girl pants and deal with the fact that people will disagree with us.

Are you a religious person who bemoans the fact that the world is changing and that its idea of morality is different than yours? Get over it. Put on your big-boy pants.

Are you a non-religious person who wants people who do believe a faith to shut up and stop talking about it because it's infringing on your so-called rights to not have listen to opinions you disagree with? Get over it. Put on your big-girl pants.

Are you gay and hate it that there are people you will never win over to support you and believe as you do? Get over it. Put on your big-boy pants.

Are you straight and want to change the world so that the rest of the world goes back into the closet and doesn't rain on your parade? Get over it. Put on your big-girl pants.

How do I feel about the topic? I feel like regardless of what I think about it, that it shouldn't be able to come between us and keep us from being friends (or at the very least, friendly).

In other words, vote based on your worldview. Get involved in organizations that you believe in. Be pro. Be con. But be human. Don't wear your crap on your sleeve if it makes you an asshole. Believe what you will or what you won't, but don't let it keep you from all kinds of people. Don't let it build walls between you and the rest of humanity.

Then again, there are those from all viewpoints -- militant religionists, millitant non-religionists, militant genderists, militant non-genderists, militant racists, militant non-racists, militant pro-abortionists, militant anti-abortionists, militant pro-gay, militant anti-gay, etc. -- who seem to relish the hateful attitudes because it's easier to fight straw men than to honestly address the real issues of any subject. And to those who embrace hateful attitudes who still claim to be Christian and to be basing that on the fact that you're following Christ, well, I  have trouble believing any of those people truly Christian in any way, shape, or form.

But then, these are just my opinions. If you don't like 'em, you don't have to. Put on your big-boy pants. *grins*

In due time

by John Fischer

NOTE: Reposted in entirety from http://catchjohnfischer.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/in-due-time/ 

I remain with Daniel’s influential place in court of Nebuchadnezzar, ruler of the Babylonian empire, during a time when the children of Israel were in captivity there. I find this similar to the place a follower of Christ has in the marketplace today. As believers, Christians are in exile in a foreign country since their true home is in heaven, yet, while on this earth, they are required to take part in the “secular” culture in which they find themselves – to “build homes, and plan to stay. Plant gardens, and eat the food they produce. Marry and have children. Then find spouses for them so that you may have many grandchildren. Multiply! Do not dwindle away! And work for the peace and prosperity of the city where I sent you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, for its welfare will determine your welfare” (Jeremiah 29:5-7 NLT).

And when, in the course of living in an environment sometimes hostile to their faith, Daniel’s example would be to remain true to his God whatever the cost. In Daniel’s case, that’s what got him famously thrown into the lion’s den, where his survival impressed the king, making him respect not only Daniel, but Daniel’s god, and causing the king to put him in a place of high influence in his empire. At all times Daniel conducted himself with humility and respect for those around him – looking after their welfare as he would his own. These were pagan people following pagan gods, and though they were hostile towards him at times, he was never hostile towards them.

Indeed, Nebuchadnezzar was so impressed with Daniel and Daniel’s god (I use the lower case “g” to indicate the king’s perspective) that he named him Belteshazzer, a name after his own god, and claimed “the spirit of the holy gods is in him” (Daniel 4:9). This is Nebuchadnezzar putting Daniel and Daniel’s faith into terms he understands. And Daniel does not appear to resist this. Why should he? If anything, it’s a compliment, and Nebuchadnezzar will find out for himself whose god is God in due time.

Christians of recent years have tried to gain ground in society through confrontation, in some cases creating animosity and then claiming “persecution” over the reaction that animosity engendered. I do not find this to be in keeping with the way God works. Daniel’s approach is much more suited for representatives of the kingdom of God who are living in and taking part in the secular culture in which they find themselves.

Daniel never tried to turn Babylon into Israel. At all times, he operated without compromise, remaining true to his God while respecting the people and the religion of the nation to which he was exiled.

And in the end, after recovering from a period of insanity during which he lost everything (something also predicted in a dream Daniel interpreted) Nebuchadnezzar claimed, “Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and glorify and honor the King of heaven. All his acts are just and true, and he is able to humble those who are proud” (Daniel 4:37).

Christians and Halloween -- Opinions Galore

And here are more than a few of them.

Technically this is the Day of the Dead, but it's a cool pic. Okay?

 "Finding the answer to this question has been an interesting journey in itself. I interviewed several people and then researched what many leading Christian writers, authors and spokesmen have written about the subject. I also searched various websites such as christianitytoday.com, focusonthefamily.org, and cbn.com to read what others might be saying. What I found was an agreement on the origins of Halloween, but a mixture of recommendations about allowing our children to participate in this super-charged media driven holiday. "
http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/onlinediscipleship/halloween/halloween_watt05.aspx

"An old proverb says, "When you sup with the devil, use a long spoon." Presumably, NO genuine Christian would want to sup with the devil at all and yet many may be doing so in ignorance."
http://www.chick.com/seasonal/halloween/celebrate.asp

"For some people this holiday is a time for dress-up and candy; it is an opportunity for fun. Others express concern for their child's safety or for the emphasis that is often made on violence or horror at this time of year."
http://www.billygraham.org/articlepage.asp?articleid=1844

"The celebration of Halloween has no such Christian spiritual features. True, this holiday falls on October 31st, which is the eve of All Saints Day, which is a festival day celebrated by some Christian churches. However, the modern celebration of Halloween is not generally thought of as a Christian time of worship."
http://www.gci.org/church/holidays/halloween

"Have you noticed how costumes and masks are getting generally more bloody, gory, and depraved each year? Unfortunately, the gruesome and grotesque and the occult are increasingly glorified in American society, not only on Halloween, but throughout the year in frequent horror movies and television programs."
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/halloween.html

"Halloween—October 31—is considered a holiday in the United States. In fact, it rivals Christmas with regard to how widely celebrated it is. Stores that sell only Halloween-related paraphernalia open up a few months before the day and close shortly after it ends. But is Halloween a holiday that Christians should be observing?"
http://www.charismamag.com/site-archives/610-spiritled-woman/spiritled-woman/7156-the-danger-of-celebrating-halloween

"Good Christians are right to want to avoid evil, but Halloween is not evil, at least the way it is celebrated today. Some sincere people may worry about the origins of Halloween, but that is a mistake."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/should-christians-celebrate-halloween/2011/10/30/gIQA4HmbXM_blog.html

"Halloween, no matter how commercialized, has almost completely pagan origins. As innocent as it may seem to some, it is not something to be taken lightly. Christians tend to have various ways to celebrate or not to celebrate Halloween. For some, it means having an “alternative” Harvest Party. For others, it is staying away from the ghosts, witches, goblins, etc., and wearing innocuous costumes, e.g., little princesses, clowns, cowboys, super-heroes, etc. Some choose not to do anything, electing to lock themselves in the house with the lights off. With our freedom as Christians, we are at liberty to decide how to act."
http://www.gotquestions.org/Christians-celebrate-Halloween.html

And my own op-ed about this topic...
http://filthyragsanddirtycups.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-hornets-nest-of-halloween.html

The Hornet's Nest of Halloween

No doubt if you've been in church at all in the past few years, you've heard this question: Should Christians celebrate Halloween?

Let's just go ahead and open a hornet's nest, shall we? *grins*

For me, in order to respond to this question, I need to know what you mean by celebrate? If you mean taking part in a black mass and trying to raise evil spirits or engaging in rituals expressly forbidden in Scripture, then the answer is an emphatic no. Period.

If however, celebrating means to enjoy the company of neighbors you seldom see more than once a year, enjoy candy, and playing dress-up, then celebrate away. 

Now, you may say, but Sean, the roots of some of the activities are based in old pagan ceremonies and we should take no part in them. The Bible also teaches us via Jesus that it's what in the heart, or the intentions, that make the difference -- such as in lusting is the same thing as committing the adultery. The inverse also holds true, I believe. Innocently enjoying children and neighbors without seeking to worship demons or evil doesn't go down in your heart as "celebrating paganism." 

And if you're going to harp on Halloween, then be consistent and clean up your Christmas too, and move it away from the pagan solstice, get that tree out of your house, and stop playing the Santa Claus game (especially those of you who have that ridiculous ornament with Santa kneeling down to worship at the manger). 

Just saying.

What Makes Comics "Christian"?

I'm curious because I've had this discussion with pastors and youth pastors starting from way back years ago when I worked as a music buyer in a Christian bookstore. Of course, back then the discussion was about Christian music. What made it Christian?

The distributor?
The words?
The attitude of the artist's heart and his or her faith?
Was DC Talk Christian and Bruce Cockburn not?

Now I ask the same thing of Christian comics. What makes them Christian?

Is it that they're advertised and marketed as such?
Is it that they're published by Christian publishers?
Is it that they're blatantly evangelistic?
Or can mainstream comics written by Christians like Chuck Dixon and Roland Mann be included?
It is the attitude of the writer and/or artist's heart and faith?

Admittedly, I'm a bit liberal in my definition.

But I feel that almost any story, no matter the language or content (to a large degree) can be a story of redemption. Taking my cues from the Bible, it seems that almost no subject is taboo, from revenge, bloody wars, genocide, sex, incest, you name it. It's all in there, and I'm hoping that gives us earthly creators a grace-filled free reign to tackle almost any subject redemptively. 

I guess that's my definition at the heart. If it's a genuine redemptive story, it can be called a Christian one, because that's what Christ came to do, redeem.

But feel free to differ.

GCB -- Must See TV? Maybe.

I'm going to have to check out this show even though it's not my usually preferred fare.

Christians Can Find Humor in 'GCB'
by Sandi Villarreal 

It’s a television show that 1) follows “Desperate Housewives” and 2) only got “meh” ratings for its Sunday premiere, so I was slightly taken aback by the mini-firestorm over ABC’s new “GCB.”

The show, based on the book Good Christian Bitches by Kim Gatlin and starring Annie Potts and Kristin Chenoweth, is getting heat from conservatives and Christian groups for portraying Christians in a poor light for their cattiness, opulence, and overall … well, bitchiness. (Don't worry; I'm female. I get to say that.) ...

If you’re offended by this show, you’re probably taking it too seriously. It’s basically Mean Girls 25 years later with big hair, accents and Sunday School. These Botoxed beauties are no more an accurate representation of Christian women than the ladies of Wisteria Lane are of suburbanites. Let’s give the public some credit in understanding that.

Continue reading: http://sojo.net/blogs/2012/03/08/christians-can-find-humor-gcb

I Yam What I Yam

I'm a product of the American postmodern culture. Not just plain ol' anybody's postmodernism, mind you, but the specialized blend of red, white, and blue postmodernism.

I'm not ashamed of it, mind you.

I take liberally from all eras to define myself. A fan of classic films. A devoted Capra nut who realizes that Capra's heroes are now cornball and outdated. I value flappers and go-go dancers equally. I find something attractive in most women I meet. I can't help it.

I love that little spot of female skin between the bottom of a knee-length skirt and the top of a tall, zippered boot. To be honest, I think about sex more than I think about faith. I know my long-suffering wife wishes that weren't the case, and hates when I post about that much-loved little spot of female skin.

My DVD collection already has outgrown my storage unit (and we're talking a larger than average storage unit). I have more CDs than I'll every be able to listen to and enjoy (and I still buy more). I have more books than I have space in my house to put them, and had (before I moved) seven boxes stored in a metal shed in my back yard above and beyond those I've already donated away.

I crave honesty, even when it's not easy. I enjoy the fact that my wife can admit she's attracted to other people just as I find myself attracted to other people. I sometime use "foul language" in my prayers and my communication, but I think God's and other people are big enough to handle my true feelings.

I have more relationships with people far away from me that I may never see than I do with people in my own neighborhood. I want a future, but not at the expense of really enjoying life today also. I love being infatuated with new gadgets.

I crave entertainment more than security or safety. For me, a life without something to keep me occupied and having a good time just sucks the life of living. It's a sort of "live for the moment, carpe diem mindset that seems to be at odds with my chosen faith (that tends to put all the focus on the hereafter instead of the here and now). Don't ask me to rationalize it. I'm not sure I can. (Although, the guy who started my faith did say something about life more abundant, and that has to mean more than just waiting for the big party later. It has to.)

I've somehow become a living contradiction.

A postmodern believer in an absolute truth.
A community-focused individual who won't let go of his individuality.
A socially liberal political conservative.
A Protestant who is more comfortable around non-religious people or people of other faiths than with members of my own.
A person who longs to be remembered in history books but strives to serve others and see them as better than myself.
A person happy with who I am, but hope my children will be better than me.
A person who believes in black and whites, but lives in a shade of grays, and doesn't seem to mind it.
An American dreamer who doesn't feel the patriotic twinge of Americentism.

The Great Moralization

Here's another old one. In this case, a really old one. But I think writing this one so many years ago really helped begin shaping my understanding of my life of faith. So, in essence, this one's one of my formative ones.

A man walks into a doctor's office with a knife stuck in his back. Of course the receptionist sends him straight in, and the doctor leaves his other patient to check the wound. But... When the doctor reaches to remove the knife, the patient protests, "You don't understand doctor. I just wanted some medicine for the pain. You can leave the knife where it is."

"Can I has aspirin?"

Most all of us would say that this idiot is crazy. If he'd just let the doctor remove the knife the wound would heal, and the pain would eventually go away for good. It's a classic case of deciding whether to cure the symptoms or the disease, get rid of the cause or the effects.

What a stupid story, you may say. But did you know that Christians do that very thing? If abortion was made 100 percent illegal, vague prayer allowed in schools, and homosexuality pushed back into the closet, would Christian groups be satisfied? I think that by and large, they would, and that is a sad commentary on modern Christianity.

Are we attempting to help the world be redeemed or are we simply trying to moralize society? Sadly, the time spent in "moral" activities vastly outweighs the amount of time in "redemptive" activities.

It would seem that we are more interested in subjecting a world of various beliefs and non-beliefs to our own Christian common sense of decency and morality than in helping people find God. Just as the pain was a symptom of a knife in the back, all those things we fight against in culture are only symptoms of a greater problem -- sin, including and particularly our own! It would have been foolish for our doctor to focus only on the pain and not on the knife. It is equally foolish for us to focus only on the symptoms and not on the sin that causes them.

A moral society does not equal a redeemed society. A redeemed society will become a moral society, however. But the order is reversed. See the difference?

Perhaps the problem lies in the Christian's escape from the real world. As Christians, somewhere along the timeline, we saw that the world was going "bad." So we retreated into the ordered Christian subculture where we could have as little contact with the big, bad world as possible. But then the big, bad world started to encroach into our territory, so we fought back by organizing political groups and launching publicity campaigns. Even though the world was going to hell in a handbasket, it didn't bother us until it rained on our parade.

© 1994 Sean Taylor