Community of the Risen

Sometimes I wish that pictures moved like in Harry Potter so that when people you love are far away, you can still know that they are indeed alive and moved by life.  People often say that a picture is worth a thousand words.  I don’t disagree.  I just also think they are worth a thousand thoughts.  A thousand places.  A picture can take you back to smells and places you thought you had forgotten.

The mind is an incredible machine.  We pay thousands of dollars for TVs that can only show us two dimensions, and our eyes can see depth and color better than HDTV.

I wonder somtimes we if we are doing all we are capable of.

Erin has an interesting post on her blog that I was reading today.  She said:

“In all my experience as a Christian, it would seem that Jesus’ goal wasn’t to start a new religion, it was to end all religions; it was for the message that love, not right belief or right action, is the prime directive. He didn’t want to save people from their sins, he wanted to save people from themselves and from each other. So, Jesus was all about a feeling, rather than thinking or doing. The Jews of his time didn’t like this, because they had religion all thought out; all the thou-shalts and thou-shalt-nots were settled. So they saw this idea of love (rather than right/wrong) as a threat to their religion, because without rules to control sin, how would Messiah ever come?”

I think that she brings up a good point.  Although I don’t think he meant to end all religions, I do believe his message was that love should be what Erin refers to as the “prime directive.”  I have been thinking a lot about systems lately, and I think it was Teyve in Fiddler on the Roof who notes that without his Jewish traditions his people’s way of life “would be as shaky as a Fiddler on the Roof.”  I think that we are scared to find out who Jesus really is.  I think I am scared to find out who Jesus really is.  Instead I would rather sit on the benches of an all white church (nothing wrong with an all white church in and of itself, but what they have come to mean in this present world is something much more than just one group of one race coming together to worship God) than go out and really be the church.

What does it mean to be the church?  It means to live like Christ lived in community with other Christ followers.  Here I would like to quote Rufus Jones (thanks to Mr. Daniels for this quote):

“I am looking for a time, and counting on it, when we shall have a Society of Friends not composed of a few awakened leaders and a body of unkindled quiescent members who move in the ancient grooves of habit and routine. But instead a live membership of persons who have thought out their principles of life and not merely adopted them second hand.”

I think what I want is a group of people who call themselves followers of Christ who are willing to think about what they believe.

Reading Susan’s thoughts on following the money proved interesting in regards to the rising gas prices.  She argues that Americans should stop playing the blame game and realize that the issue a bit more complicated than some like to realize.  I totally agreed with her, while admitting that following the money is easier said than done.  But I would like to suggest something that relates tangentially to her post: following the culture.  My thoughts on American culture are formed profoundly by my thoughts on what needs to change (starting in Christian circles).  In the past I outlines ten things I think would be easy to change in America that would save money and more closely align with what I believe is God’s vision for the kingdom of God.  Some of the things I outlined there had to do with gasoline, but now I think I need to speak more closely to the culture of consumption that has led to our dependence on petroleum in the first place.

As you’ll notice in my comment on Susan’s blog, I attribute much of the problem to the system of the suburbs.  The “system” that I refer to is the idea that we have one side of town that is neighborhoods and another side of town that (often “downtown”) where food/entertainment/dining out experiences are located.  The difference between this suburban and urban feeling can be seen most drastically is in places like New York City and San Francisco where the intermingling of residential/commercial and other areas make it easy to walk or take mass transit from one place to another.  The way this is most clearly seen is the introduction to parking lots in the suburbs.  These sometimes huge lots designed only for cars in the suburbs are a staple part of getting around.  In New York and other places it is simply too costly to own a car and find places to park it because parking is so expensive.

My suggestion to fix the problem is to build commercial/business/residential areas closer to one another so that people can work/live/play in the same area without driving very far to do it.  If they need to go other places the rail systems and the air system would be able to take them there.  This is obviously an inoperable plan because it would require the destruction and reconstruction of much of America, but it should be a thought for the future.  How we build our cities really does define our culture.

I road my bike to work today.  I live about a mile from the In-N-Out Burger that I work at.  Luckily, when I do drive my car of choice is a stick shift Honda Civic that gets about 25-30 miles to the gallon.  If I average 30 miles to the gallon, this means that I saved $0.15 on the way to work and $0.15 on the way back.  Seems like small potatoes, but consider if I did this for a year.  I would be save approximately $109.50 a year.  But consider if all the people on the day shift did this (and they lived about a mile a way from work).  We would save in total if 15 people are working (average) $1,642.50 a year.  Now, if all the people in the company of In-N-Out rode their bikes to work and lived an average of one mile from work (217 stores) the associates of In-N-Out would save $356,422.50 a year.  We don’t have to give all of our money to the oil companies, but it will take us working together to make it happen.

There has been a lot of talk about Obama’s VP, McCain’s position on the war, Obama’s position on the war, but the real menace that stands on the horizon is the question of Iran.  I come to the table with an interesting set of presuppositions.  I am a Christian who largely disagrees with the republican party, but I do not embrace democrats either.  I dislike the fact that abortion is often a major issue for Christian voters in the presidential election.  If one cares so much about abortion, I would challenge these same Christian voters to name their senators, their congressman or woman, and their position on abortion because these are the legislators. Last time I checked the president can only sign things the legislators enact.  In other words, when looking at the credentials of presidential hopefuls, I would think it would be important to look mostly at their main job: commander in chief of our armed forces and talking head of the American people.

In other words, I am of the opinion the foreign affairs and presidential positions on these foreign affairs should weigh heavily on the minds of Americans because these are the things the president will spend the majority of his time doing.  The biggest foreign affairs question that Americans should be asking is, “What will the next president’s position on Iran be?”  The problem, however, is that many Americans are woefully ignorant on the history of America’s relationship to Iran.  Stephen Kinzer recently gave an excellent history of America’s interventions over the last century on CSPAN at a future of freedom conference.  In it he detailed the fact that in 1953 the American CIA led a coup to overthrow a leader who was attempting to retake control of the oil companies out of the hands of the British after World War II.  In it he talked about the 1979 hostage crisis where one of the hostages retold a very telling story.

One of the hostages began yelling at his captors when they entered his cell and said, “You have no right do this, you have no right to take a country hostage.”  After this, his Iranian captor said, “In 1953 you took a whole country hostage.”

My question to both the candidates: Would you be willing to apologize for the events of 1953, or will they, like Jimmy Carter, call the events “ancient history?”

All quotes on this page are taken directly from Senator Obama’s webpage:

I have no serious qualms with Senator Obama, and I think I would vote for him at this time over Senator McCain, but I have some serious questions about Obama’s plan for Iraq, and I think it is time that people begin asking the tough questions.  I want to look at some of the things I have not heard much about on the news.  This is what Obama says about withdrawing from Iraq:

“Obama will make it clear that we will no build any permanent bases in Iraq…if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.”

First, Senator Obama, how will we know if al Qaeda is attempting to build a base in Iraq if we have no intelligence in the region?  Second, how can we carry out targeted strikes if we have no permanent bases in Iraq?  Are we expecting the Iraqi government to let us come back in to carry out these tactical strikes?  What does Senator Obama mean by these targeted strikes?  I wonder if Mr. Obama has seen “Black Hawk Down” and considered the seriousness of tactical strikes in unstable areas where the US does not have a large presence already.

Obama also says that he will take serious diplomatic action in Iraq’s neighboring countries.  He would meet with all the major leaders of all the major regions surrounding Iraq to form what he calls a “compact” which would keep other countries from “meddling” in Iraq.  These statements are unclear and confusing.  What would such a compact look like?  Obama, as Senator McCain likes to bring up on a regular basis, has never visited Iraq, has never met the leaders of Iraq, has virtually no experience in foreign policy, and this is how he wants to play the game?  I agree with some pundits who have called on Obama to name his cabinet in advance.  I think this would help him in this area where he clearly lacks experience.  Just a few things to think about in this election season.  

How do you say to your child in the night?
Nothing’s all black, but then nothing’s all white
How do you say it will all be all right
When you know that it might not be true?
What do you do?

Careful the things you say
Children will listen
Careful the things you do
Children will see and learn
Children may not obey, but children will listen
Children will look to you for which way to turn
Co learn what to be
Careful before you say “Listen to me”
Children will listen

Careful the wish you make
Wishes are children
Careful the path they take
Wishes come true, not free
Careful the spell you cast
Not just on children
Sometimes the spell may last
Past what you can see
And turn against you
Careful the tale you tell
That is the spell
Children will listen

How can you say to a child who’s in flight
“Don’t slip away and i won’t hold so tight”
What can you say that no matter how slight Won’t be misunderstood
What do you leave to your child when you’re dead?
Only whatever you put in it’s head
Things that you’re mother and father had said
Which were left to them too
Careful what you say
Children will listen
Careful you do it too
Children will see
And learn, oh guide them that step away
Children will glisten
Tample with what is true
And children will turn
If just to be free
Careful before you say
“Listen to me”

Last night I watched Disney’s rendition of Robin Hood, and was struck by a few things that I had never noticed before.  First, I was struck by the economic implications of the movie.  When Little John asks Robin Hood how he feels about stealing, Robin retorts by calling stealing a “naughty word,” and that he should think of it more like “borrowing from those who can afford it.”  While they also do a good job of showing the true problem of Prince John not being the “true” king of England, it is interesting that they paint Robin Hood as a hero for stealing.  I say this because small children who watch the movie are having more than just a nice Disney movie experience; they are having their morality formed.  And I am not sure that there is great truth in the idea that we should “steal from the rich to give to the poor.”  I say this because I don’t think it gets to the heart of the problem.

The true king is gone, and a corrupt king is in place.

Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor only means higher taxes and an angrier corrupt king.  Perhaps a better movie would be Robin going after the king himself so he can no longer tax his fellow man.  But this would not make for a good children’s movie.

I don’t usually make predictions, but I have a feeling that Wright is going to hurt Obama.  It has nothing to do with Wright himself.  It has to do with what Wright said at the press conference a few days ago.  He said that politicians make decisions politically and pastors make decisions pastorally.  He went on to mention that Obama basically looks at polls and then decides how he is going to act based on those polls.  Whether it is true or not, the whole situation looks like Obama is distancing himself from Wright for political reasons, and that make people like me, who have a love for things like liberation theology, wonder how audacious Obama’s hope really is.  I know that he is a good man and that he wants change, but there was nothing worth “denouncing” in his speech at the press conference.  It’s going to hurt him in the long run because it makes it look like he acting out of fear of a drop in the polls.  Idealist candidates are always hurt when it looks like they are making decisions based on polls.

Obviously economics and theology are related.  There is no question that Jesus spoke a lot about money, a lot about resources, and a lot about how to be a good steward, and there is no doubt that economists and others have much to say about morality.  But should the two mix?  Or do they make strange bedfellows.

There are many angry economists who seem upset at theologians for doing bad math, and there are many indignant theologians who seem upset that economists simply do bad theology, but is there a way for the two to sit down at the same table and discuss this issue?  Here is, in my view, the main problem.  Theologians see economics as a means to the end of theology, while some economists see theology as a means or part of a means to understanding the market system.  For the economist, theology is just another variable or opportunity cost.  For the theologian, economics is just another theology.

And never, at least with this mode of theology, the twain shall meet.

But is there a back door?

Yes.  I think there is back door, and that is the mode of thinking that puts economics and theology side by side.  Economists begin to think theologically for theology’s sake, while theologians begin thinking of economics for economics sake.  What do I mean by this?  I mean that theologians often do not take the economy seriously enough.  They often see it as a road block on the road to God, but He can often be found in the market systems that so many theologians despise.  In the same way, those like Ayn Rand see religion as a kind of bump in the road to a more progressive and equitable society where all men work in a robust market system.  Rand has to start taking religion seriously, and the theologians have to start taking the economy seriously.