My Christian faith used to be a strong castle. All the beliefs and doctrines I held onto fit tightly together. Everything was coherent; within the framework, everything made sense.
But then challenges came. My first reaction was to build up my castle walls. I added to them, fortified them, and built them taller and thicker. I turned my castle into a towering fortress.
But the challenges kept coming. Bits of my fortress were slowly chipped off. A brick here, a plank there.
More challenges kept coming. Larger and larger pieces were being chipped off; massive stones were removed. The archways, the ramparts, the walls - peppered with holes all over. I was in a fortress of swiss cheese.
Finally, the castle - my fortress - collapsed. My impenetrable fortress was weakened to the point where it could no longer keep itself standing.
My faith fell apart.
I stood atop the ruins. Everything that kept me safe - that gave me meaning, direction, and purpose in life - had crumbled into a massive heap of stone, wood, and metal.
I don't know why, but I stayed. I decided to rebuild.
For the past year or so of my life I have been rebuilding. Most of the structure is new. Oddly enough, from the outside, my new home resembles my old one. However, on the inside, it is radically different. I have utilized a different construction technique for building my foundation built my foundation. The framing of the walls is altogether different. No longer have I built with stone - which does not bend and sway under pressure - but I have built with wood. Organic, able to absorb stress and pressure by bending and swaying; able to channel and redirect the energy. Alive. Dynamic.
I am in the process of rebuilding a faith, a religiosity, a spirituality that had completely and utterly collapsed. A faith that can stand strong in full view of all the challenges.
Perhaps now you all can understand why I am the way that I am.
Stay tuned for Part Two where I present a list of some of these 'challenges'.
Peace,
Kev
*EDIT: Part Two here.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Friday, January 20, 2006
Keep Your Mouth Shut
I'm sitting in Scarfe, trying to translate a letter written by the Roman Emperor Claudius - tough shit, believe me.
Beside me two asian ladies are having a conversation.
It's about creation and evolution.
The one girl is telling the other that Darwin became a Christian later on in life, and he repented and regretted having ever made the theory of evolution.
I'm sorry lady, but that is pure bullshit.
Darwin never converted later in life.
Darwin never regretted his theory of evolution.
I bet one of the girls has had evangelism training. She's got her Bible with her. She's pumping out the Gospel of John. She's got all the lines: "can you see air? can you see radio waves? can you see an invisible God?" She even has evangelistic tracts. Yep - she's definitely had the evangelism training.
You want to tell people about Jesus? Be my guest; he's an important dude. The story of his life changes people's lives to this very day. And walking in his Way is a choice I myself have made for my own life. But, please, don't spread hearsay and false stories to try and convert people. If Jesus is worth anything, he can attract people on his own merits. He doesn't need people to lie for him.
But, alas, I keep my mouth shut.
-Kev
P.S. Why do people bother? Evolution is a damn good theory. It makes sense of a LOT of data that we have (geological, biological, etc...). It does exactly what a theory is meant to do: explain the data. And it does this much more gracefully than Creationist attempts, with much less conjecture. I smell another post?
Beside me two asian ladies are having a conversation.
It's about creation and evolution.
The one girl is telling the other that Darwin became a Christian later on in life, and he repented and regretted having ever made the theory of evolution.
I'm sorry lady, but that is pure bullshit.
Darwin never converted later in life.
Darwin never regretted his theory of evolution.
I bet one of the girls has had evangelism training. She's got her Bible with her. She's pumping out the Gospel of John. She's got all the lines: "can you see air? can you see radio waves? can you see an invisible God?" She even has evangelistic tracts. Yep - she's definitely had the evangelism training.
You want to tell people about Jesus? Be my guest; he's an important dude. The story of his life changes people's lives to this very day. And walking in his Way is a choice I myself have made for my own life. But, please, don't spread hearsay and false stories to try and convert people. If Jesus is worth anything, he can attract people on his own merits. He doesn't need people to lie for him.
But, alas, I keep my mouth shut.
-Kev
P.S. Why do people bother? Evolution is a damn good theory. It makes sense of a LOT of data that we have (geological, biological, etc...). It does exactly what a theory is meant to do: explain the data. And it does this much more gracefully than Creationist attempts, with much less conjecture. I smell another post?
Thursday, January 19, 2006
From Gospels to the Historical Jesus
I have finally begun reading (again, but much more closely) the Gospels in the New Testament as part of my course on 'The Gospels and Jesus'. Immediately, I was struck by a seemingly insurmountable difficulty. Namely, how can I go from reading this Gospel text to saying anything about the historical Jesus. I was baffled. I was stuck on the question of 'method'
But then I remembered the approach of my course textbook (Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus). First, one must understand each Gospel; then, one can begin to make the jump to the historical Jesus.
I think I'm going to follow this approach. My first goal will be to understand each of the Gospels as individual texts. Having then understood the world of each of the Gospels, I can then begin to form my picture of the historical Jesus.
In general terms: understand each of your sources first, and only then try to put all the pieces together.
Well, at least that's my approach for now. Unless I come across a better way. I always love better ways.
-Kev
But then I remembered the approach of my course textbook (Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus). First, one must understand each Gospel; then, one can begin to make the jump to the historical Jesus.
I think I'm going to follow this approach. My first goal will be to understand each of the Gospels as individual texts. Having then understood the world of each of the Gospels, I can then begin to form my picture of the historical Jesus.
In general terms: understand each of your sources first, and only then try to put all the pieces together.
Well, at least that's my approach for now. Unless I come across a better way. I always love better ways.
-Kev
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Political Reflections
Democracy they say?
I vote for a man or woman to represent me in the House of Commons for approximately four years. This individual, my Member of Parliament, is affiliated with one of the major Canadian political parties: Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, Greens, etc... When I, the Canadian citizen, vote in the federal election, who do I vote for? Person or Party?
Party. Why do I vote party - because it is the party that is really in charge. See, my MP is given a seat in the House of Commons, which gives them a vote and voice in legislative proceedings. But, how does my MP decide what to vote for, or what issues to discuss? The party line. As I understand it, few of the issues voted upon in our House are free votes. That is, each MP is free to vote however they wish without the constraint of the party stance. Thus, the MP is merely an extra vote for the mythical beast - ahem, the political party. Moreover, if I write to my MP in disapproval of this-or-that-issue--which is their party's stance--guess who they'll listen to. The party.
So who will I vote for this federal election? I'm not sure yet. But this I know: I'll base my decision on the party stance, not the individual politician.
After all, what does the character of the politician have anything to do with it? Bill Clinton anyone?
(Removing my tongue from my cheek)
I vote for a man or woman to represent me in the House of Commons for approximately four years. This individual, my Member of Parliament, is affiliated with one of the major Canadian political parties: Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, Greens, etc... When I, the Canadian citizen, vote in the federal election, who do I vote for? Person or Party?
Party. Why do I vote party - because it is the party that is really in charge. See, my MP is given a seat in the House of Commons, which gives them a vote and voice in legislative proceedings. But, how does my MP decide what to vote for, or what issues to discuss? The party line. As I understand it, few of the issues voted upon in our House are free votes. That is, each MP is free to vote however they wish without the constraint of the party stance. Thus, the MP is merely an extra vote for the mythical beast - ahem, the political party. Moreover, if I write to my MP in disapproval of this-or-that-issue--which is their party's stance--guess who they'll listen to. The party.
So who will I vote for this federal election? I'm not sure yet. But this I know: I'll base my decision on the party stance, not the individual politician.
After all, what does the character of the politician have anything to do with it? Bill Clinton anyone?
(Removing my tongue from my cheek)
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Take It Easy
I have noticed something: my dad and I are alike in a very certain way.
A couple days ago, Dan and I were chattin' over lunch, and we came upon the topic of how people deal with stress. I told him that I didn't want to be the type of person that makes a big deal over their stress. Everyone is busy, everyone has stress, there is no need to get all down and grumpy over it. Not only that, but when you get grumpy, you tend to pull those around you down as well - which in turn feeds your grumpiness. I was telling him that I don't want to be like that if I ever get into Med school (our conversation started with how busy med students are). Not only that, I have not wanted to be like that throughout my undergraduate education.
At which point Dan tells me something he has noticed: I'm pretty easy going.
Fast forward to the next day on the bus ride to school. I was thinking about my Dad, and how he is so easy going in life. I don't recall ever hearing my dad whine or complain. Throughout all the financial woes our family has gone through, Dad hasn't ever gotten grumpy. Throughout all the hard work he has to do to build houses, Dad hasn't ever gotten grumpy. When you hang around him, you'd never know how many things are hovering about, trying to stress him out in life.
But he doesn't wear it on his sleeve.
He takes it easy.
That's one thing about Dad I wanna be like.
Kev
A couple days ago, Dan and I were chattin' over lunch, and we came upon the topic of how people deal with stress. I told him that I didn't want to be the type of person that makes a big deal over their stress. Everyone is busy, everyone has stress, there is no need to get all down and grumpy over it. Not only that, but when you get grumpy, you tend to pull those around you down as well - which in turn feeds your grumpiness. I was telling him that I don't want to be like that if I ever get into Med school (our conversation started with how busy med students are). Not only that, I have not wanted to be like that throughout my undergraduate education.
At which point Dan tells me something he has noticed: I'm pretty easy going.
Fast forward to the next day on the bus ride to school. I was thinking about my Dad, and how he is so easy going in life. I don't recall ever hearing my dad whine or complain. Throughout all the financial woes our family has gone through, Dad hasn't ever gotten grumpy. Throughout all the hard work he has to do to build houses, Dad hasn't ever gotten grumpy. When you hang around him, you'd never know how many things are hovering about, trying to stress him out in life.
But he doesn't wear it on his sleeve.
He takes it easy.
That's one thing about Dad I wanna be like.
Kev
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Is Christianity True? - A Response
I had the good fortune of receiving intelligent, constructive comments on certain posts of mine a few weeks ago. My post where I stood Jesus and Siddhartha (the Budda) side by side elicited a couple great comments. Both Wing and Eug left thought provoking comments (thanks guys!...this is why Blogger pwns Xanga), and both asked essentially the same question:
How do we know that what we believe in (Christianity) is true?
I don't know where to start answering such a question. I have undertaken quite a radical paradigm shift the past few years in how I approach the Bible, Jesus, God, religion, faith, etc... In fact, I know that my views are quite fringe in the Christian Church. It is a rather nice coincidence that I have been asked this question now, for I have just read three books that tackle this issue (two by Borg, one by Pagels). These books have really helped me understand where I now stand, for all three articulate the same general paradigm that I find myself coming into. In order to bring to light my thinking, I'll present my thoughts in a question-and-answer format. This recognizes the fact that much of what I need to say isn't logically linked together, but is more like a mosaic of thought-clusters and opinions. I think this is the best way to describe my thinking at this point - a messy mosaic. It is too soon to come down with a definite position; all of this is thinking-in-progress. Also, my aim is not to persuade you, my faithful readers. No, my goal is to bring to light where I stand, to share my own opinions and thoughts. Don't expect persuasive argumentation to try and convert you to my way of thinking - that is not my aim. Anyways, on to the juicy stuff.
Is there a God?
Yes - that is what I believe. However, our language about God is imperfect at best. We must take our human descriptions of God with a grain of salt.
What is the nature of God?
This is hard to answer. I think God is both personal and impersonal. That is, God is both a Sacred reality that one can be in a personal relationship with, and God is a Sacred, impersonal presence/energy/reality that permeates everything. The great religions of this world have seen God in both ways. I think they are the result of genuine encounters with the Sacred. I do not think that they were all deceived. Therefore, I take into consideration that a number of religions see the Sacred as a personal deity, while others see it as an impersonal cosmic force. Honestly though, most of my interactions with God I would classify as personal and relational. But, at the same time, God is the great mystery. Not only does our language break down when we talk about God, but the very being of God is so great, and so vast, that surely we can't possibly understand everything about God. So I remain open to the mystery that is God.
So are you a pluralist?
I guess deep down, yes. I try to be inclusive all the incredibly rich and diverse religious traditions this world has seen. I do think that these different religions traditions did, and do, have honest, genuine encounters with the Sacred reality. God did not limit itself to one, and only one, culture or religion. I think that mainline Christian thinking, acceptable to most Christians I know, does provide some resources for thinking in this way. For example, few would deny that God is active among non-believers by means of his Spirit. However, most do not go to the pluralism that I find myself in.
If you are a pluralist, then what is salvation?
Salvation. Hrmm. It can mean a bunch of things I suppose. But I think at the center of it is transformation. (Here I recognize my debt to John Hick and, to a lesser extent, Marcus Borg). Salvation is the transformation of humanity, both individually and socially. Many of the religions in the world reveal the feeling that something is out of place, something is wrong. Something needs to change. I realize my definition of salvation as transformation is very Christian. The Christian story aims for the resurrection of the dead into a new heavens and a new earth. The goal is a transformed existence. However, despite the very Christian way of seeing things, I think this theme of transformation is common throughout a number of major religions in this world. Even secular thinking hopes for transformation of that which ills society.
What about hell then?
Honestly, the concept doesn't sit well with me. That God would condemn the majority of the human race to eternal punishment is a bit much. And, as much of Christianity tends to put it, that God would condemn the majority of the human race to eternal punishment because they did not believe--give intellectual assent to--certain 'truths' strikes me as absurd. I cannot imagine a God that could do such a thing. Especially a God that would watch the universe create itself for billions upon billions of years. Why would he want to go through all that just to throw most of it into a pit of fire. Just doesn't make sense to me.
So does God judge us?
I don't know. Honestly, I don't. I don't have an answer to this yet. I believe that human injustice must be addressed. Each of us has acted unjustly to our fellow humans, and to the world that sustains us. I don't think God will brush this injustice aside. But, at the same time, I don't think God is going to condemn most of humankind. In the end, I'm not afraid. I know God is with me: he is mine, and I am his. I do not fear judgment. And Christian tradition has always said that Jesus bore God's punishment for the world. If Jesus did indeed fulfill this role, then what is to fear? Just how it all will work out, I don't know.
Then how do you view Jesus?
A very broad question, one which I can cover only briefly. First, Jesus was most definitely an incredible human being. I stress that 'human being'. There's this quote I came across in one of the books I just read: to rob Jesus of his humanity is to rob him of his greatness. The compassion and love he showed, the barriers he broke down, his teachings, his healings, all of them are marks of a great man. Moreover, Jesus intimately encountered and experienced the Sacred. I agree with Marcus Borg in that Jesus' whole ministry and life was driven by his deep, intimate, relationship with God. And the compassion and love that he found in the presence of God, he showed to those whom he came across in life. Jesus was a person saturated by the Divine.
What about the incarnation then?
I think this is one of those areas where human language and understanding fails us. What does it mean to say that literally Jesus is God? I have no idea what to make of this language. I think Jesus shared an intimacy with God that few humans have experienced. In many ways, to look upon Jesus is to look upon the Sacred itself. This doesn't deny that other humans in history could have played similar roles. However, there is something else about Jesus - people still encounter him, to this very day. Those who are Christians personally encounter God in the figure of Jesus, they have from the very beginning. There is something about Easter, boy I tell ya.
What do you think the Bible is?
I do not think the Bible is revealed text: I don't think that God dictated the contents of the Bible to the people who wrote it. I see the Bible as a human document. Written by humans, edited by humans, compiled by humans. The Bible is a collection of texts resulting from the encounter between ancient communities and the Divine. It is a human response to Sacred experience. And so I do not see the Bible as a book about doctrine and dogma, but rather of experience and story. The Bible testifies to God and Jesus; it is the one whom the Bible speaks of that is of utmost importance to Christianity; the text itself is just a medium, a messenger, a pointer. In the words of a fellow blogger: there will be no Bible stand in heaven.
Why are you a Christian?
The question you've all been waiting for, my faithful readers. Well, there are a number of reasons. First, I think that Christianity is a valid path for bringing people to encounter God. In Christianity, in it's way of life, it's rituals, it's forms of prayer, it's stories, it's Scriptures, it's community, I am brought into a transformative relationship with God. I think I genuinely do, and will continue to, encounter the Divine within Christianity. Second, I am captivated by Jesus. I just can't get away from this guy. Trust me, I've tried. There is something about who Jesus was, and I would say, still is, that seizes me. Third, I have found a sense of community and belonging within my particular Christian community. Fourth, I think that Christianity has much to tell us about God, humanity, and the nature of the religious life; and I am willing to stick with it to listen and follow.
Here I will raise the same question that Pagels does in her book - why is being Christian today virtually synonymous with believing certain things. Why is Christianity defined by 'belief'? What about all the stories we tell? the values we hold? the rituals we perform? our church communities? our life of prayer? our life of self-giving love? the central place of Jesus in our lives? the Way of Jesus that we follow? Are none of these markers of 'being Christian'?
If Christianity is all about believing certain things to be true, then I might just be S.O.L. (Shit outta luck). But if being Christian is more than that (e.g., following the Way of Jesus the Messiah/Christ), then I'm home.
Why are you so liberal?
The question that I'm sure is in all of your minds at this point. The short answer - it's the path that my life has taken me. It is the result of my experiences, encounters, thoughts, feelings - everything. The somewhat-longer answer. I don't think Jesus would be so quick to condemn people. He offered forgiveness to people outside of the established system of ritual purity, that is, apart from the temple and the sacrificial system. Jesus also associated with the people that society marginalized: the unclean, the impure, the poor, the prostitutes. He did not come to them with a message of fiery judgment, but with compassion and love. He didn't go around telling people what to believe in order to be saved; rather, he healed the sick, loved the unloved, and told them to follow in his footsteps. But his fire, oh yes his fire was reserved for those who marginalized others and condemned them to lives of misery. What would Jesus think about the Church today? We are so quick to label who is 'in' and who is 'out'. So, ironically enough, it is my view of Jesus that makes me so liberal.
This is a difficult post. It is both hard for me to write so openly and honestly about such a controversial topic - a topic that may (will?) marginalize me - and also I bet it has been difficult for some of you to read. I first drafted this post a couple weeks ago and let it sit and simmer for a while, then came back to it last week to edit it, and now finally return to publish it. I welcome and look forward to your comments. Please, don't bother yelling 'heretic' and quoting scripture at me, you'll get nowhere. But if you do, I will appreciate the fact that you are motivated by my eternal well being - in fact, I will be flattered! However, blogging is all about dialogue and discussion, so please, comment with that aim. Don't forget my warning right at the beginning: all of my thinking at this stage in my life is still 'in progress'. I have changed my mind many times over the past few years, and I don't see that process ending any time soon.
Grace and peace,
Kev
How do we know that what we believe in (Christianity) is true?
I don't know where to start answering such a question. I have undertaken quite a radical paradigm shift the past few years in how I approach the Bible, Jesus, God, religion, faith, etc... In fact, I know that my views are quite fringe in the Christian Church. It is a rather nice coincidence that I have been asked this question now, for I have just read three books that tackle this issue (two by Borg, one by Pagels). These books have really helped me understand where I now stand, for all three articulate the same general paradigm that I find myself coming into. In order to bring to light my thinking, I'll present my thoughts in a question-and-answer format. This recognizes the fact that much of what I need to say isn't logically linked together, but is more like a mosaic of thought-clusters and opinions. I think this is the best way to describe my thinking at this point - a messy mosaic. It is too soon to come down with a definite position; all of this is thinking-in-progress. Also, my aim is not to persuade you, my faithful readers. No, my goal is to bring to light where I stand, to share my own opinions and thoughts. Don't expect persuasive argumentation to try and convert you to my way of thinking - that is not my aim. Anyways, on to the juicy stuff.
Is there a God?
Yes - that is what I believe. However, our language about God is imperfect at best. We must take our human descriptions of God with a grain of salt.
What is the nature of God?
This is hard to answer. I think God is both personal and impersonal. That is, God is both a Sacred reality that one can be in a personal relationship with, and God is a Sacred, impersonal presence/energy/reality that permeates everything. The great religions of this world have seen God in both ways. I think they are the result of genuine encounters with the Sacred. I do not think that they were all deceived. Therefore, I take into consideration that a number of religions see the Sacred as a personal deity, while others see it as an impersonal cosmic force. Honestly though, most of my interactions with God I would classify as personal and relational. But, at the same time, God is the great mystery. Not only does our language break down when we talk about God, but the very being of God is so great, and so vast, that surely we can't possibly understand everything about God. So I remain open to the mystery that is God.
So are you a pluralist?
I guess deep down, yes. I try to be inclusive all the incredibly rich and diverse religious traditions this world has seen. I do think that these different religions traditions did, and do, have honest, genuine encounters with the Sacred reality. God did not limit itself to one, and only one, culture or religion. I think that mainline Christian thinking, acceptable to most Christians I know, does provide some resources for thinking in this way. For example, few would deny that God is active among non-believers by means of his Spirit. However, most do not go to the pluralism that I find myself in.
If you are a pluralist, then what is salvation?
Salvation. Hrmm. It can mean a bunch of things I suppose. But I think at the center of it is transformation. (Here I recognize my debt to John Hick and, to a lesser extent, Marcus Borg). Salvation is the transformation of humanity, both individually and socially. Many of the religions in the world reveal the feeling that something is out of place, something is wrong. Something needs to change. I realize my definition of salvation as transformation is very Christian. The Christian story aims for the resurrection of the dead into a new heavens and a new earth. The goal is a transformed existence. However, despite the very Christian way of seeing things, I think this theme of transformation is common throughout a number of major religions in this world. Even secular thinking hopes for transformation of that which ills society.
What about hell then?
Honestly, the concept doesn't sit well with me. That God would condemn the majority of the human race to eternal punishment is a bit much. And, as much of Christianity tends to put it, that God would condemn the majority of the human race to eternal punishment because they did not believe--give intellectual assent to--certain 'truths' strikes me as absurd. I cannot imagine a God that could do such a thing. Especially a God that would watch the universe create itself for billions upon billions of years. Why would he want to go through all that just to throw most of it into a pit of fire. Just doesn't make sense to me.
So does God judge us?
I don't know. Honestly, I don't. I don't have an answer to this yet. I believe that human injustice must be addressed. Each of us has acted unjustly to our fellow humans, and to the world that sustains us. I don't think God will brush this injustice aside. But, at the same time, I don't think God is going to condemn most of humankind. In the end, I'm not afraid. I know God is with me: he is mine, and I am his. I do not fear judgment. And Christian tradition has always said that Jesus bore God's punishment for the world. If Jesus did indeed fulfill this role, then what is to fear? Just how it all will work out, I don't know.
Then how do you view Jesus?
A very broad question, one which I can cover only briefly. First, Jesus was most definitely an incredible human being. I stress that 'human being'. There's this quote I came across in one of the books I just read: to rob Jesus of his humanity is to rob him of his greatness. The compassion and love he showed, the barriers he broke down, his teachings, his healings, all of them are marks of a great man. Moreover, Jesus intimately encountered and experienced the Sacred. I agree with Marcus Borg in that Jesus' whole ministry and life was driven by his deep, intimate, relationship with God. And the compassion and love that he found in the presence of God, he showed to those whom he came across in life. Jesus was a person saturated by the Divine.
What about the incarnation then?
I think this is one of those areas where human language and understanding fails us. What does it mean to say that literally Jesus is God? I have no idea what to make of this language. I think Jesus shared an intimacy with God that few humans have experienced. In many ways, to look upon Jesus is to look upon the Sacred itself. This doesn't deny that other humans in history could have played similar roles. However, there is something else about Jesus - people still encounter him, to this very day. Those who are Christians personally encounter God in the figure of Jesus, they have from the very beginning. There is something about Easter, boy I tell ya.
What do you think the Bible is?
I do not think the Bible is revealed text: I don't think that God dictated the contents of the Bible to the people who wrote it. I see the Bible as a human document. Written by humans, edited by humans, compiled by humans. The Bible is a collection of texts resulting from the encounter between ancient communities and the Divine. It is a human response to Sacred experience. And so I do not see the Bible as a book about doctrine and dogma, but rather of experience and story. The Bible testifies to God and Jesus; it is the one whom the Bible speaks of that is of utmost importance to Christianity; the text itself is just a medium, a messenger, a pointer. In the words of a fellow blogger: there will be no Bible stand in heaven.
Why are you a Christian?
The question you've all been waiting for, my faithful readers. Well, there are a number of reasons. First, I think that Christianity is a valid path for bringing people to encounter God. In Christianity, in it's way of life, it's rituals, it's forms of prayer, it's stories, it's Scriptures, it's community, I am brought into a transformative relationship with God. I think I genuinely do, and will continue to, encounter the Divine within Christianity. Second, I am captivated by Jesus. I just can't get away from this guy. Trust me, I've tried. There is something about who Jesus was, and I would say, still is, that seizes me. Third, I have found a sense of community and belonging within my particular Christian community. Fourth, I think that Christianity has much to tell us about God, humanity, and the nature of the religious life; and I am willing to stick with it to listen and follow.
Here I will raise the same question that Pagels does in her book - why is being Christian today virtually synonymous with believing certain things. Why is Christianity defined by 'belief'? What about all the stories we tell? the values we hold? the rituals we perform? our church communities? our life of prayer? our life of self-giving love? the central place of Jesus in our lives? the Way of Jesus that we follow? Are none of these markers of 'being Christian'?
If Christianity is all about believing certain things to be true, then I might just be S.O.L. (Shit outta luck). But if being Christian is more than that (e.g., following the Way of Jesus the Messiah/Christ), then I'm home.
Why are you so liberal?
The question that I'm sure is in all of your minds at this point. The short answer - it's the path that my life has taken me. It is the result of my experiences, encounters, thoughts, feelings - everything. The somewhat-longer answer. I don't think Jesus would be so quick to condemn people. He offered forgiveness to people outside of the established system of ritual purity, that is, apart from the temple and the sacrificial system. Jesus also associated with the people that society marginalized: the unclean, the impure, the poor, the prostitutes. He did not come to them with a message of fiery judgment, but with compassion and love. He didn't go around telling people what to believe in order to be saved; rather, he healed the sick, loved the unloved, and told them to follow in his footsteps. But his fire, oh yes his fire was reserved for those who marginalized others and condemned them to lives of misery. What would Jesus think about the Church today? We are so quick to label who is 'in' and who is 'out'. So, ironically enough, it is my view of Jesus that makes me so liberal.
This is a difficult post. It is both hard for me to write so openly and honestly about such a controversial topic - a topic that may (will?) marginalize me - and also I bet it has been difficult for some of you to read. I first drafted this post a couple weeks ago and let it sit and simmer for a while, then came back to it last week to edit it, and now finally return to publish it. I welcome and look forward to your comments. Please, don't bother yelling 'heretic' and quoting scripture at me, you'll get nowhere. But if you do, I will appreciate the fact that you are motivated by my eternal well being - in fact, I will be flattered! However, blogging is all about dialogue and discussion, so please, comment with that aim. Don't forget my warning right at the beginning: all of my thinking at this stage in my life is still 'in progress'. I have changed my mind many times over the past few years, and I don't see that process ending any time soon.
Grace and peace,
Kev
Thursday, January 05, 2006
A New Semester
A new year, a new term: new profs, new classes. Here's the run down:
BIOL 201 - Biochemistry:
I heard this class isn't too harsh so long as you stay on top of the material. A BIG plus is that the tutorial is drop-in, i.e., not required. Sweet. I wasn't a big fan of the BIOL 200 tutorial. This class has a midterm and a final exam.
CHEM 205 - Physical Chemistry:
Thermodynamics, kinetics, and spectroscopy. Disgusting material. I don't want to do it - I don't care about it. But it's a requirement, so I have no choice. Weekly quizzes (WebCT I think), midterm, and final exam.
GREK 325 - New Testament/Hellenistic Greek:
Continuation of a full year course. I did very well first semester. Now we are going to be reading more Hellenistic texts and less NT texts. I guess that's cool because it gives me a nice spectrum of ancient Greek. Midterm and final exam.
RELG 304 - Creation and Covenant in Ancient Israel:
This class looks like a great one. It covers the Pentateuch in depth (i.e., Genesis to Deuteronomy). We will be learning different critical approaches to the texts. The focus is on the twin themes of creation and covenant, and how they are used in the Pentateuch, and the Hebrew Bible in general. Short essay (10 pages), midterm and final exam.
RELG 414 - Gospels and the Historical Jesus:
This is one of the two main classes I want to take for my religious studies major (the other being 'Paul of Tarsus'). This class looks like it's going to be amazing. The professor (Dr. Cousland) is so jovial and funny - just a great lecturer. The textbook looks great, and the material we're going to be covering is exactly what I was looking for. One paper (15 pages), a midterm and a small midterm on the last day of class; no final exam.
RELG 370 - Theory and Method in the Study of Religion:
Continuation of last semester. Last semester, we learned different theoretical approaches to interpreting religion. This semester, we need to go to an actual sacred space in Vancouver, and analyze that space using the theoretical knowledge we learned. I already have a place in mind (the Catholic Church across the street from my Church), and I think I know which theoretical approach I want to use (Otto and phenomenology). I've taken out a couple books from the library already - I want to get an early start on this paper. One paper (12 pages) only; no exams.
So that's the outlook for this term.
Looks good, but very, very busy.
I need to get started on stuff early; there's no way I can cram all this stuff the last month. No way!
Cheers,
Kev
BIOL 201 - Biochemistry:
I heard this class isn't too harsh so long as you stay on top of the material. A BIG plus is that the tutorial is drop-in, i.e., not required. Sweet. I wasn't a big fan of the BIOL 200 tutorial. This class has a midterm and a final exam.
CHEM 205 - Physical Chemistry:
Thermodynamics, kinetics, and spectroscopy. Disgusting material. I don't want to do it - I don't care about it. But it's a requirement, so I have no choice. Weekly quizzes (WebCT I think), midterm, and final exam.
GREK 325 - New Testament/Hellenistic Greek:
Continuation of a full year course. I did very well first semester. Now we are going to be reading more Hellenistic texts and less NT texts. I guess that's cool because it gives me a nice spectrum of ancient Greek. Midterm and final exam.
RELG 304 - Creation and Covenant in Ancient Israel:
This class looks like a great one. It covers the Pentateuch in depth (i.e., Genesis to Deuteronomy). We will be learning different critical approaches to the texts. The focus is on the twin themes of creation and covenant, and how they are used in the Pentateuch, and the Hebrew Bible in general. Short essay (10 pages), midterm and final exam.
RELG 414 - Gospels and the Historical Jesus:
This is one of the two main classes I want to take for my religious studies major (the other being 'Paul of Tarsus'). This class looks like it's going to be amazing. The professor (Dr. Cousland) is so jovial and funny - just a great lecturer. The textbook looks great, and the material we're going to be covering is exactly what I was looking for. One paper (15 pages), a midterm and a small midterm on the last day of class; no final exam.
RELG 370 - Theory and Method in the Study of Religion:
Continuation of last semester. Last semester, we learned different theoretical approaches to interpreting religion. This semester, we need to go to an actual sacred space in Vancouver, and analyze that space using the theoretical knowledge we learned. I already have a place in mind (the Catholic Church across the street from my Church), and I think I know which theoretical approach I want to use (Otto and phenomenology). I've taken out a couple books from the library already - I want to get an early start on this paper. One paper (12 pages) only; no exams.
So that's the outlook for this term.
Looks good, but very, very busy.
I need to get started on stuff early; there's no way I can cram all this stuff the last month. No way!
Cheers,
Kev
Monday, January 02, 2006
Getting Stepped On
The way of Jesus is radical: it is the way of radical love. If someone strikes you, you don't resist; if someone takes from you, you give them more; if someone shows you evil and hate, you return goodness and love. In short, the way of Jesus is the way of getting stepped on.
But is this way sustainable? Can we humans live our lives getting stepped on all the time, and not fighting back? The way I see it, Jesus did it, and his life ended hanging on a piece of timber alongside political troublemakers.
And if the way of Jesus is the way of love and compassion, then what if our love and compassion is taken advantage of? I'm sure God gets this all time - but I'm not God and I don't have a clue how God deals with it. So whatever divine knowledge there might be, I'm not privy to it. This leaves human knowledge and wisdom to come up with an answer.
How much mercy and patience must I show before enough is enough?
How far should I allow others to take advantage of my kindness before I stop?
How far should I allow others to take advantage of my giving and selflessness before it becomes unhealthy?
I wish I had an answer.
I wish Jesus wasn't so radical.
Sometimes, I wish he didn't put his money where his mouth was and actually live--and die--for his values.
Everything would be much easier that way.
Cheers,
Kev
But is this way sustainable? Can we humans live our lives getting stepped on all the time, and not fighting back? The way I see it, Jesus did it, and his life ended hanging on a piece of timber alongside political troublemakers.
And if the way of Jesus is the way of love and compassion, then what if our love and compassion is taken advantage of? I'm sure God gets this all time - but I'm not God and I don't have a clue how God deals with it. So whatever divine knowledge there might be, I'm not privy to it. This leaves human knowledge and wisdom to come up with an answer.
How much mercy and patience must I show before enough is enough?
How far should I allow others to take advantage of my kindness before I stop?
How far should I allow others to take advantage of my giving and selflessness before it becomes unhealthy?
I wish I had an answer.
I wish Jesus wasn't so radical.
Sometimes, I wish he didn't put his money where his mouth was and actually live--and die--for his values.
Everything would be much easier that way.
Cheers,
Kev
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)