Community of the Risen

I just got another article published at Jesus Manifesto, check it out.

Michael Cline is asking some hard questions at Jesus Manifesto.

Mark Montgomery has written some very good thoughts on how we are invited into God’s Kingdom.

Wes has written another wonderful thought provoking piece on Torture and Jesus at Kingdom Conversations.

“We had to run monsters,” Phoebe said.

“Monsters?” I asked confused.

“Suicides,” Rollie corrected. “They call them monsters now. She means suicides.”

“It’s not politically correct to call them suicides,” my Uncle Phil says.

“That makes sense,” I said.

Rollie and Phoebe are two of my cousins, and we had dinner at grandma’s house tonight to celebrate their birthday. The youngest great grandchild was also there—Emma.

“What do you want?” her mother Kristen asked in a high voice. “You want to play with the dog?”

“Be careful that dog is retarded,” Rollie said.

“Rollie,” uncle Phil said again. “You are sitting between two people who work with mentally disabled people.”

“Yeah,” I chime in. “It’s politically incorrect.”

Last semester I wrote a paper on how religion, truth, and education should be interrelated.  I am not a proponent of forcing students to follow my particular religion, but I am of a strong belief that beliefs should be more central in classroom discussion.  Let me explain, in probably oversimplified terms, how I think that religion should effect the following subjects:

• Math: Most people have divorced the idea that math and morality are related.  This is a most unfortunate circumstance.  Math, in the modern institutions, have largely been reduced to the theory in which it is rooted.  Growing up in the 1990s and graduating in 2004, I grew up in math programs that used very few word problems.  Math teachers at the high school level must, as much as possible, help students make moral decisions in their everyday life.  For instance, we should not divorce theory altogether, but we must implement that theory into real life situations.  The majority of problems on a homework assignment should be something that students can relate to.  Students should be discussing the immoral ways that math is being used by the media, and how algebra and other concepts show the way that government works.  Math should be rewed to morality.
• Science: No one is science should try to divorce the ideas from science with the moral situations that those scientific theories give rise to.  For instance, a discussion on how social darwinism sprung from Darwin’s Origin of Species should not be left by the teachers to an ethics class sometime in the future.  Students should be encouraged to analyze the bias behind scientists, and students should always be encouraged to think critically about the moral issues that face scientists.
• Literature: I do not have to spend much time here, for literature has always been linked to emotion and morality.  Most English teachers do not have difficulty discussing the religious and philosophical views of the authors student read, looking at and examining religious allusions, and other such things.
• History: It is also not hard to see how history and religion are related.  Some would argue that it is the history of religion that explains the history of the world.

It is not hard to examine such things and think about the ways religion should be tied into education.

Earlier this week, I spent a significant amount of time dedicated to Ayn Rand and her thoughts on capitalism. I hope as I continue my way through her book that I can continue to post on some of her thoughts as they apply to this blog. Her major flaw that she seemed to see within capitalism was its unholy matrimony with politics and the state. Just as socialistic communism is a good idea in pure theory, the idea of capitalism seems good until the state begins mandating and regulating the economy so that some “win” and others “lose.” Any government that attempts to interfere with capitalism, argues Rand, will get in the way of the pure market structure that is supposed to keep the well oiled machine running smoothly. What are we as Christians supposed to do with such a statement? Are we to distrust the state or distrust the capitalistic system, or both?

One thing that we have not yet look at is the market anomalies within the “perfect” system of capitalism. Why do people consume at rates higher than they need to? Why do people sometimes go for the more lavish option when another option is just as good? Thorstein Veblen began noticing what he referred to as “conspicuous consumption” beginning to arise in nineteenth century Europe where middle to upper class citizens were buying things simply to show class and status. Because they had more money than they needed to simply subsist, they began to buy things they really didn’t need because certain items began a symbol of socioeconomic status. This begin to offset the “balance” of capitalism because people start doing things like building bigger houses simply because they can.

A good fictional example of this is found in The Great Gatsby. The main character Nick is living earlier in the 1920s and is living out in a rich area of New York City. Nick is introduced to a man who throws lavish parties named Gatsby. The long and short of it is, Gatsby simply has a lot of money and likes to throw huge extravagant parties, and it is, to an extent, a social symbol. There is a certain amount of mysterious surrounding him, but Nick, how is also the narrator says this about Gatsby:

“The truth was that Jay Gatsby, of West Egg, Long Island, sprang from his Platonic conception of himself. He was a son of God-a phrase which, if it means anything, means just that-and he must be about His Father’s business, the service of a vast, vulgar, and meretricious beauty. So he invented just the sort of Jay Gatsby that a seventeen year old boy would be likely to invent, and to this conception he was faithful to the end.”

In a kind of “self-created” identity, Gatsby has “invented” the person whom he wants to be. Because he has money he is able to sell this identity to those who share in this identity. What does this say about Gatsby’s business skills or his ability to make more money? It says nothing at all. The ideas behind the book are that this “conspicuous consumption” that takes place in the West Egg where Gatsby lives is a self-constructed “platonic conception.” None of these people really needed the things they had, but they still had them nonetheless. They could have lived in smaller houses, but they chose to live in bigger houses simply because they could. This is, in a nutshell, the idea behind conspicuous consumption—buying more than what you need simply because you can.

I have also written at length about the economic decisions that face Christians. How can we prophetically deal with conspicious consumption in a prophetic way with the people in our churches? In the American church, we sometimes forget to realize that economics and spirituality are always tied up in the same dimension. We should not try to seperate the two.

This leaves me with some major questions that I want to pursue in future posts. Perhaps my readers can give some feedback to help formulate my thoughts:

1. Should Christians care about conspicious consumption?
2. Is the church spending too much money on luxuries? If so, what in your mind constitutes a luxury?
3. If Christianity is a viable option in America, should it endorse the capitalism of its nation? Why or why not? Make sure you understand the nature of capitalism before answering that question.

“In the popular imagination, knowing si see nas the act of a solitary individual, a knower who uses sense and intellect to apprehend and interpret objects of knowledge ‘out there.’ Not only does this knower operate apart from other knowers, he or she is also set apart from the known object in order to guarantee that our knowledge will be ‘objective’ and pure. The popular image of howe know reality is as non- or anti-communal as is the popular image of the nature of reality itself.”

-Parker Palmer

I certainly think so.

There are good posts going on at Kingdom Conversations that are dealing with an analysis of the theological value of contemporary Christian music.  There are new posts there on Chris Tomlin’s Made to Worship (by yours truly), and another post on Jeremy Camp done by my good friend Wes.

Chadwick has posted some good thoughts on narrative theology that will add greatly to our conversation in making things like the creeds more accessible to a modern audience.

Andrew Jones and Brian McLaren discuss his book Everything Must Change at Jones’ blog.

Are you reading my blog, but intimidated to start your own?  Anna has some good thoughts at her blog on how to start your own blog.  I think it will end up being an interesting series.

If you are having trouble following the Obama/Wright Contreversey, I would suggest checking this site out.

Finally, check out Halden’s thesis on the three main things  foci of theology.

My pastor gave a sermon yesterday titled “It’s Sunday.” The four points in his sermon outline were (1) attempts to stop Sunday’s commin’, (2) Attempts to cover up Sunday’s comin’, (3) Proof of Sunday’s comin’, and (4) The importance of Sunday’s comin’. The first three were fairly generic parts of many Easter sermons I have heard in the past, but today I would like focus on the fourth aspect on “the importance of Sunday’s comin.”

Within this fourth point, my pastor suggested there are three important reasons for the importance of the resurrection:

• It placed God’s stamp of approval on the truth of the word of Jesus.
• It placed God’s stamp of approval on the person of Jesus.
• It placed God’s stamp of approval on the work of Jesus.

I have trouble agreeing  for one main reason: God already placed his stamp of approval of Jesus’ words, person and work at the Baptism in the synoptic gospels. In that pivotal moment of Jesus’ life, God the Father says, “This is my son, whom I love; with whom I am well pleased” (Matt 3:17). First he suggests that he approves of the ministry of Jesus by calling him—in the fashion of Biblical history—part of his (God’s) family. Second, he approves of the person by calling him “son.” Third, we can tell that God approves Jesus’ work because he is “well pleased” with him and “loves” him. Thus the resurrection is, in some sense, a reiteration of the things said at the baptism—a kind of theological bookend—but it also must function on its own merit. The resurrection is more than just God giving “approval” to Jesus’ movement and kingdom.

The reason that some churches have a weak theology on resurrection is their dependence on the substitutionary atonement model of the cross. In this model everything is finished on the cross, and not much room is left for wide theological significance on the resurrection of Christ. We receive most of substitutionary atonement models from Medieval theologians like Anselm who were studying the Pauline corpus to understand justification. Resultantly, I want to look at Paul’s passage on Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 starting in verse 12:

Paul begins by asking, “If it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” In other words, Christ’s resurrection is not the primary issue at stake, but the issue of a general “resurrection of the dead” is at stake. One particularly helpful book on this matter is Robert Wilken’s book called Christians as the Romans Saw Them. In it Wilken’s shows how the Roman church viewed Christianity from the first three centuries of Christianity. One particularly heavy critic of the idea of behind the resurrection was Celsus the philosopher. Wilkens says:

“[Celsus'] most serious criticism, however, is directed against the idea that God could reverse the natural process of the disintegration of the human body or that a body that had rotted could be restored again. ‘For what sort of body, after being entirely corrupted, could return to its original nature and that same condition which it had before it was dissolved? As they have nothing to say in reply, they escape to a more outrageous refuge by saying that ‘anything is possible with God.’ But, indeed neither can God do what is shame nor does He desire what is contrary to nature’ (c. Cels. 5.14).”

The main problem with simply glossing over the resurrection as “unbelievable” in the eyes of the Romans, one must view the phenomena as entirely impossible, implausible, and “contrary to nature.” It is not a matter of belief, but a matter of science. For instance, God cannot both heal and kill someone at the same time—this, according to the laws of nature, is impossible. This is because, by definition, a man cannot be healed if he is killed because a healed man implies some sort of life still flowing through the man’s veins. This is the view the Greeks seemed to have taken towards resurrection. Such a popularizing of resurrection was not even really apparent in Judaism through a reading of the scripture and popular literature until the second and first centuries before Christ. So here Paul is not just dealing with a matter of faith, but a matter of science, reality, and is severely stretching the imaginations of his counterparts in the letter.

Paul goes in the letter to say that, “If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised” (1 Cor 15:13-15). Paul argues that if we do not believe in the general resurrection of the dead, then we cannot logically believe in the resurrection of Christ. When Paul talks about the “resurrection of the dead” he is probably referring to the parousia (the coming of Christ to usher in the new age), and thus he is arguing about the future resurrection of all the saints when they are reunited to Christ. But if Christ has not been raised, the teachings of Paul are useless because he centers on the idea that Jesus is not in the grave.

As Paul continues he says, “For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him” (1 Cor 15:16-23). Paul clearly articulates the central aspect of his theology about resurrection when he says “if only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.” Paul is writing to mostly lower-class, poor, and oppressed people. At this time, most of the world had not embraced Christianity. To embrace it at this time meant scorn. If this life is all they have-a life of scorn, a life of contempt, and a life where they are continually oppressed by the Roman Empire-then they really are to be pitied.

The place where Paul lives is not in this present struggle, but in a future eschatological hope where Christ is “the firstfruit” and we are going to follow in his resurrection. The central controlling metaphor of the resurrection is the undoing of the original curse that came through Adam. Death no longer has any power over the followers of Christ because we too will be raised like cross in a triumphal victory over the serpent and his kingdom. Paul and his community are waiting for this parousia to come in all its power. In the next few verses, Paul takes the time to explain how the parousia is going to come:

“Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he ‘has put everything under his feet.’ Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all” (1 Co 15:24-29).

…more on this to come hopefully in the days to come…

Eight: Replace the grass in your yard with something that doesn’t require watering

The suburbs are a strange place, not least of which is the idea of a grassy yard.  Much of the US, especially in urban areas, does not have the luxury of such a place.  What is my suggestion here?  Get rid of them!  They are a waste of money and time.  It is estimated that 10 gallons of water a day is used to water a lawn.  In a church of 62 families that is 620 gallons of water a day used to water the communities lawns.  In a year that is over 226,000 gallons of water used for grass.  Instead of using that water on grass, put it into barrels and store them in the backyard in case of an emergency where the city water is turned off.

Replace the grass with something that doesn’t require watering like dirt, cement, or some other innovative idea.  The yard doesn’t need grass in order to be considered “pretty” or “beautiful.”  We simply need to think of better ways to use our space.  If you feel that you must have something in the backyard, perhaps you could read a book or two on growing vegetables, pulling up the grass, and planting a few rows where you grow vegetables or fruit. Use these fruits and vegetables to sell at church fundraisers and for nice fresh home-cooked meals.

Rather than investing in individual yard, invest in community parks where all children can come to play together in a communal fashion.  This will promote neighborhood community, it will save money on individual water bills, and it will help conserve water in case of a crisis (in California the expected drought season is already cause for alarm).

Nine: Drink more water

If number eight and nine seem contradictory, they are not.  This is simply an economic choice that must be made in every household.  There is a slight problem to me when the fridge is filled with soda, fruit juice, iced tea, and all sorts of sugary drinks.  The amount of money spent on these is not only unhealthy but costly.  If a family is consuming a 24 pack of soda every two weeks, you are spending a lot of money on drinks that are noticeably unhealthy.  Teach your children instead, to grow up drinking water and other healthy drinks like milk.  Do not allow them to have soda, fruit drinks, or any other sugary drinks.  Teach them instead to get their sugar from proper places like fruit.  This is simple, but it could save upwards of $500 a year.

Ten:  Get involved

There are so many people who simply say, “What can I do?”  Time really is a valuable resource, and if you are using it inefficiently, you need to consider how one might use it more efficiently.  Get involved somewhere instead of spending two or three hours watching TV.

Rent-Seeking Activity is defined as “activities designed to transfer surplus from one group to another.” In government this happens when lobbyists attempt to lobby government in order to create an institution—back by government laws and regulations—that create an environment where those particular lobbyists will profit. Another simple example might be where a bank-robber finds out that on certain days of the week banks hold more money than on other days. They choose to rob the bank on those days rather than others in order to transfer the maximum amount of surplus possible from one group to another. Sadly, in America, most of this money goes from one middle class to another middle class, and it happens much to often at the government level.

In her book Altas Shrugged, Ayn Rand deals heavily with the concept of rent-seeking activity. There is in chapter three a moment where a few men are discussing the economy. In the book Orren Boyle argues that it is not fair that a company run by Hank Rearden should own iron mines and also make the best steel. As long as Rearden owns they mine, he will make profit because he can cut out all the middle men in regards to oil. One of his friends, Jim Taggert agree with him and decides that it is time for Washington to do something about it. Taggert believes he can use his influence to take the mines out of the hands of Rearden. Within the complex exchange, Paul Larkin argues that if he is given the mines from Rearden he can turn around and give the iron right back to Boyle. But why is Jim willing to do such a thing—wasting his own time and possibly the few government favors he has in his pocket? In return, Jim wants Paul to work with his own influence in the railroad industry to cut out one of Jim’s competitors in Colorado named Dan Conway. It is the twisted hand of capitalism at its best.

One of the main characters, Dagny, is present at the next meeting of “the national alliance of railroads” when a proposal comes through that suggests a majority vote will decide all major decisions for the companies from this point forward. Each company will have to subordinate itself to the national alliance in order to decrease competition among all the companies. This is really the way that Jim and the others are attempting to put Dan Conway and his Colorado line out of business. When Dagny hears about this she is very upset (even though she is Jim’s brother and is working as his competitor). She deplores this type of “rent-seeking activity” as giving her and her brother’s company an unfair advantage in the free market. She urges Dan to fight, but he is too tired and is getting ready to retire.

Such activity is rent-seeking because it is successful in changing the surplus of the market in Colorado from Dan Conway’s company. This is not, however, by means an ethical way of going about business. The only voice of conscience, it appears, is Dagny. In the midst of all the politics, she is the only one who wants to play purely capitalistically. For instance, while Jim thinks it is not “fair” for Rearden to own all the mines, Dagny simply accepts the fact that he owns the mines and is willing to pay the best price on the market to the man who has worked the hardest and most efficiently. Jim would rather pay for steel from Boyle because he is the little guy, and he seems to fears Rearden. But is Rearden being unfair? Did he not simply acquire the mines and build the best steel on the market? Such questions make us think that the real problem is not capitalism, but politics.

And this also seems to be the real premise of the author as well. For the author, the problem is not capitalism, but backroom dealing that actually hinders capitalism from really taking place. When capitalism is working perfectly, we will see all people working as hard as possible in the areas where they excel. If one person is particularly good at theology, they must work as hard as they can at being a pastor. If one is good at building houses, he should become an architect or a construction worker. While being a construction worker may not make as much money as an architect, if you love doing it (working with your hands, building things, etc.) and you work hard it, your boss should theoretically give you raises, and eventually you might even own a construction company. Rand’s argument is that you must work hard for it. Rand’s argument is that nations that are suffering are probably suffering because the government is trying to do too much.

Just some food for thought.