What Have You Dismantled Today?

Tearing Down the Walls, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

An excerpt from a recent sermon by my pastor Cindy, at Jeff St Baptist...

In Adult Sunday School last week, we discussed Ched Myers’ book, Sabbath Economics. He talks about the disparity between the wealthy and the poor, and he says that the Biblical witness refuses to stipulate the injustice is a permanent condition, and, this is the line that caught some of our attention, “Instead, God’s people are instructed to dismantle, on a regular basis, the fundamental patterns and structures of stratified wealth and power, so that there is enough for everyone.”

[and here, he is speaking specifically in reference to the Sabbath and Jubilee laws - as well as touching on the Manna story, but he would argue that it extends beyond that... ~dt]

One thing that we liked about that sentence is, “God’s people are instructed to dismantle, on a regular basis…” We talked about how we have to continually remind ourselves that what we think we own is not really ours, but rather, God’s. About how hard it is when you grow up in this culture to really get that into your head and heart, how hard it is not just to dismantle an unjust system, but to dismantle predominant beliefs and values.

What have you dismantled lately? What are you in the process of dismantling?

When you look around, what is it that you see that needs to be dismantled?

This morning’s scripture reading is the first of a series of five stories in less than two chapters where Jesus, whose ministry and sudden rise to popularity has been briefly introduced by Mark, clashes head on with the authorities. There are many more confrontations to come, but it begins with this series of clashes.

In Jesus’ day, a physical illness or disability was seen as a consequence or punishment for a sin. If someone was healed from an illness, then in order to be pronounced clean, or forgiven, they would have to follow a certain procedure, in a lepers’ case, for instance, go before a priest, sacrifice an animal, pay some money.

But in this story, Jesus, upon seeing the paralyzed man, pronounces him forgiven, clean, before he’s even healed, before he’s seen the priest, before he’s sacrificed the animal, before he’s paid the money, before the scribes have had a chance to reclassify him.

“Your sins are forgiven,” Jesus says, and in those words, Jesus restores him to social wholeness. He’s welcomed back into the fold: You are no longer an outcast, you are no longer unclean. You are brother, you are father, you are son, you are restored to your position as a child of Israel.

Jesus restores him before he’s even been healed. The scribes go ballistic, and "for good reason,” says Ched Myers. “Their complaint that none but God can remit debt is not a defense against the sovereignty of Yahweh, but of their own social power.”

They accuse Jesus in the strongest language possible: “He blasphemes,” they say, which as you’ll remember, is the charge that will eventually be used to execute Jesus.

Jesus restores the man before he’s even been healed. “You can’t do that,” they say. At which point, Jesus heals the man, this time actually restoring his body as well. And so the scribes have been “out-dueled,” and Myers points out that the next time they appear, it will be in the person of government investigators from Jerusalem...

What have you dismantled lately? What are you in the process of dismantling...?

Tombstone Poetry

Tombstone, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

The fell destroyer early marked
her for his victim
and she sunk
in the midst of life
and usefulness...

Church Flag Flying

Yes Banner, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

A recent post over at Juicy Ecumenism revisited an article from last year's July Christianity Today magazine, in which three folk debated about whether flying a flag in your church is a good or bad idea.

The fella doing the "agin it" position noted the problems of associating your church with one particular nation, the problems of being unnecessarily divisive rather than inclusive, the problem of overtly or passively suggesting you are beholden to the state, of tying your religion to your state. Serious concerns, all.

I would add to that just the question of "Why?" Why would/should we fly a flag in our church service? Is this true of all nations or just the US? Should Chinese Christians meeting in secret for fear of prison fly a Chinese flag in their service? Did the early Christians fly a flag of Rome after Rome killed off Jesus??

What is the rationale for even considering doing this?

The two people in favor of flying the flag in churches suggest it as a way of honoring country and to encourage a good sort of patriotism. They also suggested a flag (again, any flag? just the US flag??) is a way of remembering that "greater love hath no one than to lay his life down for another..."

One of the commenters on the Juicy blog said that he would not go to a church that didn't fly a flag in their sanctuary. I just wonder, "Why?"

I also would point out that this sort of dogmatic belief is a very good reason to be wary of this sort of tradition.

To my understanding, having a flag in sanctuaries is a very new phenomena, beginning perhaps during the Civil War (when I believe BOTH sides flew their own flags and when an area was subdued by the North, I've read, they would sometimes replace the Confederate flag in a church building with a Union flag.) It certainly is not biblical nor an ancient tradition, not that I'm aware of (again, can you imagine the early church flying the flag of Rome?? How ludicrous!)

Perhaps not surprising, given my anabaptist background (anabaptists, by and large, do not have flags in their church services, nor do they pledge allegiance to a flag elsewhere), I understand the NOT flying a flag in church position. It seems to me to be the rational and moral position to hold to.

Given the, I think, serious reasons not to fly a flag, on what basis would we choose to do so? It's not biblical, it's not rational that I can see (ie, "Christians should rationally have their state's flag in their church because..." what? I can think of no rational defense for it) and it's questionably moral.

Having said that, I don't condemn my brothers and sisters in churches that have a flag. I grew up with it and know how culturally tied we are to the idea and it's really not like it's evil or anything to do it. I just can't think of any positive reason to do it.

Does anyone care to give it a try?

Another related question:

I would point back to the fella who said he wouldn't attend a church that didn't fly a flag in its sanctuary. I can understand that, perhaps for some reason - cultural, modern traditional, whatever - that people like the idea of it. But to say you wouldn't attend a church that doesn't fly one, that seems to me to suggest that you think it's wrong NOT to fly a flag. If there are people out there like that, I would ask, "On what basis would you think that?"

It's one thing to have it as a preference, but to actively think it's wrong NOT to fly a flag in your church sanctuary? That just defies reason, to me.

Thoughts?

Get out your tin foil hats, people!

Dan, Sarah and a Crazy Man, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

So, visiting over at John's blog and reading about how we should reject the notion of anthropogenic climate change because he cites sources (like globalwarmingskeptic.com) as "proof" that it's not happening.

I ask the fellas there, "But NASA, the AMA, the AMS and other very legitimate sources say that 97% of climatologists say climate change is real and likely due to human factors. Do you believe that NASA, the AMA and AMS are all lying or do you think they're all fooled, because they haven't gone to globalwarmingskeptic.com to learn the Truth?"

No answer beyond "I see you can't refute my sources!"

I ask, "I'm not a scientist, but I am a reasonable person. On what basis would I suspect that NASA, the AMA and AMS are lying/wrong and globalwarmingskeptic.com is right?"

The answer is to denigrate these scientists as also believing that gay people marrying is a good thing and...

and these same “scientists” go on record as believing in evolution!

And Trabue claims he is rational.

Dang them "scientists" and their lying ways.

Rejoice, and be glad!

Celebrate1c, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

Let my name stand among those who are wiling to bear ridicule and reproach for Truth's sake,

and so earn some right to rejoice when the victory is won.

~Louise May Alcott

In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer.

~Albert Camus

watch me rise like smoke from fire.
Watch me fly above your hate.
Watch me dance upon your meanness
like a ballerina with posture; grace.
Watch me laugh over your hatred;
watch me soar above your sea of grief.
And know that I am out there somewhere...

~Coco J Ginger

The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it...

~Voltaire

More Scandal!

Red Train, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

From CNN...

(CNN) -- Skeptics who have long theorized that TWA Flight 800 was brought down by sinister forces will get a fresh surge of energy when a new documentary attempts to disprove that the 1996 crash was accidental...

Suspicions that criminals or terrorists were behind the TWA 800 explosion are not new. The FBI conducted a parallel investigation, but concluded that the incident was not a crime or terrorist attack...

The evidence proves that "one or more ordnance explosions outside the aircraft caused the crash," the producers said. But it does not identify or speculate on the source of the ordnance explosions...

How long before Obama gets the blame for this?

A blessed silence...

Hinds Feet..., a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

I am opposed
as a matter of principle
to noise

I am willing to make an occasional allowance
for an ambulance, for instance,
or a fire engine

But only grudgingly
and with no small discomfort.

Rather, give me a rabbit
silently listening at a
field's edge

Or a cautious deer
gracefully whispering away
from sight

Give me the trickle of
a rain-swollen stream glazing
smooth pebbles

Or a deep gray fog rampaging
innocently through an
early morning woods

I can rest and be entirely at ease
with the rustle of fall leaves
skittering easterly

and I find that a blessed silence
is what is needed more often
than not.

More Jokers...

Skull Clock, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

(CNN) – For Southern Baptist pastor Tim Reed, it was Scripture versus the Scouts.

“God’s word explicitly says homosexuality is a choice, a sin,” said Reed, pastor of First Baptist Church of Gravel Ridge in Jacksonville, Arkansas.

So when the Boy Scouts of America voted to lift its ban on openly gay youths on May 24, Reed said the church had no choice but to cut its charter with Troop 542.

“It’s not a hate thing here,” Reed told CNN affiliate Fox 16. “It’s a moral stance we must take as a Southern Baptist church.”

Southern Baptist leaders say Reed is not alone.

Baptist churches sponsor nearly 4,000 Scout units representing more than 100,000 youths, according to the Boy Scouts of America.

That number could drop precipitously.

The Southern Baptist Convention, the country’s largest Protestant denomination, will soon urge its 45,000 congregations and 16 million members to cut ties with the Scouts, according to church leaders.

=====

What I'm wondering is how this makes any sense at all? Are the BSA endorsing gay sex? Are they going to be actively recruiting boys into "the gay lifestyle" and endorsing "the gay agenda..."?

By accepting boys who happen to have a homosexual orientation, is that an endorsement of sex of any sort? I mean, they accept boys with a heterosexual orientation, does that mean that they endorse boys having straight sex?

Even if the Southern Baptists tend to think that gay sex is wrong, this is not an endorsement of that. It's just accepting kids into their group, just like they accept boys who might have premarital sex with girls or just like they might accept kids who have (or will tell) lies or cheat on a test.

Acceptance of people into your company is not an endorsement of all their behaviors and the Southern Baptists (and others) can't start excluding folk WITHOUT appearing hateful and intolerant. This is blind and irrational discrimination and it's wrong. Shame on them.

Even so, Southern Baptists will still be tolerated in my company. Disagreement does not have to lead to empty-headed and grace-less exclusion.

Wise Men Comedy Show

Old Man Cattail, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

Tonight's Topic: The Plague of Working Women!

Lou Dobbs: I want to do something I don't usually do. I'm going to turn to a study...

[rim shot!]

...Pew Research, showing that women have become the breadwinners in this country and a lot of other concerning and troubling statistics.

[crazy shriek! Laugh track laughing]

Our society is being torn in so many directions right now, this stuff is really at the margin as you watch the Republicans, the Democrats, this president his scandals and the appropriate investigation by the Republicans. When we're watching society dissolve around us.

[foghorn]

Juan, what do you think?

Juan Williams: Lou I just think this should be in large letters in every newspaper in America because what we're seeing with four out of ten families with the woman is the primary the breadwinner, you're seeing the disintegration of marriage, you're seeing men who were hard-hit in the recession in a way that women weren't...

[cats and dogs, living together! MASS hysteria!]

...You're seeing, I think, systemically larger than the political stories we follow every day – something going terribly wrong in American society and it's hurting our children and it's going to have impact for generations to come... Left, right. I don't see how you can argue this!

[laugh track]

Lou Dobbs: You mention children. And those are the children who survive. 54 million abortions since Roe V Wade. 54 million in this country!

[cue Darth Vader theme]

...What has been the impact of that, what does it say about our society, our education.. our high school drop outs! Erick, your thoughts on this study and what it portends?

[Doom! Destruction!]

Erick Erickson: Lou, I 'm so used to Liberals telling Conservatives that they're anti-science but this is, liberals who defend this and say it's not a bad thing are very anti-science...

[You keep using that word... I don't think you know what it means...]

...when you look at biology, when you look at the natural world, the roles of a male and a female in a society and other animals, the male is typically the dominant role, but the female is not antithesis, it's not competing, it's a complementary role.

We, as people in a smart society have lost our ability to have complementary relationships in nuclear family, it's tearing us apart. What I find interesting in the survey is that 3/4 of the people surveyed recognized having mom as primary breadwinner is bad for kids and bad for marriages and reality shows us that that is the truth...

[aaOOOOgah! Laugh track...]

That's all the time we have tonight folks, see you next week!

[cue Benny Hill theme song]

Consider the Birds of the Air...

Redwing Blackbirds, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

I was reading a blogmentary and the resulting comments today and thought I'd correct someone on the internets who was wrong.

The blogger said...

Have you heard of "red letter Christians"? That's a cute way of indicating those people who classify themselves as Christians by taking those red-letter texts -- you know, the ones that Jesus said -- as absolutely true and setting the rest aside as questionable at best...

...who would not be fine with it? Well, Paul, for starters. He's the one who wrote that all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16-17). So if Jesus is God Incarnate (John 1:1-3), then all Scripture is, technically, the words of Jesus. (Remember, John refers to Him as "the Logos", the Word, the actual expression of God.) Even Paul's. Peter held that Paul's writings were Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). So if all Scripture is God-breathed, then what Paul wrote is just as much Jesus's words as what the red letter versions put up as Jesus's words. And, of course, Jesus held the Old Testament as Scripture, so that would be just as much Jesus's words as anything in the New Testament.

What do I do when Jesus and Paul disagree? Nothing, really. Because, well, they don't. So the problem isn't them. The problem is me. That's when I back up and figure out where I made the wrong turn. And, as it turns out, I usually find it pretty easily. But pitting Scripture against Scripture -- even Jesus against Paul or Peter or anyone else -- is a bad option if you're going to take Scripture seriously. Countering a Scripture with a Scripture is all well and good as long as you plan to make them agree...

And a commenter added the little jab...

The "red letter Christians" really tip their hands by implying that those words are inspired and that others are not. But why would they trust one Apostle's account of Jesus (any Gospel) and another Apostle's account (from Paul)? They implicitly deny the inspiration of scripture, and, not surprisingly, a lot of mischief follows.

The problems with this criticism (and ensuing false charges and attacks)...

1. We who are followers of Jesus, the Christ, really OUGHT to consider closely and take seriously Jesus' actual and direct teachings.

2. It demonstrates a bad, irrational, unbiblical approach to Bible study.

2a. The Bible makes THIS claim about "all Scripture..." That it is God-breathed/inspired and thus, useful for teaching and correction.

2b. The Bible does NOT make this claim about the Bible:

* That the 66 books of the Bible = "all Scripture.";

* That it is a magic rule book and if you only can read all the rules pretty (but not exactly... sort of, but not always, but kind of literally) and rightly apply them all in your (and you, in everyone else's) life, then you will find salvation and the Right Way to behave (and the Right Way to tell everyone else how they should behave);

* That it never contradicts itself in any manner;

* That each line of text in the Bible is equally valid as all other lines;

* That if an OT rule and a direct NT teaching of Jesus conflict, that we MUST find a way to make them not contradict one another...

3. Indeed, it is abundantly obvious that the Bible DOES contradict itself, at least as far as moral teachings go. The OT quite clearly teaches that God's people should NOT eat shrimp, for instance, that doing so is an "abomination." AND YET, Jesus and other NT writers directly contradict this teaching. "It's NOT what goes in to a person that makes them unclean or a sinner, but what comes OUT of them..." Eating shrimp is specifically NOT a sin or an abomination in the NT. That is a contradiction.

4. So, the problem here is treating the Bible as if it claimed that it was a rule book (magic or otherwise). The idea - "IF there is a rule in the OT, THEN Jesus' teachings can NOT contradict it, we must make Jesus' teachings mesh with OT teachings." - is simply sloppy reasoning and Bible study. Additionally, this is a way (perhaps unintentionally) of undermining the teachings of Jesus, making them subordinate to OT Jewish rules and teachings. I would call that sloppy Bible study and disrespectful to the actual teachings of Jesus.

5. And as soon as I say that, someone will sputter, "but, but, but... Jesus SAID 'I did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it...'" and indeed, he did. But "fulfilling it" does not mean accepting each OT teaching and rule as a universally moral teaching. That is another way (perhaps unintentional) of undermining Jesus' teachings, making them captive to ancient rules and understandings and mores.

6. The use of "red letter" by some folk (such as the ones cited) is a way of disrespecting/mocking those who hold fast to Jesus' teachings and seems odd to me. Why would followers of Jesus (and his teachings) NOT be especially concerned about the "red letters..."? We in the Baptist/anabaptist tradition (and others) approach Bible study with this attitude: That we understand all of scripture through the lens of Jesus' teachings. Why wouldn't we? We're followers of Jesus!

7. We who do strive to hold fast to Jesus' teachings are not saying that some Bible teachings are inspired and some are not (well, some "red letter Christians" might, but it's not a given or a universal trait at all). Rather, we understand ALL of Scripture to be inspired and useful for teaching (what the Bible actually claims) but don't conflate that to mean that each line in the Bible holds equal weight and are equally valid moral teachings. Clearly, according to Jesus, this is not true (well, unless you try to make Jesus' captive and overruled by OT interpretations and rules).

Indeed, we strive to use Jesus' teachings as a lens to biblical interpretation BECAUSE we value all biblical teachings. Biblical teachings are only useful IF they are rightly understood. Jesus' Gospel teachings help us to rightly understand.

Again, why would followers of Jesus NOT pay particular attention to his teachings?

I know I've said much of this sort of thing before, but I had a little time and thought I'd do that silliest of things: Correct someone who was wrong on the internet. Call me sick.

IRS "Scandal..."?

Watch your step, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

Far be it from me to defend the IRS, but as I've been listening to this news story, I have some questions...

No doubt you've all heard the story, "IRS employees targeted conservatives unjustly...," etc, wherein some in the IRS are accused of singling out and targeting for extra scrutiny conservative groups who've applied for non-profit status. My question has to do with the way this charge has been framed.

IS there any evidence that, in general, these IRS employees who've allegedly targeted "conservative" groups HAVE done so?

First, it appears clear that, if nothing else, we've sort of set up rules that make this job difficult for IRS employees. Some groups will apply for non-profit status, presumably so that they can do good for the community and some in the IRS are charged with the task of deciding if the application is legitimate.

The purpose of the non-profit status is to help those groups whose PRIMARY purpose to is promote the social welfare. Or, as it reads in the IRS code...

An organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.

The problem is, WHAT is the measure for "primarily engaged in promoting the common good..."? It appears to be left rather vague, making the job of this department of the IRS a difficult one. It would seem obvious that a group providing housing or job skills for the homeless or unemployed is primarily promoting the common good, but what of a more political organization that, say, is fighting against (or in favor of) abortion? Is that "primarily promoting the common good"? Who decides?

If nothing else, hopefully this "scandal" will raise attention to this problem and help lead to clarification.

But, back to my problem with this "scandal."

First, let me be clear: IF it turns out to be the case that this office of the IRS was populated by partisan Democrat hacks who deliberately targeted conservative groups because they were conservative, that is wrong, wrong, wrong and the problem should be addressed.

However, from all evidence that I've seen thus far, these employees (and their managers who knew about it) weren't generally targeting conservative groups at all, much less for political reasons.

Rather, at a time when many tea party-type groups were being formed and applying for non-profit status, these employees made the call to target specifically applications that were "tea party" or "patriot"-styled groups. And what was the reason for this?

Was it because these groups were primarily conservative and these were liberal partisan hacks? Then hold them accountable and clarify the rules.

On the other hand, if they did it because tea party groups have tended to be pretty virulently anti-gov't, anti-tax groups who have tended to be more political in nature, rather than "primarily" operating for "the common good," well, then, give these employees Gold Stars, they seemed to have been doing their job.

The tea party-types that I have read have tended to say things like "taxation = theft!" and "Big gov't is STEALING our money, let's put an end to it!"... that is, they come across as pretty politically opposed to taxation in general AND pretty political in nature and those qualities SHOULD raise a red flag for a tax collecting agency.

Consider: There is on the Left in the Peace Wing, a pretty small group that supports withholding a percentage of tax dollars - those dollars that would go to the "war machine." I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the notion, myself, although I'm not part of it.

Now, if groups who agreed with this idea started proliferating in the way that the tea partiers did in the last decade and they began organizing and applying en masse for non-profit status, then I would expect it to be not unreasonable for the IRS to "target" groups with "anti-war tax" in their title/mission statement.

By "targeting," they weren't simply dismissing the tea party groups - indeed, it appears most groups got their non-profit status. It just means that because these groups seemed to be questionably out to "primarily promote the common good" and more political in nature, that they looked at their applications a little more closely.

From all I've seen so far, this does not seem inappropriate to me, nor does it seem to violate any laws or any internal IRS rules.

Am I mistaken? If so, where specifically? What rules have they violated? What laws have they broken?

Do I support clarification of these "primarily for the promotion of the common good" rules so it's not left so vague? Sure, that would be a good thing. But let's not blame the IRS if their only sin is doing their job as best they can. If it turns out that these employees and managers did NOT "target" the tea party groups as part of a partisan attack, but just doing their jobs, I am hopeful that Congress and the Right-eous attackers will apologize for creating a "scandal" where none existed.

Best Final Episode Ever?

Flowers Watercolor, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

The TV show, The Office had its final episode last night. Now, I am no fan of TV, as a general rule, and think we'd do better to spend less time watching it. I am, therefore, loathe to spend any time talking up a TV show, but, well, here we go....

I have enjoyed The Office over the years. The last few seasons, the quality of the shows has declined, as is common in even good TV shows, and I didn't watch it as regularly. Still, I tuned in last night for the final episode and must say that I thought it was great, perhaps the best final episode of any TV show ever.

(NOTE: Since most Final Episodes have not been all that good, that may be feint praise... my previous favorite Final Episode was Newhart.)

This Office finale was almost certainly too sentimental. Some might complain that being sweet and sentimental forced some characters to play out of character. But it's a final episode, I can cut them some slack for even over-the-top sentimentality.

I thought it had a nice balance of wistful remembrances and solid humor.

But probably the reason I enjoyed the show so much was because they took the opportunity to wax poetic and philosophical - and a departing is a perfect time to do that - and they did so in a way that I didn't find preachy or treacly, just pleasant.

A few favorite quotes...

Jim, reflecting upon his years in the incredibly inane and unimportant "paper selling" business...

“Even if I didn’t love every minute of it, everything I have I owe to this job. This stupid, wonderful, boring amazing job.”

Andy...

“I wish there was a way to know you’re in the good old days before you’ve actually left them.”

What do you think? Any Office mates out there?