David Fairchild » 博客文章 » 10 Marks of the Early Church

10 Marks of the Early Church

09_011.jpgRodney Stark and other sociologists tell us there were 10 values of early Christians that stood in stark (no pun intended) contrast to the pluralistic pagan culture of Rome. Let’s prayferfully think through these values and match them to the witness of our own churches. Do we see the city existing for us or do we see our church and our lives existing for the city?

”¢ 1- They refused to attend blood thirsty entertainment. They wouldn’t go to gladiatorial events because they believed it defiled humans who were created in the image of God. This made them appear to be anti-social. Tertullian and Augustine both write about these events in a negative light.
”¢ 2- They did not serve in the military to support Caesar’s wars of conquest, which made them appear weak.
”¢ 3- They were against abortion and infanticide. In this culture, both were considered acceptable. To throw your baby out on the dung heap if you didn’t want it was not taboo.
Ӣ 4- They empowered women by showing their value and dignity in places of learning and service which had previously been exclusively for men. Christians held women in high regard and treasured them rather than viewing them as just a step above expendable children and servants.
Ӣ 5- They were against sex outside of marriage. This fidelity was considered odd and against culture. Sex was viewed as nothing more than a desire like eating or sleeping. Christians held a high view of the bed and kept it pure and would not engage in sex outside of marriage.
Ӣ 6- They were against homosexual relationships. This was odd in a time when same sex practice was not frowned upon.
Ӣ 7- They were exceptionally generous with their resources. They shared what they had with one another and welcomed others in with a hospitality that was unparalleled.
Ӣ 8- They were radically for the poor. In a time when the poor and downtrodden were viewed as getting what they deserved, they were aggressively committed to loving and serving people in the margins of society.
Ӣ 9- They mixed races and social classes in ways that were unseen in their gatherings, and for it they were considered scandalous.
Ӣ 10- They believed only Christ was the way to salvation. This was in a time when everyone had a god and could believe something entirely different and it was totally acceptable to be polytheists and pluralistic. Christians dared claim that Jesus was the only way and refused to bend to other gods.

Our city has yet to see a group of people that hold these practices simultaneously.

If we held the values 1-Refused bloodthirsty sports, 2-Refused militarism, 4-Empowered women, 9-Mixed races and classes, and 10-Were radically for the poor, we would be considered liberal by conservative ideology.

If we held to values 3-Were against abortion, 5-Forbid sex outside of marriage, 6-Forbid same-sex practice, and 10-Insisted that Jesus was the only way for salvation we would be labeled conservative by liberal ideology.

We don’t fit into the relativistic landscape of our time, nor rugged individualism or traditional hierarchical legalism. We simply don’t fit into current categories. We don’t fit neatly into conservative or liberal categories. This is because we are resident aliens.

Whenever Christians pick up the values of the Gospel and begin living them out in our city we are on the one hand vilified for our values and at the same time oddly attractive in ways that often confound our most vocal opponents. If we experience neither vilification nor attraction what qualities of our life are missing which mark Kingdom citizens through history?


About this entry

You’re currently reading “10 Marks of the Early Church,” an entry on David Fairchild

Published:
02.05.07 / 9pm
Category:
General
Tags:
No Tags

Source: David Fairchild » 博客文章 » 10 Marks of the Early Church

Why We Are Pro-Life

We believe human beings have a right to live ”“ because of who they are ”“ as image bearers of God ”“ not because of what they do ”“ as productive members of society. We do not judge the worth of a person by their usefulness to society. But sadly, our culture is beginning to do just that.

Human embryos are disposable ”“ maybe useful for future medical research. And thus an embryo’s value is found it what it can be used for, not in what it is.

The unborn have no voice. They cannot yet think or reason, so their rights depend on the circumstances of the mother. They have value only if they are “wanted,” and they can be terminated if they are “unwanted.”

The senior citizen battling dementia ”“ what useful purpose does she serve for society? Why not allow her to die? After all, euthanasia provides “death with dignity.” Society thinks the elderly have no value in who they are, as fellow human beings who bear the image of God, but in what they can do to serve society.

Link to Why We Are Pro-Life

Follow the link to read the rest of this beautifully written essay by Trevin Wax.

The Negation of Love:Abortion and the "Culture of Me"

Pro-life advocates often claim that we live in a “culture of death.” But most of us don’t believe it. Not really. We may use the phrase as a rhetorical tool but deep in our hearts we think that our family, friends, and neighbors wouldn’t knowingly kill another human being. We convince ourselves that they simply don’t realize what they’re doing. If only they could see the pictures. If only we could convince them that the “fetus” is a person. If only they knew it was a human life they were destroying. If they only knew, they wouldn’t — they couldn’t — go through with the abortion. But they do know. And the abortions continue. Not because we live in a culture of death but because we live in a culture of me. In the fall of 2003, Glamour magazine had an article about a group of abortion clinics called the “November Gang” who encourage women to express their feeling about the procedure by writing them down on a pink, heart-shaped sheet of paper: heart.jpg

Women: This is your life and your body. What you think is right . . . is! No matter what anyone else has to say about it. Look around you . . . many people sat in that same chair. Be strong. And if you think this is a “sin,” remember, God forgives!
For my little angel: Although I say goodbye to you today, you will always be in my mind, heart, and soul. Please understand that this wasn’t your time because you are better off in the hands of God than mine at this moment. My own creation, you are and forever will be beautiful and pure. I smile when I think of you, even if I cry. You have given me reason to be strong and wise and responsible. You will always be my baby. I will see you in heaven, sweetheart. I LOVE YOU! Always and unconditionally, Your Mommy.

And this one from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

“I didn’t let your dad know about you, simply because I’m ashamed. In my heart I will miss you but physically I don’t have the means to take care of you and your older sister. I will never label you a mistake, because God obviously thought you should have been here, even though I beg to differ.”

Notice that all three of these examples mention God. God forgives. The baby is better off with God. But the last one best sums up the attitude behind the Culture of Me: God thought you should be born but I beg to differ.

But the repercussions aren’t as easy to dismiss as God’s will. Claire Keyes, the executive director of Allegheny County Reproductive Health Center, shared some of the question women ask before going through the procedure:

“First and foremost, the question is ‘Will I ever be free of guilt?’ ” Keyes says. “That’s followed by ‘Will I ever go to hell?’ ‘Will God take one of my other children from me?’ ‘What gives me the right to decide which of my children lives and which dies?'”

Keyes, who has been with the abortion industry for 25 years, says she doesn’t know (nor do the answers seem to matter to her). But in the late 1980’s she had an epiphany:

“We in the movement, those of us in the clinics at the beginning, were so caught up in the early euphoria about winning a right to an abortion, we weren’t listening to what the patients were saying. They weren’t talking about abortion in the same way we were. They weren’t talking about the constitution or women’s rights. And many of them weren’t talking about a bunch of cells, either. They might call it ‘my baby,’ even though they were firm about going through with the procedure. Many of them expressed relief, but many also talked about sadness and loss. And we weren’t paying attention.”

Just so you don’t misunderstand, when she says “we weren’t paying attention” she isn’t referring to the fact that there may be something immoral about helping women kill what they would refer to as “my baby.” No, what Keyes said the movement wasn’t paying attention to was the fact that women were having painful feelings about what they were doing.

Pangs of conscience are, of course, a natural reaction to the taking of an innocent life. But while the Culture of Me can accept an unborn child being ripped from the womb, having hurt feelings about such an action is unacceptable.

The end of the Glamour article closes with a feature called, “Women tell the true story of my abortion.” Not surprisingly, the women represented are more concerned about their own anguish than they are regretful about their decision to kill another human:

“I don’t want this to affect the rest of my life.” — Carla, 23
“There’s a great quote from the essayist Katha Pollitt that comforts me. She said, ‘A woman has about 30 years of potential fertile sex. That’s a long time to go without a slipup.'” — Lisa, 32

“When I finally confessed my abortion — after 25 years — I dreaded what kind of penance the priest would give me. He said, ‘I want you to say one Our Father and one Hail Mary. Then I want you to go home and make a list of the good things you’ve also done in all those years. Until you see the past wasn’t all bad, you can’t move into the future.’ I did, and it made all the difference in the world.” — Frances, 45

“There was never a doubt in my mind about [having the abortion]. … I was financially, emotionally, and psychologically incapable of dealing with motherhood — not to mention that I smoked a pack a day and my idea of breakfast was a KitKat.” — Donna, 38

But the most revealing confession comes from thirty-five year old Micaela:

“This may sound strange, but I felt I knew the being I was carrying. I felt he was my son. I even called him Ernesto. And Ernesto was my reminder that my life was significant and that having an abortion was putting my life first. I know it was really about me, about promising myself that now I get to be super thoughtful about my life, super intentional — and that’s what the last five years since the abortion have been about.”

While reading these quotes I was reminded of the words of Josef Pieper. In his book Faith, Hope, Love, the Thomist philosopher examines the various meanings and connections between the concepts we use to describe “love.” What, he asks, is the “recurrent identity underlying the countless forms of love?”

“My tentative answer to this question runs as follows: In every conceivable case love signifies much the same as approval. This is first of all to be taken in the literal sense of the word’s root: loving someone or something means finding him or its probes, the Latin word for ‘good.’ It is a way of turning to him or it and saying, “It’s good that you exist; it’s good that you are in the world!”

The opposite of love, therefore, is the attitude that says “It’s good that you not exist; it’s good that you are not in the world!” No matter what words they chose to scribble on a pink paper heart, this is the message being spoken to these unborn children. While these women were informed that abortion was a reasonable choice, no one told them they were choosing the negation of love.

[Note: This is article was originally posted June 20, 2004.]

Link to The Negation of Love:Abortion and the “Culture of Me”

8 Virginia flocks break away (Julia Duin / THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

Eight Northern Virginia churches announced yesterday they will leave the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia after their congregations voted overwhelmingly to depart because of liberal trends in the 2.2-million-member Episcopal Church.

Link to 8 Virginia flocks break away (Julia Duin / THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

I grew up in Northern Virginia and our family went to an Episcopalian church. My parents still live in the area and go to the same church. It is a nice church with about fifty to hundred people at a service though I slept through many of the services. I got baptized in this church but it did not mean much to me. Almost all of my teenage memories of going to church involves this church and a group called Young Life. A friend got me to go a Pentecostal church one time. Although that was an unfortunate experience, I did not “get” church like some of my friends.  As I grew older the only time I went to church was for marriages and deaths. Yet I was always surrounded by people with faith. I do not remember any of them pushing their faith on me but I was cognizant that their faith was important to them. To me they were very normal with occasional quirks. I remember being mildly amused that my room-mate methodically evaluated several different churches before deciding on one. I kidded him that he put more effort in his church selection than his job selection. 

Later in life my wife and I decided to make a major life decision and move to Cincinnati. My wife and my son moved up there early to get my son enrolled in elementary school. While I was still in Houston my wife, her sister, and their mother decided we should all go to a church together and they had decided to try out a contemporary style church. I really did not know about the decision until I arrived. I found it a curious decision. We had been married in an Episcopalian church nearby. It was a nice church and going to the Episcopalian church would have been a safe decision. I was afraid this unknown church would be a cultist, fundamental church that would try and get you to do strange things to show your faith. I had a fear of Pentecostals. Since my mother-in-law and her two daughters were already showing the early signs of dysfunctionality I decided to go with the flow. I was shocked to find that this church was fun, entertaining, educational, and laid back. The idea of using the words “fun” and “entertaining” to describe a church was a new experience for me. The service was very simple and the place was packed. Probably more surprising to me was that over the next couple of weeks I learned that the Bible was readable and relevant to me and my family. Earlier that year I had pulled an old Bible off the bookshelf and had tried to read it.  I was doomed to failure. My reading comprehension of Old English was pretty low and I did not have a plan on how to read the Bible. I failed miserably. After a couple of weeks of going to this new church I bought my first Bible, a NIV Study bible. I did not realize it at the time but I had set out on a spiritual journey and it did not involve the church of my youth.

Over the last couple of years I thought a lot about traditional churches and especially the Episcopalian church. This recent division in the church of my youth is fascinating and painful. When I inventory my beliefs I am a fundamentalist. The church I go to now is a fundamentalist church and is huge compared to the average church. My spiritual journey has been many things to me and it is difficult to describe the ups and downs of the journey. I know that I am far from finished but without reservation I recommend others to follow their natural curiosity about God and follow up on the opportunities presented you. My spiritual journey had been very important to me. Part of the painful side of my journey is that I doubt that I would be writing or thinking about religion now if the ladies had decided on going to the local Episcopalian church. Statistics tell us that traditional churches are losing membership. Some are trying to keep people by adding “contemporary” services. Some churches are returning to their theological roots and some are reaching out to be more inclusive to those who have been left out. All of these directions are good for churches to pursue but which direction will stem the tide and save the church from becoming a historical artifact? That is the dilemma faced by the traditional churches. I believe that God presents us opportunities to build our character. We don’t like it because it typically involves change and it hurts. We try our hardest to avoid the change but sometimes when we embrace the change we are amazed at the results. I don’t know the answer for the Episcopalians but I know in my heart that they will survive, it will be painful, and it will not involve me. They are on my prayer list.

Christmas Quiz answers

Here are the answers to my Christmas Quiz:

1. True: The Jewish Scriptures prophesied that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.

Christians have said from the beginning that this verse, written several hundred years before Jesus was born, prophesied his birth in Bethlehem:

Mic 5:2 – But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.

2. False: The Jewish Scriptures prophesied that the Messiah would be born in December.

3. True: The prophet Isaiah foretold that the Messiah would be born of a virgin mother.

Matthew’s Gospel (1:23) says thus: “Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” which means, “God is with us.” However, Matthew is quoting a Greek translation (the Septuagint) of Isa. 7:14, which says (NRSV), “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.”

The Septuagint translated the Hebrew word, “almah,” (young woman, maiden) using the Greek word, “parthenos.” (virgin). So the answer might be, “True, sort of.” OTOH, the 70 scholars who translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek were no dummies and were all Jews besides, so their interpretation of “almah” as “virgin” should carry a lot of weight.

4. False: The early church began the tradition of the Christmas tree.

5. False: Saint Nicholas figures prominently in our Christmas celebrations because he was the church leader who made Christmas a Catholic festival day.

Christmas was celebrated from the early days of the Church in various localities (the nearer to Jerusalem, the more likely the celebration). Several church leaders promoted the day, including Chrysostom and St. Ambrose, and the day appeared on all Western Church calendars no later than the mid-300s and on Eastern Church calendars a couple of decades later.

6. Which of the following figures does not appear in the Gospels’ narratives of the birth of Jesus?
a. Shepherds
b. Angels
c. Astrologers
d. A drummer boy

7. True: Christmas gets its name because for centuries the Catholic church celebrated a Mass at midnight on Christmas Eve called the “Christ Mass.”

This word dates to 1038’s Old English, “Cristes Maess.” Other languages use different words and word origins.

8. False: In colonial America, the Puritans were well known for celebrating Christmas as a major church holiday.

Puritans actually outlawed Christmas in Boston during part of the 17th century. English Protestantism generally resisted celebrating Christmas. Puritans also got Christmas outlawed in England during the Interregnum, resulting in pro-Christmas rioting, even in Canterbury. The ban was lifted in 1660 with the Restoration.

9. The Romans celebrated which of the following on Dec. 25?

a. The winter solstice, the shortest day of the year.
b. The birthday of the Roman deity Mithra, the god of the regenerating sun.
c. The feast of Saturnalia.

Mithra, a deity imported from Persia by the Roman military, became an important member of the Roman pantheon as time went on. By the middle of the third century, Mithraism was the main religion of Rome.

10. True: The early church set Dec. 25 as the celebration of the nativity of Jesus so that it would occur between the Roman feast of Saturnalia, Dec. 19, and the Roman feast of Kalends, which occurred on January 1.

That Christmas was set to “take over” or Christianize the feast of Saturnalia is not supported by evidence. Christmas Day’s closest relationship with Roman practice is with Mithraism, which became officially a state-sponsored religion of Rome in the third century. It’s possible that Christians feared they would be persecuted if they refused to honor Mithra’s birthday on Dec. 25, and so decided to celebrate the Nativity on that date instead (for which there was already an existing tradition). Thus they could give the appearance of complying with Roman religion without actually doing so. Christians were already considered atheists by pagan Romans and were under widespread persecution in the 240s. Under Caesar Decius in 250, this persecution became quite severe.

11. True: Christmas Day is a legal holiday in Egypt.

It only became a holiday in 2003. I posted about it here.

12. Saint Nicholas was Bishop Nicholas of Myra, in what is modern Turkey, in the early 300s. He is considered the protector of what kinds of persons (include all that apply)?

a. Virgins
b. Thieves
c. Children
d. Sailors

All of the above. The legend of St. Nicholas was spread by mariners and took root in the Netherlands as Holland was becoming a great sea power. St. Nicholas was known in life to have been kind to maidens and children. Not sure how he became a protector of thieves, though!

13. True: Part of St. Nicholas is entombed in Flushing, NY.

Relics of the saint, including fragments of his skull, were brought to an Eastern Orthodox church there in 1972. See here, bottom of the page.

14. When did the first retail-store Santa Claus appear? 1851-1900

He was James Edgar and played the part in Brockton, Mass., in 1890, the same year that Katherine Lee Bates invented Mrs. Claus in “Sunshine and Other Verses for Children.” This makes St. Nicholas the only married saint, but of course neither the Roman church nor the Eastern church recognize Mrs. Claus.

15. False: The Christmas tree is actually of pagan origin, dating from pre-Christian times and adopted and Christianized by Christian missionaries.

The oak tree was sacred to pre-Christian Germans, not the evergreen. The Christmas tree as a symbol of new life in Christ supplanted the oak tree in Germany, probably from St. Boniface who evangelized Germany in the early 800s. Legend has it that Boniface stopped the sacrifice of young boy against an oak and then cut the oak down, whereupon a fir tree sprang up in its place. More historically, the fir tree is known to have been used in Christmas plays in Germany in the 1500s to represent the tree of knowledge of good and evil (the Genesis story). Decorating the Christmas tree probably began from the way apples were hung from this dramatic tree to represent the fruit of temptation that Adam and Eve ate. By the 1700s Christmas trees became widespread in German homes during Christmastime.

16. When did the Christmas tree come into widespread usage in the United States? The late 1800s.

17. In Old England, on what day of the year did masters and servants eat the same meal at the same table?

Christmas Day, in the spirit of humility before Christ’s incarnation, the act of divine condescension before which all persons are equal.

18. Which US president began the custom of lighting the public White House Christmas tree?

Calvin Coolidge, whose home state of Vermont sent him a tree.

19. True: Christmas carols were begun by church leaders 800 years ago, notably St. Francis of Assisi, because popular music had become too bawdy and impious.

A “carol” was a form of circle folk-singing and dancing. Beginning in the 700s, traveling minstrel shows spread the form across most of Europe and, like all pop musicians, had found great success with risque lyrics and movements, which only goes to show how long this sort of thing has been going on.

20. Christmas cards began ”“

During England’s Industrial Revolution in the 1840s (the latter part thereof), when wages rose enough for ordinary people to afford the penny postage cost and the steam press enabled inexpensive printing of the cards.

Also, as far as I can determine, the British penny was first minted in 1840 and the penny price for postage was set then, too.

21. Extra credit: What American economic occurrence is credited by historians with jump starting the commercialization of Christmas?

Many people decry the commercialization of Christmas. The commercial aspect of the holiday began at a low level in the 1820s with the publication of “The Night Before Christmas,” attributed (later) to Clement Moore. This poem is credited with making Christmas a children’s holiday and starting the practice of giving gifts to children by parents; before then, kids were given sweets and treats. But the commercialization of Christmas in the US really got a head of steam when gift-giving was promoted to overcome the depression of 1839-1840. It’s never looked back. In England the trend was accelerated by the publication of Dickens’, “A Christmas Story.”

Link to Christmas Quiz answers

RE: A Christmas Quiz

As you may imagine, December is a pretty busy time for ministers, so yes, the free ice cream will be scarce for the next three weeks or so. In the spirit of the season, here is a Christmas quiz. I’ll post answers tomorrow. There are no trick questions. Have fun, and don’t go googling the answers until after you’ve tried to answer them all!

1. T F The Old Testament prophesied that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.

2. T F The Old Testament prophesied that the Messiah would be born in December.

3. T F The prophet Isaiah foretold that the Messiah would be born of a virgin mother.

4. T F The early church began the tradition of the Christmas tree.

5. T F Saint Nicholas figures prominently in our Christmas celebrations because he was the church leader who made Christmas a Catholic festival day.

6. Which of the following figures does not appear in the Gospels’ narratives of the birth of Jesus?

a. Shepherds
b. Angels
c. Astrologers
d. A drummer boy

7. T F Christmas gets its name because for centuries the Catholic church celebrated a Mass at midnight on Christmas Eve called the “Christ Mass.”

8. T F In colonial America, the Puritans were well known for celebrating Christmas as a major church holiday.

9. The Romans celebrated which of the following on Dec. 25?

a. The winter solstice, the shortest day of the year.
b. The birthday of the Roman deity Mithra, the god of the regenerating sun.
c. The feast of Saturnalia.

10. T F The early church set Dec. 25 as the celebration of the nativity of Jesus so that it would occur between the Roman feast of Saturnalia, Dec. 19, and the Roman feast of Kalends, which occurred on January 1.

11. T F Christmas Day is a legal holiday in Egypt.

12. Saint Nicholas was Bishop Nicholas of Myra, in what is modern Turkey, in the early 300s. He is considered the protector of what kinds of persons (include all that apply)?

a. Virgins
b. Thieves
c. Children
d. Sailors

13. T F Part of St. Nicholas is entombed in Flushing, NY.

14. When did the first retail-store Santa Claus appear?

a. 1800-1850
b. 1851-1900
c. 1901-1950
d. Since 1950

15. T F The Christmas tree is actually of pagan origin, dating from pre-Christian Germany and Christianized by Christian missionaries.

16. When did the Christmas tree come into widespread usage in the United States?

a. Before the Revolutionary War
b. Between 1820-1840
c. The late 1800s.

17. In Old England, on what day of the year did masters and servants eat the same meal at the same table?

a. The monarch’s birthday, to signify that they were all alike subjects of the king or queen.
b. June 15, the date King John agreed to the terms of the Magna Carta in 1215, to signify that they all alike had their rights as Englishmen confirmed by the sovereign.
c. Thanksgiving Day, to signify together their common dependency on a gracious God.
d. Christmas Day, in the spirit of humility before Christ’s incarnation, the act of divine condescension before which all persons are equal.

18. Which US president began the custom of lighting the public White House Christmas tree?

a. Abraham Lincoln, who used candles
b. Grover Cleveland, in whose term the White House was wired for electricity
c. Calvin Coolidge, whose home state of Vermont sent him a tree.
d. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who began the custom as a beacon of hope during the Great Depression.

19. T F Christmas carols were begun by church leaders 800 years ago, notably St. Francis of Assisi, because popular music had become too bawdy and impious.

20. Christmas cards began ”“

a. In late Medieval times as a means by which the Pope sent Christmas blessings and instructions for the new year to the bishops in Europe.
b. In the Thirty Years War, 1618-1648, when generals offered to send soldiers’ Christmas letters home free of charge.
c. During England’s Industrial Revolution in the 1840s, when wages rose enough for ordinary people to afford the penny postage cost and the steam press enabled inexpensive printing of the cards.

21. Extra credit: What American economic occurrence is credited by historians with jump starting the commercialization of Christmas?

Link to A Christmas Quiz

The Captain’s Journal » The Warrior as Vocation

The Captain’s Journal » The Warrior as Vocation

As opposed to empty-headed ideas of warrior as a job, those who fight have been called by God to war in our stead. It is not a job; it is a vocation. Totally aside from irrelevant issues about how much education our servicemen and women have, it is God who has put in them the desire to be warriors, it is God who sustains them, it is God who has given them their victories. It is God who has called them to this vocation.

I believe that servicemen and women are called into service when fate collides with reality. For military folks this is not just a job, it is a passion. Friends are going to die. You have to believe in your heart that you are doing the right thing or you should should go home and flip hamburgers. The option to go home is available but few take it. You call it a job. I call them heroes even though it hurts me. My son wants to be like them. He feels the call and I doubt he can explain why. It is tough being a parent to a teenage son when there is war going on.

Like a long, slow movie

Last week I came in from turning out horses and my wife was crying again. Earlier she had a falling out with a friend who happens to be both a business client and competitor. This friend was going through some difficult times. Over the last eight years our friend had made a series of bad personal and professional decisions and the chickens were coming home to roost. Earlier this year she had announced to everyone she was closing her businesses and moving back home. That was the easy part. She wanted to escape her life! Her problem is that she did not see that escape was going to be very, very difficult. I think the poet, Kay Ryan, says it best:

“The chickens are circling and blotting out the day. The sun is bright, but the chickens are in the way. Yes, the sky is dark with chickens, dense with them. They turn, and then they turn again. These are the chickens you let loose one at a time and small, various breeds. Now they have come home to roost, all the same kind at the same speed.”

I am sure our friend did not think that closing the businesses and parts of her personal life could be this hard. Initially she encouraged her clients to leave and most had already left. However she was much more successful at cutting revenue than costs. She was still a long way from being able to move home. The longer it took, the more trapped she felt. When my wife told her that a mutual client wanted to move over to our facilty, the falling out between friends had finally begun.

Earlier in the evening when my wife had come home from the falling out, my wife had wanted to call her friend up and talk some more. My wife was upset and she wanted closure. My wife felt she was doing the right thing for both the mutual client and her friend. The mutual client wanted to move to our facility and thought it was the right time. My wife felt her intentions and actions were honest to both her friend and client. She dearly wanted her friend to believe her! Although I hope and pray for a better life for our friend and her family, I told my wife that closure with her friend was not going to happen. If you call her it will be about making you feel good. She will not feel good about this reagardless of what you say. Your friend has a lot more suffering to go through and there is nothing you can do about it. When you think about your pain, it is only a small fraction of what your friend is going through. Forgiving her will be your only solace. Like a long, slow movie our friend is going to suffer a predictable series of unfortunate events until she hits bottom. Our friend had ignored a lot of simple advice over the years and is even less likely to follow our advice we offer now. More than ever she is trusting her own judgement. It is unlikely that she will believe in the very core of her heart that she needs to make personal changes until she finally sees that she has hit bottom. Until that time she will indiscriminatingly blame her problems on her husband, children, friends, and clients. It is not going to be a pretty picture. Watching a friend suffer is never easy. Having the patience to wait and watch for things to work themselves out will be very difficult.

Assuming that our friend survives the bottom, we may be involved in the growth and healing process. Then again, we may not be involved. Healing is both very hard and easy. Learning to enjoy the simple things done with great love makes a person and a family more fully alive. This part is so easy yet so hard. The key is letting go of the things you cannot control and never were very important. The prospect of our friend and her family making the transition to a family fully alive is a very appealing goal. In my heart I remain open to the process even though I dread it. The part we will have to give of ourselves to help them grow and heal will be painful.

RE: “The God who gave us life”

“… gave us liberty at the same time. The hand of force may destroy but cannot disjoin them.” So wrote Thomas Jefferson in his 1774 essay, A Summary View of the Rights of British America. I am reminded of Jefferson’s explicitly religious view of the natural rights of human beings after reading Gerard Van Der Leun’s essay, “Lincoln’s Land Without God.”

What is really at issue here on the human plane is whether or not this nation can endure once it is officially based on NOTHING [instead of God – DS]. I am of those Americans who say it can not. Myths matter to a person and to a nation. Remove them and they cease to exist. This is especially true when you are dealing with a nation like America which is not based on either blood or land, but on myth alone.

It’s been said that America is the only nation ever founded upon a idea, rather than ethnicity or or soil. That idea, drawn from the European Enlightenment, was simply and specifically what Jefferson said: that the rights of human beings spring not from consent by, or gift from, human authority, but from the creative acts of God. Life and liberty, said Jefferson, are inextricably interwoven because they spring from the same source, the God who creates both.

If you spend some time perusing the writings of Jefferson, it’s hard to avoid concluding that today he would be assailed as something of a religious nut, probably even one the much-reviled “religious right.” No matter that Jefferson was a secular deist, there is no escaping that his writings are permeated with God consciousness. Christ does not figure into his political writings, but God does, and frequently.

Patrick Henry wrote, “It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I am not one of those who claims that America is a Christian nation; we are perhaps a Christianistic nation. Henry’s claim seems intolerant today because there is a great diversity of religions in America now. But Henry’s statement nonetheless reminds us that America’s founding sprang from a specific kind of religious faith, not just some feelings of a generic spirituality. Justice William O. Douglas wrote in a 1952 majority opinion of a Supreme Court case, “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”

What gave Jefferson and his fellow revolutionaries the right to be so, well, revolutionary? What gave them the right to start this country? Whence came their idea that the people should rule instead of a king or a parliament of nobles? How could they claim that the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was “unalienable,” meaning beyond the authority of a government either to grant or deny? Why did they talk about human rights to begin with and where do rights comes from?

Well, according to Thomas Jefferson and his fellows, the ultimate answer to all those questions was simple: God. However true it was that commercial interests were prominent in the minds of Jefferson, Washington, Franklin and all the rest, only a cynic of today’s postmodern age would say that the religious convictions of the Founders were not central to their determination to risk their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for a single claim: the self-evident truth that all persons are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain rights that may not be rightfully denied them.

That was the whole justification for the American revolution: the rights of the people in America came from God, not from the British crown. When the Crown usurped them, it was the God-given right of the people of America to cast off the crown and determine their own mode of governance. That is what the Declaration of Independence says, and that is what the Founders did. Editorialist James Freeman wrote, “If you could sum up Jefferson’s political views in one sentence, you would say: He believed that God and reason allow people to rule themselves.” As the Declaration of Independence was being signed, Samuel Adams declared: “We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come.”

The source of human freedom is not an academic question nor is it merely one of Constitutional history. It is in fact the question of utmost importance in Iraq today, for example. The people there are freed from slavery under Saddam Hussein. At the moment, they are freed from something, but what they are freed to is not yet settled.

One of the genius things our Founders did was create a civil society in which enormous numbers of different Christian denominations and different religions find a home. Our history has seen times of sectarian strife, but it never descended to open combat as it has in, say, northern Ireland. A lot of Protestants were suspicious of whether Catholic John F. Kennedy would cleave to the Vatican rather than the Constitution, but their fears were unfounded. In 2000, an orthodox Jew, Joe Lieberman, was the vice presidential candidate; he ran for president in 2004 and no one worried whether he would have cleaved to Jerusalem rather than the Constitution.

The American ideas of freedom and liberty are drawn from religion. Jefferson was saying that human liberty is inherent in the creative acts of God in bringing forth humankind to begin with. Thanks to God we exist, and in God we live and move and breathe and have our being. Creation was not a static event, it is a dynamic process of bringing forth the image of God in humankind and the world at large. The creation stories in the book of Genesis show that the realms of the divine and creation overlap. God is powerful, but not exclusively so, as creation unfurls. Creation has power too; a certain degree of independence and freedom is built into creation by God’s very acts of creating.

In the original paradise, the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were given the run of the garden and meaningful work to do. They were free agents of their own will. Yet there were limits. God commanded them that they could eat the fruit of any tree except one.

Their freedom had its limits. When they crossed that limit, they were less free, and Genesis relates that as generations passed, humankind became steadily even less free. Eventually the story leads to Egypt, where the Hebrews found themselves in chattel slavery to Pharaoh. They had no freedom at all.

The twin images of slavery and freedom shape the entire theology of both the Jews and Christians. Never is God presented as an enslaver. Always God is a liberator. The central story of the Jews is that of Moses leading the children of Israel from slavery in Egypt to freedom in the Promised Land. At their start, slavery. At their ending, freedom. But curiously, neither the slavery nor the freedom is the high point of the story. The high point is what happened at Sinai. The high point, the defining moment, was when God gave them the Law.

The Law of Moses defines the limits of freedom in two ways. On the one hand, the law defined what was forbidden. On the other, it stated what was obligatory.

There is always a tension between the forbidden and the mandatory. But the Bible seems clear that freedom is found somewhere between the limits of what must not be done and what must be done. Without obligations there is no justice. Without prohibitions there is no community. When either individuals or societies attempt to ignore either prohibitions or obligations, bondage results. Slavery is easy, freedom is hard. Jefferson said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The reason is that the natural state of human beings is not freedom, but slavery.

The apostle Paul said that creation itself is in bondage to decay, an amazing statement for a pre-scientific man to make. Science today confirms that the universe is running down and cosmologists now seem convinced that the universe will keep expanding forever, until the time will come when energy states will be even, and nothing will ever change.

As for we men, women and children, we are born slaves to this decay. We cannot escape it, and anyone pushing 50 years as I am is more than well aware of it. At the end lies the grave. We know that. We are born slaves to death because our mortality looms over everything we do. It is the sole reason, really, that the US Congress passed and President Bush signed the biggest entitlement program ever, the Medicare prescription-drug program, to the tune of more than 400 billion dollars. If slavery to death is not really behind it, way down at the foundation, then tell me what is.

The book of Hebrews says that since we, God’s children, “have flesh and blood, [Christ] too shared in [our] humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death”“ that is, the devil”“ and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.”

To some degree human mortality influences everything people do. Human customs and culture are shaped by the end of life in ways we cannot even uncover, to degrees we do not recognize. That is slavery to the fear of death.

We have usually thought of Jesus’s gift of life as some sort of afterlife, a survival of the soul after the body has died. This understanding of being freed from the fear of death is an essential one, but it is incomplete. Christ is concerned about far more of our lives than what happens after they end. Christ frees us not only from the fear of personal death but from our slavery to a death-shaped culture. With death overcome, the family of God is empowered to inaugurate a new order of living and a new kind of life.

Jesus explained in the Gospel of John (8:34-36), “Very truly, I tell you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. 35The slave does not have a permanent place in the household; the son has a place there forever. 36So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.”

Through Christ, we are freed from sin and from servitude to the things of this world which inhibit godly living: greed, jealousy, anger, resentment, racism, selfishness all the hundreds of things we put under the general label of sin. We are freed from sin and the fear of death.

So liberated, we should be able to live positively in ways not possible before. Justice, the right ordering of things in human affairs, is the result of this spiritual freedom. So the fuller Law of the Hebrews recognized this fact. Deuteronomy 10:12-13 and 17-18 says to the nation of Israel:

“ So now, O Israel, what does the LORD your God require of you? Only to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13and to keep the commandments of the LORD your God and his decrees that I am commanding you today, for your own well-being. 17For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who is not partial and takes no bribe, 18who executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and who loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.”

Those are some of the divine obligations people have as they live in community. Yet our nation’s founding documents make no mention of the obligations and responsibilities, they seek to ensure only our rights. In fact, Jefferson wrote that the whole purpose of government is to secure the rights that God gave us. He ignored codifying the obligations God lays on us.

I think that is a good thing. I shudder to think what our civil life would be like if our Constitution required things of us rather than limited the power of government. Any list of obligations can be twisted into tyranny, whether by civil or religious authority. It is always too easy for the law, whether civil or religious, to cease being a guide and begin being a slave master.

In both our civil and religious life, we would do well to remember Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians, 1 Cor 10:23: “Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible but not everything is constructive.” The absence of limits in America’s founding documents is not an oversight. The Founders expected the people to understand the limits of libertine anarchy on the one hand and political slavery on the other.

The Constitution guarantees our rights. It is our religion under the providence of the God of Moses and Jesus that secures our true liberty.

Various commentators of the American religious scene point out that America is becoming less and less religious. A lower percentage of Americans regularly attend church or synagogue than in past times. But the fact is that Americans are still just as religious as before, it’s just not Jewish or Christian religion they are practicing. Increasing numbers of people are turning to forms of spirituality that are private and personal, not public and social. These forms if religion are, at their base, selfish and self-centered. While this is certainly their right, I fear that over time the obligations of freedom will be ignored and the justice of our freedom will be degraded. Self-centered persons do not prosper, and neither do self-centered societies or nations. Paul warned the Galatian Christians (Gal 5:13-14):

13 For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence . . . For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Freedom is God’s will. Certain rights are God-given and cannot be rightfully denied by human authority. God’s gift of freedom carries the obligation to live godly lives under his guidance and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Our rights and our obligations reinforce one another, guard one another, preserve one another. Together they comprise our freedom.
[Via One Hand Clapping]

The Bible Civilizes the Mind

I woke up this morning with this thought, “The Bible Civilizes the Mind”. It was one of those light bulb going on moments even though the statement is a pretty obvious conclusion. I recently started reading “The History of God” by Karen Armstrong and it presented me with several new ideas about God. At least these ideas are new to me. In it she described Philo’s distinction between the “essence” of God and the “powers” or “energies” of God. The “essence” and the “powers” are both parts of God. Whereas God’s “essence” is incomprehensible by all accounts, God “powers” are the way God communicates with us. By all accounts God’s “powers” are simply beyond our laws of physics. The prophets, the miracles, Jesus and the Bible are examples of these “powers”.
Although I took it for granted that it would be pretty near impossible to visualize what God looks like, I think our heart wants to try even though our mind knows it is foolish. When we find ourselves going through the “visualize God exercise”, we admonish ourselves for the naivety of our results. Eventually we beat ourselves up for being foolish about following our heart and try to move on. Yet our futility with visualizing God explains why the prophets, the Bible, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus are necessary. Our mind if left to its own decisions will wander off to various distractions at the first sign of failure. Our heart wants something bigger and more meaningful. Without help from the “powers” we eventually become self-centered and will only help others if it is in our best interest. The desire to be connected to something bigger than our meager existence fades away as self-preservation rules the day.

I imagine the first human beings were very self-centered and focused on self-preservation. They had some big problems with survival to deal with. In that environment I can understand why they may have chosen to ignore the needs of others. Yet early history shows that they bound together as a group and persevered. Everyone may have their own opinion why they succeeded when logic says they should have failed. It could be pure, random luck. I believe that the belief in God and God’s powers bound these early people together and had a civilizing effect on their actions like nothing else. Eventually over time these early God beliefs and the Bible changed society’s perception of what being civilized really meant. This aspiration for the moral high ground leads to the laws ingrained in modern day society. With the help of God’s “powers” we have the opportunity to continue to become even more civilized and full of life. Without this influence we are just cavemen with iPods.