I first became a fan of Natan Sharansky after reading his widely acclaimed book The Case for Democracy in early 2005. The unashamed way in which he spoke right to the heart of the matter of fear and freedom in our societies greatly influenced my outlook on the practices of governments around the world. Thus, when he released his most recent book, Defending Identity, I knew that I would eventually want to read it, regardless of the subject matter. However, when I began reading the reviews I saw that this was a book I would be interested in even if Mr. Sharansky had not been the author.

Why is that? Because, in this book which focuses mostly on the need for strong identities to coincide with strong democracies, I saw a deeper message pertaining to the struggle between strong identities and strong Christianity going on within the Church in our present emerging culture. Go onto any emergent blog, read any emergent book (say the upcoming Jesus Wants to Save Christians by Rob Bell for example), or engage any emergent thinkers in your congregation, and you will see this idea of a strong Christian identity being the cause of great travesties throughout the world and a drive to neutralize that identity and try to appeal on a broader range of issues which seem more agreeable to more people and thus promoting more "peace". This all comes from the "perfectly compelling" syllogism of post-modernism, namely: identity causes conflict; conflict is evil; therefore, identity is evil. It is this false argument which I believe leads emergent Christianity down many a dangerous path in its theology and application, and it is that which Sharansky's book, when read with a properly discerning eye, argues wholly against.

Below are a couple of quotes which I found particularly striking. In reading them, try and cast the ideas of war and totalitarian forces into the mold of religious conflict and Satan, and see for yourself if you can find the parallels which I was drawn to:

"Post-identity (post-modernism) weakens identity to decrease tensions between people, but doing so leads to vulnerability, threats, blackmail, and ultimately to an inability to defend against aggression. That is why post-identity is an invitation to war." (Natan Sharansky, Discovering Identity, p.205

"People are willing to make sacrifices when the choice is clear, when they know what is right and what is wrong. yet, if nothing is right, if no value judgments can be made, then nothing is wrong. Post-identity has created a world in which there is no right. But if there is no right, why fight?" (ibid., pp.100-101)

"It should be obvious that wagging a struggle against totalitarian forces first requires moral clarity. Unless you recognize evil, you cannot begin to fight it. But this is where the champions of post-identity have done the greatest damage." (ibid., p.221)

Because Jesus is the Way, Truth, and Life. What do I mean? Jesus is the Path, for one thing. It's about becoming, not being. But even as 'Destination,' Jesus is Truth - not a set of propositions about Jesus, God, life, or reality. And this is a way of Life God invites us on, again, not a set of propositions.

Propositions aren't the enemy here. To some degree, they're unavoidable. We all hold images of God in our hearts. For my part, I try to have the best darn images I can - informed by Scripture, the best of our shared story (Tradition), my own life and lives of those around me, and, well, reality. I want a true-to-life picture of God, and a story-honoring Story to live by. But where Pete Rollins is so helpful (and him, taking a cue from Derrida, Levinas and others) is he won't let us rest here...and I never let myself rest there. Because by my early 20s I realized that beliefs are like snake's skin - they protect and keep clean and fit for a season, but then they get old, scaly, and slide right off - to reveal new and supple skin beneath. A snake trying to carry around old skin would be ludicrous...as would living in denial of the natural life-cycle of beliefs. Because Jesus is Truth, I can safely navigate provisional truths that lead me closer to Truth. Because Jesus is also Way - lived in the context of Life.

For this reason, "Orthodoxy" has never been a very helpful idea to me - in the popular understanding, not in terms of "right praise" which really resonates. Not because I'm hell-bent on being unorthodox - no, most of my beliefs might well be pretty staid by most people's standards - but because of the sheer varieties of religious orthodoxies (with apologies to William James). Even within the Christian family, there are just so many to choose from. I think as we enter postmodernity and postchristendom, we're realizing that it's absurd to think we have to choose between 'Orthodoxy A' and 'Orthodoxy X' out of whole cloth; rather, we can, in the apostle Paul's words, hold fast to what is good and helpful, and disregard the rest.

The Church Basement Roadshow blew through Indianapolis last night like a good ole' prairie storm. Presented by emergent theologians Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, and Mark Scandrette and their 1908 high plains preacherman alter-ego, this "rolling gospel revival" showed the postmodern church at its finest.  And most fun.

Revival!

130 people showed up on this steamy August Monday night.  Using a time machine and/or rip in the time/space continuum, the trio effortlessly and expertly moved between the year 1908 and the year 2008.

The ninety minute revival was full of zaniness. The guys were dressed up in dapper 1908 garb but they brought some costumes for the volunteers. I ended up, no joke, in a pair of long johns and others in overalls and prairie dresses. We were urged to respond raucously with "AMENS" and "Glories." Jumpin' and hollerin' was encouraged.

Damn it, this was a revival!

1908 and 2008

The indirect conversation between the 1908ers and 2008ers was believable. And effective. Tony Jones blogged about 1908 last month on the God's politics blog.

One of the most interesting points of this comparison was the emerging Christian theologies of 1908. The fundamentalist Christian movement and the Azusa Street Revival was about to take off while the publication and popularity of Albert Scweitzer's The Quest for the Historical Jesus offered a new way of studying and thinking about Jesus. This scholary approach to examining the life of  Jesus would eventually bring us the Jesus seminar

Outside of these new ways of doing church, 1908 was a time of great technological advance and social struggle. The airplane and automobile was about to go big time, the great manufacturing cities were being built, and the distribution of wealth and the use of child labor was as bad as ever. Throw in the entrenchment of Jim Crow (Plessy vs. Ferguson was less than 10 years old) and the lessons of 1908 should not be forgotten.

Trucker Frank

Trucker Frank is prominently featured in Tony Jones' The New Christians. He pretty much embodies the possibilities, past and future, of the emergent church. I'll let the video tell the story but trucker Frank is part of a house church, once got excommunicated from a Christian bookstore, and got fired as a pastor after he compared church members to the church's potted. fake plastic flowers.

There was a bunch of youth group kids from Carmel up front who were having a great time during the entire show. Afterwards these kids were bragging later that they were all going to wear their TRUCKER FRANK FOR PRESIDENT t-shirts to the first day of school.

There were also about 10 homeless men who attended who were just as proud of their Trucker Frank t-shirts.

I, too, will be proudly wearing my Trucker Frank for President t-shirt.

Yeah, it's a different world. The change that has taken place has left many disillusioned, frustrated, and wondering if there is anything left that matters, that will be what it says it will be.

Many of the college students that I work with are looking for stability.  They are desirous that somethign will deliver.  They can see through all the bull crap that's out there and so they are cynical.  Who can blame them?  Every week it sems that another "holy" man has turned out to be a pedophile or morally degenerate in some way.  Every week sub concsiously they exclaim with the little boy, after the Black Sox trial, "Say it ain't so Joe!"

This is where infant baptism comes in. More than that this is where the covenant promises of the holy, triune God comes in. He brings about the things that he promises to bring about.  He makes sure that they happen, because he can.

I had a conversation one time with a gal about baptism.  She was baptised as an infant in a "liberal" "church" of some sort.  She had been going to a church in town and they were pressuring her to be baptised now that she was walking with Jesus.  They informed her that her "first" "baptism" meant nothing since she was a baby and didn't choose it and that her parents weren't even Christians. Yet, to me it is amazing that the day she was bapised her parents, the congregation, and the officiant promised to lead this girl to Jesus. They covenanted with God and he made good. The promise was on him to make happen and he did. As she reflected on that reality she was deeply moved and drew nearer to the God who had called her as a freshman in college.

As I think about my two kids and their baptisms I am amazed at how the Lord is making good already. Our pastor prayed during  Ethan's baptism that he would be an evangelist and that he would take the gospel to the world.  His first few weeks as a kindergartner, the first time he was ever around kids who weren't "churched" he began inviting his classmates to know about God. I didn't tell him to. He did it because "they need Jesus like me dad."

In a culture, a world where no one makes good on their promises. God does through this rite of passage into the covenantal community of believers. God shows his faithfulness over and over again to the child who is baptised in the triune name of God. It does not save them but it initiates them into the community.

I can hear the naysayers already, "it doesn't happen for everyone".  I know. I don't know why, it's a mystery.  It seems more often than not in my experience that these promises made in faith turn out.

The God of the Bible is a God who covenants with his people and includes the children in that covenant.  He always has, always will.  Why are we afraid to trust him for our children?  Why act like he doesn't care, when he does?  Why not show a cynical world the beauty of our promise keeping God as we remind our children, our friends, and those around us of their baptism and the promise that God is making good on?

Oh, for the world to see promises kept generation after generation.

The design is just really beautiful and hopeful while maintain simplicity.

Imediat slugile ruşilor au reacţionat în subvernaculara lor pseudo- neolatină  înţesată cu barbarisme printr -un articol violent în “limba moldovenească” la adresa mea. Un nou link -  căpuşă care ducea spre acel articol a fost fixat pe panoul blogului meu! Bănuiesc că lucrează în ture (4 oameni  pe 24 de ore, cel puţin aşa au lăsat să se înţeleagă, de exemplu m -au ameninţat cu 4 înjurături!), şi cineva îi plăteşte pentru această muncă. Mai presupun că sunt cetăţeni ruşi veniţi ca stăpâni obraznici în respublika Moldova, cetăţeni ruşi care au făcut şi  ceva studii universitare în România (cu burse plătite de statul român, din bani strânşi prin impozitarea cetăţeanului român). Dar centrala lor care îi plăteşte şi coordonează acum se găseşte indubitabil la Moskova. Spun eu aici centralei din  Moskova că îi plăteşte degeaba pe acei indivizi  care apar cu totul patetici unui basarabean  român autentic!  Totodată am rămas surprins să constat că un blogger român de calitate, --este adevărat că la un moment dat declara că nu are un job stabil, şi că are probleme cu banii--, cooperează acuma cu ei, chiar am fost atacat virulent de acel blogger român şi ameninţat cu scrierea unui articol în cea mai corectă vernaculară neolatină orientală împotriva mea! Îl aştept.

Titus Filipas

Dilemma: If I take something small and doable for a post, maybe just a detail somewhere, then it is pointless for people who haven't read the book. There is no reference point. If I do just a general review, then it would be to miss the point.

So most people consider this to be THE postmodern novel. Some would say the greatest novel of the twentieth century (although I think Beloved officially won that or something). This was not my first Pynchon experience, so I sort of new what to expect. I also went in prepared with resources for help if I needed it. Overall, it wasn't as hard as people make it sound. There was surprisingly a clear main character and also clear other main characters that weren't quite as main as that one (Tyrone Slothrop).

I guess I'll just offer advice. If you are thinking about reading it but are worried, don't be. Just do it. It isn't that hard. You may come out having no idea what it was about, but there is a story and you should be able to get that. For at least 200 pages, keep a list of main characters and how they relate. You probably won't need it after that, but it will save time in the beginning with all the switching around that is done every couple of pages. I used a blank sheet of computer paper. After I was done trying to keep track of characters, I used it to keep track of ideas or details that I thought were important.

For a more advanced reading, I'd say to try to figure out how each of the quotes at the beginning of the section and the name of the section are pertinent. Trust me, it isn't as easy as it sounds. I have at least three distinct interpretations of Part I: Beyond the Zero now. If you don't know German or Spanish, look up the parts that are in these languages. It may be important. Read Rilke's Duino Elegies before starting. Be familiar with Kabala and Tarot traditions. The names of things and the act of naming something is important.

For a super advanced reading, I'd say learn calculus (and the philosophy of infinitesimals), quantum mechanics, differential equations, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, Maxwell's Demon/entropy and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Now I call this a "super advanced reading," but in my interpretation, you miss the whole point if you don't relate it to incompleteness of formal systems and uncertainty in infinitesimals.

What did I think? Well, it is without a doubt worth the effort. It is the most impressive work of literature I've ever read. It was mostly enjoyable, too. I was expecting pure unreadable erudition, but it really wasn't. In fact, the style of writing changed to fit what was necessary for the section. Often times it would switch to screenplay, play, poem, song, letter, and more as the format of writing. I lost many nights of sleep working out what I consider to be the main theme. I actually wish I could write a big paper on this right now, since I think it has been largely ignored. I truly feel that it is an embodiment and expression of how the incompleteness theorem and uncertainty principle affect our everyday lives.

There is also a very interesting theory proposed that not only are unobserved particles wavefunctions, but we as humans are wavefunctions. It is sort of zen-like. He claims that the more we live in the moment, the more our wavefunction is spread out. The more we pay attention to the past and cling to things, the more instantiated our wavefunction is. The act of achieving enlightenment is to be completely in the moment which means your wavefunction is completely everywhere and thus you are one with everything.

Note that I have not said the slightest thing about the plot. This was on purpose. If you go and read a plot summary somewhere after reading this, just know that it is not accurate. There is no such thing as a plot summary and to try to say the slightest thing about the plot would be to miss the point of the novel completely. It is an experience rather than a work of literature. I highly recommend experiencing it if you have the time and energy to devote to it.

Surely you can't just let it fall to the ground in such a manner, spilling its prefabricated parts assembled without remorse all over this cold floor. Surely you have sensitivity Mr. Plant, for the fake plants assembled in your bank lobby, falling to and fro, stressed under the unitary budget and global deficit.

Stapler please, Mr. Plant as you can see the minimalism is simply too much with our current society, you are a visionary. Change the world once, and you are celebrated as a hero, change it twice, and you become your own martyr, Tesla syndrome you know.

We picked you, crafted you, and have attempted to prefabricate your success, now will you hand me that stapler?

Surely you're not just going to let it fall along with your aesthetic nihilism, such a rich beauty, into the oblivion of that concrete floor.

Dreams are prefabricated and plastic wrapped in our generation and you sir, are a subversive, dreaming with minimal efforts, sounds carried on by silence.

So as we attempt to flood you with our red tape shenanigans would you just bear with us and aid our bureaucracy?

Stapler, Mr. Plant, minimalist that you are. Stapler please.

My discussion of The Shack's problems will, God-willing, take the following form:

●                Gender & Trinity

●                God's Speech & Scripture

●                Power & Hierarchy

●                Open Theism

●                God's Wrath & Judgement

●                Universalism

●                God in Man's Image

So, to begin with, the first points of controversy have typically been issues of gender and the presentation of the Trinity.

GENDER

Papa, the name for God the Father in the book, is presented as an African-American woman. This fact is hard for many conservative readers to stomach, but seeing as Mack, the troubled main character, had an abusive alcoholic father, God as 'mother' was a divine tactic to side-step Mack's misapprehensions about God's fatherhood.

In terms of the scriptural presentation of God consistently as 'he', Young provides the following explanation. He says that God historically revealed Himself as a Father, because in a broken world,

"true fathering would be much more lacking than mothering… an emphasis on fathering is necessary because of the enormity of its absence" (Pg 94).

But if this is the case, one wonders why, when Papa actually does reveal Himself to someone who lacked a true father, he sees it necessary to reveal Himself as a woman? Young seems to be using the same explanation (bad fathering) to justify scripture's picture of God as Father and Papa's choice of the motherly figure.

I think that the actual reason for the God of the Bible as 'male' (even the Spirit is 'he') is that it represents God's headship over creation. However, this admits hierarchy, which is a postmodern taboo, and so Young rejects it. But more on power and hierarchy in due course.

TRINITY

The doctrine of Trinity is notoriously difficult, and has been vigorously debated throughout Church History. It also consistently fails to be accurately represented by metaphor (whether by triangles, clover-leaves, the triple-point of water, or whatever). Yet this is precisely what Young has attempted by representing the Trinity in three separate beings, and so his image of God necessarily falls short. The creeds urge us to hold God's oneness and threeness in tension, neither dividing their divine substance (that is, their unity), nor confusing the persons Young has admirably attempted to preserve the distinctness of the persons while always confronting the reader with God's oneness. Yet there are a few concerns on this matter that are worth noting.

Firstly, on page 31, he tells a legend about Multnomah Falls. It is a Native American story of a princess who kills herself to appease the Great Spirit in order to turn aside a plague. This story is held up as being an echo of the story of the death of Christ, and with this I must heartily disagree. Of course, while there are similarities, the differences are for more important. In the story, the 'Great Spirit' demands appeasement and it is only by the death of an innocent victim that God is pacified. If this is supposed to picture the Christian atonement, it represents a grave misunderstanding of the Trinity. Jesus is not like pagan human sacrifices precisely because he and the God who is to be propitiated are one. Jesus is not a victim, not even a willing victim. Jesus is both God and the mediator between God and man.

To Young's credit, this misunderstanding is not present elsewhere, but on the other hand, neither is the doctrine of the atonement.

The second Trinity problem occurs on page 96. According to Young, God died on the cross with Jesus, and did not actually leave him. Papa has crucifixion scars too. But 'Papa' is not incarnate as Jesus was (and is), and was certainly not bodily present on the cross. Why would God – a spirit – be scarred in His 'body'? The obvious answer is that Young wishes to illustrate that God the Father and the Son were united in their love for mankind and the lengths to which He'd go to demonstrate that love. However, it is a mistake (and a feature of one of the classical Trinitarian heresies called modalism) to consider the persons of the Trinity interchangeable. It also demonstrates that Young believes that the cross is no more than an illustration of God's love for people, but not an event in which God pours out His wrath against sin. As we shall see, postmodern Christianity shares with Liberalism a distaste for concepts of wrath and sin altogether.

Finally, on page 99, Papa says,

"When we three spoke ourselves into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human." This may well be no more than an attempt to assert the unity of the Godhead at a point where the three persons appear most distinct (the incarnation). The incarnation is mystifying, because how can a God who is One assume humanity into one of the persons? And how would God actually speak about the incarnation in terms of His unity? I'm fairly sure that we don't have the answers to these questions. I am equally sure that the solution is not to think of God's three persons as all being incarnate, which is what this quote seems to me to be saying.  

What concerns me further is that this might not be simply an attempt at asserting God's unity. Young regularly attempts to have a 'fully human' God, suggesting that He has willingly humbled Himself to our level in order to relate to us on equal footing, without a hierarchical power relationship. This idea will be discussed further under the topic of Open Theism in The Shack.

This is a profession that grew from industrialised society and the move to the cities and was very much based on the ideal of philanthropy. 'Helping poor people'. A very female profession with its roots in the church - the middle classes raining beneficence on the deserving working classes.

So social work is a construct that is very much built within the modern era and by modern, read industrial.

And it seems like it has been trying to grow up for a good few decades.

When I was studying,  I developed a  weakness for the post-modern approach as it made and continues to make the most sense to me as a way forward.

Some of the 'helping hand' constructs need to be broken down to reduce some of the power issues that are always present  but also built very much into the system. Using strengths-based models and user/carer led narratives to push away from the idea of the professional as expert and towards, at least from the social perspective, each person being their own expert. Where this is possible. There are situations that throw themselves up, like the role as ASW, that battle against these models - where do they fit in?

Of course, the overriding arch is 'best interest' . We are working in the 'best interest' of person x, y or z and therefore the means can justify the ends?  That has to be the case to a certain extent. I'd say above all, and possibly something that doesn't come across in the manner of my writing, I'm a pragmatic worker. I like to 'do things' probably more than I like to 'talk about doing things'.

I'd say its why I'm a social worker rather than a counsellor.

As adult social care moves into a new era of personalised budgets and services being provided not by professionals making decisions about what is best, but by users and carers deciding what needs they are prioritising themselves and choosing the services themselves it can seem that the basis of care management in social work, at any rate, might be on a precipice.

I wonder sometimes if the personalisation agenda is the summation of a 'post-modern' approach to social work - coming only a good few decades behind the equivalent movement in the arts, literature, architectural world - but innovation in social policy is such a complicated matter and rarely edgy.

I have some doubts about personalisation - if it is to be a zero-cost 'solution' to the problems created by care-management, a lot more questions need to be answered than have been to date. I want it to work and am absolutely in favour of the axis of expertise being moved away from the professional or the state but I am not entirely convinced that that is the agenda of those who are pushing down this path. Until I see the proposals to make the service accessible to those who have primarily been excluded from direct payments, I will remain sceptical.

So no wonder documents and discussions are needed about the 'role of the social worker'. A radical shift is needed. Is it happening though? And what are the reasons for the push?

I don't have any answers  but a consideration of the question is something that, I feel, can strengthen the profession if the questions are asked at a grass-roots level and not focused on the 'management' or 'director' level. People who are answering these questions on our behalf - the academics who might have last practiced on the 'cliff-face'  decades ago.

One of the links I added to the side bar was the Barefoot Social Worker site. It's a site I've been vaguely aware of for a while but I was reading through it more thoroughly last week and I've found it relatively inspiring - from my background of qualifying and practising in the 2000s and onwards.

It presents a Marxist/Radical perspective of social work as far as I can tell, that I learnt about and studied when I was initially training. It was presented as one of the views of social work practice theoretically but had been presented to me as an approach based a few decades ago which no longer remained relevant.  I have to say the writing inspired me somewhat.

Searing writes that

Social work has always been ambivalent about its class position and its role in maintaining the social system as it is. State social workers are expected to use their professional relationship to keep people in line and this is often justified by wrapping everything up in the language of social inclusion which is often meaningless. Social workers cannot avoid the contradictory nature of their role but sometimes they need to take a stand and show which side they are on. In particular, they should be alert to increasing pressures on social workers to act more on behalf of the state than for the individual and strive to resist these pressures.

There are many ways this resonates. I do feel often like a pawn of the State and that my role is very much to act on behalf of the local authority, particularly in distributing resources.

We work from the inside to change and to effect change. For me, initially, I believed social work was very much concerned with social justice. It was the aspect of the job that appealed to me. I still believe it, but my perceptions have been changed by years of care management and being subjected to pen-pushing frustrations and seeing first hand some of the inequities of the system. I know I do some pieces of work differently to how my managers would like them to be done - particularly I might allot my time differently. But ultimately, although I answer to my management, I answer more immediately to my conscience.

Why does that choice have to be made?

Would my role be more effective from without the statutory sector?

What role does class have on the work I do?

My perception is that Social Work is possibly an aspirant middle class profession in that a lot of its roots are in the middle classes but it has a good proportion of practitioners who have a variety of personal backgrounds and experiences.

Social Work should not try to be Law or Accountancy. It has a different role to play in society.

I don't know, I still don't know.

And reflection. Reflection  helps. In my own little way, I hope that the awareness of these issues and my reflection on them helps to temper some of the excesses that they might create. But it can't eradicate them all as I have been reminded.

Saying that though, if it wasn't me it would be someone else. Is that my own attempt to justify the role that I am playing? Possibly. I still have a way to go to reconcile these thoughts to a more coherent response.

Ridgeway Ministries

27^th July 2008

Peter Veysie.

Have you ever asked yourselves the question why the temple ? Why does Jesus say that the temple will be destroyed and after three days it will be restored again ? Why does Paul say “Don’t you know that you yourselves are the temple of the living God.” ?

It’s important to understand this, because if we are going to be a church – a people of God and if we are going to be able to do and be what Libbie has just said we need to be then we need to acknowledge the profound wisdom of God in giving us this design and picture.Let me remind you that in most religions, there is some form or type of temple, unless it is a mere philosophy of life and then the “temple” identity is different and yes more philosophical. Let me take you back a bit to the first time a temple is mentioned.

1. The Old Testament.

Now the word temple in Hebrew is heykal which means basically a large public building and it can be a also interchanged with palace if it is public.

Genesis 13:18 Abram builds an altar to the Lord. Later you hear in Gen 18 that under the trees in the plains of Mamre, the Lord meets him. His presence is seen by Abram.

Moses is then given instruction from the Lord to build a tabernacle.

Exo 25:8 And let them make⁶²¹³ me a sanctuary;⁴⁷²⁰ that I may dwell⁷⁹³¹ among⁸⁴³² them.

Exo 25:9 According to all³⁶⁰⁵ that⁸³⁴ I⁵⁸⁹ show⁷²⁰⁰ thee, after ⁽⁸⁵³⁾ the pattern⁸⁴⁰³ of the tabernacle,⁴⁹⁰⁸ and the pattern⁸⁴⁰³ of all³⁶⁰⁵ the instruments³⁶²⁷ thereof, even so³⁶⁵¹ shall ye make⁶²¹³ it.

Other words for temple – tent of meeting,sanctuary,tabernacle, church. Now people.

And hear again – Why does God want them to make a sanctuary ?

Exo 25:8 And let them make⁶²¹³ me a sanctuary;⁴⁷²⁰ that I may dwell⁷⁹³¹ among⁸⁴³² them.

Exo 31:7 ⁽⁸⁵³⁾ The tabernacle¹⁶⁸ of the congregation,⁴¹⁵⁰ and the ark⁷²⁷ of the testimony,⁵⁷¹⁵ and the mercy seat³⁷²⁷ that⁸³⁴ is thereupon,⁵⁹²¹ and all³⁶⁰⁵ the furniture³⁶²⁷ of the tabernacle,¹⁶⁸

Exo 31:8 And the table⁷⁹⁷⁹ and his furniture,³⁶²⁷ and the pure²⁸⁸⁹ candlestick⁴⁵⁰¹ with all³⁶⁰⁵ his furniture,³⁶²⁷ and the altar⁴¹⁹⁶ of incense,⁷⁰⁰⁴

Exo 31:9 And the altar⁴¹⁹⁶ of burnt offering⁵⁹³⁰ with all³⁶⁰⁵ his furniture,³⁶²⁷ and the laver³⁵⁹⁵ and his foot,³⁶⁵³

Exo 31:10 And the cloths⁸⁹⁹ of service,⁸²⁷⁸ and the holy⁶⁹⁴⁴ garments⁸⁹⁹ for Aaron¹⁷⁵ the priest,³⁵⁴⁸ and the garments⁸⁹⁹ of his sons,¹¹²¹ to minister in the priest's office,³⁵⁴⁷

Exo 31:11 And the anointing⁴⁸⁸⁸ oil,⁸⁰⁸¹ and sweet⁵⁵⁶¹ incense⁷⁰⁰⁴ for the holy⁶⁹⁴⁴ place: according to all³⁶⁰⁵ that⁸³⁴ I have commanded⁶⁶⁸⁰ thee shall they do.⁶²¹³

From Exodus 25 – 31 there is great detail as to how everything should be designed and put in place for the tabernacle. God also fills people with his Spirit and with His wisdom to do the work as master craftsman and shows Moses who these people are. He also gives priestly duties to them and an understanding of a High priest who would stand in the place of the Holy of Holies to meet with God on behalf of the people.

There is a brief summary which will help us to remember these furnishings so that we can understand more of why the temple?

There is then much building and constructing and designing that went on and when they had finished and God was pleased with the design a lifeless structure became the dwelling place of God.

Exo 40:34 Then a cloud6051 covered3680 (853) the tent168 of the congregation,4150 and the glory3519 of the LORD3068 filled4390 (853) the tabernacle.4908

Now remember that this is a messy sacrificial place where the people brought offerings to the Lord in the form of His creation to sacrifice on behalf of the themselves so that they could make right before God and be reconnected to Him. It was the duty of the priests to take the sacrifice and the present it to God and instructions were given on all of this and then wash and then stand in proxy form them as they prayed and lit incense and lit candles and refreshed the showbread as a symbol of provider and provision, And then as the High Priest met with God behind the curtain in the Holy of Holies – once a year. End of Excodus and most of Leviticus – it’s called this because it is instruction given to the priests – the Levites. The sons of Levi.

In Numbers again this is repeated :

Num 1:50 But thou859 shalt appoint6485 (853) the Levites3881 over5921 the tabernacle4908 of testimony,5715 and over5921 all3605 the vessels3627 thereof, and over5921 all things3605 that834 belong to it: they1992 shall bear5375 (853) the tabernacle,4908 and all3605 the vessels3627 thereof; and they1992 shall minister8334 unto it, and shall encamp2583 round about5439 the tabernacle.4908

We hear the words House of the Lord mostly in scripture, but when Hannah is dedicating her little boy Samuel she calls it the temple. 1 Samuel 1 : 9

After many wars and fighting and destruction, the arc is brought to Jerusalem and David does a dance and then God gives it’s shape and form to David in detail and yet because he has blood on his hands he cannot build it. 2Sa 6:17 And they brought in935 (853) the ark727 of the LORD,3068 and set3322 it in his place,4725 in the midst8432 of the tabernacle168 that834 David1732 had pitched5186 for it: and David1732 offered5927 burnt offerings5930 and peace offerings8002 before6440 the LORD.3068 The size shape and form is all outlined in the first book of Chronicles 28 ff. He could not build it because he was a man of war and he had blood on his hands and so Solomon would be given this task. Remember that this place of the Lord had been in a tent and God had already given instruction to Moses, but now as humans progressed it was possible to build a structure and again God gives David very specific instructions as to how to build.

Solomon then took all the detail which was given to David and built the temple according to the pattern of the Master architect, and we can read all of this in 1 Kings 6 and then at the end of this passage it says :

1Ki 6:38 And in the eleventh^{259, 6240} year,⁸¹⁴¹ in the month³³⁹¹ Bul,⁹⁴⁵ ( in the sense of rain) which¹⁹³¹ is the eighth⁸⁰⁶⁶ month,²³²⁰ was the house¹⁰⁰⁴ finished³⁶¹⁵ throughout all³⁶⁰⁵ the parts¹⁶⁹⁷ thereof, and according to all³⁶⁰⁵ the fashion⁴⁹⁴¹ of it. So was he seven⁷⁶⁵¹ years⁸¹⁴¹ in building¹¹²⁹ it.

In John Wesley’s commentary on the bible he says :

1Ki 6:38 - Seven years - It is not strange that this work took up so much time: for, The temple properly so called, was for quantity the least part of it, there being very many and great buildings both above ground in the several courts, (for though only the court of the priests be mentioned, yet it is thereby implied, that the same thing was proportionably done in the others) and under ground. The great art which was used here, and the small number of exquisite artists, required the longer time for the doing it. And if the building of Diana's temple employed all Asia for two hundred years; and the building of one pyramid employed three hundred and sixty thousand men, for twenty years together; both which, Pliny affirms: no reasonable man can wonder that this temple was seven years in building.

2. New Testament

It is important to understand and note that at the beginning of the giving of this temple it was only of use when it was inhabited by the Lord and that is why , possibly, it was destroyed not once or twice but six times – Garden of Eden, Moses, Solomon or David’s , Zerubabbel, Herod’s and then Jesus and it is now being built and fabricated in us. Jesus says : Mar 11:17 And2532 he taught,1321 saying3004 unto them,846 Is it not3756 written,1125 My3450 house3624 shall be called2564 of all3956 nations1484 the house3624 of prayer?4335 but1161 ye5210 have made4160 it846 a den4693 of thieves.3027

More Wesley : Now let us see what this temple typifies. Christ himself is the true temple. He himself spoke of the temple of his body: and in him dwelt all the fullness of the godhead. In him all the Israel of God meet, and thro' him have access with confidence to God. Every believer is a living temple, in whom the spirit of God dwelleth. (1 Cor 3:16 )We are wonderfully made by the Divine Providence, but more wonderfully made anew by the Divine grace. And as Solomon's temple was built on a rock, so are we built on Christ. The church is a mystical temple, enriched and beautified, not with gold and precious stones, but with the gifts and graces of the spirit. Angels are ministering spirits, attending the church and all the members of it on all sides. Heaven is the everlasting temple. There the church will be fixt, and no longer moveable. The cherubim there always attend upon the throne of glory. In the temple there was no noise of axes or hammers: every thing is quiet and serene in heaven. All that shall be stones in that building, must here be fitted and made ready for it; must be hewn and squared by the Divine grace, and so made meet for a place in that temple.

My aha moment for this morning and possibly a moment for you to reflect on is that we can take this model which God shows the church again and again in scripture and begin to understand that it is the picture of infinity. It is a picture of reality and it is a testimony to God’s constant grace.

We come into these doors that might have been locked up for some for so many years and as we come in we are met with the challenge of sacrifice – Romans 12:1 Offer yourselves as a living sacrifice Holy and pleasing to God. As we offer ourselves honestly and openly and with great vulnerability there is a need for cleansing and washing in the bowel of water which is now represented in baptism. As we are washed and cleansed God wants to show us that there is a place of great light and revelation – He says I am the light of the world. John 8:12 and we are called to be the light. Then he intercedes for us and prays for us represented by the altar of incense. It is God’s heart that we pray and intercede for others because we are this temple. The table of showbread reminds us of the fact that we are not the provider but God is. He gives and provides and we therefore should be doing the same. We point to the provider but we also provide.

We also acknowledge that all that was represented in the Holy of Holies was the Logos – the truth the Word and we have that word and access into the Holy of Holies. Hebrews 9 gives us a clear understanding of this, and then the final picture that I want to leave you with this morning is that of a bride and a groom and Jesus uses this analogy often, but we are to come back to Him and reconcile ourselves through him and be one with Him and allow ourselves the freedom to be filled again with all the fullness of His Presence – the tabernacle, the temple, the House, the Holy Place – a dwelling not made by people but by God. He has made you for this and wants you to celebrate it.

It has really struck me that the altar is at the door. The place where Jesus meets us is at the door. His sacrifice is at the door.

Revelation 3:20 “Here I am ! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them, and they with me.”

Len Sweet speaks about the church not playing home games anymore. We need to be the church out there and visiting.

]]> http://aavey.wordpress.com/?p=402 Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:41:15 +0000 aavey http://aavey.wordpress.com/?p=402 I am a minister in a denomination which boasts it's Wesleyan tradition, and at the moment I wonder if it is just another trip down memory lane instead of an actuality.

The values are not that unique to any other denomination; holiness, caring for people on the margins of society, injustice, equality and a dedication of life for God. When the Wesley's died, it seems that many of those same values and concerns were suddenly ignored by a movement and splintered as a result. Methodism became something very different within 50-70 years of John Wesley's death. The new denominations that were formed all forgot what caused such a growth in the first place - a people who were concerned for others, especially the poor. Church became a 'respectable' thing and it was a respectable thing to be a Christian - this is where we went wrong!

William Booth was so frustrated at the 15% being ignored, and allowed to suffer in poverty without any hope. He moved from various denominations before falling out with most of them - he was not respectable enough for what was a middle class Methodist movement essentially. Rationalism and all the rest was everywhere, people put God in a box and limited themselves, thus remaining respectable and having control in as many ways as possible. Just like Methodism, the Salvationists came about. All because too many people in too many places liked respectability. They liked there regular seats, the people they knew, the way they dressed, looked etc. etc.

Jesus was up against the same problem, he was also surrounded by holiness movements who dictated and interpreted God the way they wanted God to be. Jesus was counter-cultural, but not for the sake of it, but because the culture of the day was wrong and manipulating the people into being who the Pharisees and Saducees preferred. If you didn't fit then you were excluded, considered dangerous to the status quo and likely to be considered unrespectable. Jesus spent time with thiefs, lepers, riff-raff and the rest that were on the margins of society.

I ask the question.... would Jesus be accepted as a member of the Church of the Nazarene? Or many other denominations?

I have come into contact with some people who have real concerns about our society and micro communities. But they find themselves being accused of nothing more than being social workers. Church has remained in a state of dualism. I don't see anything different in helping someone, thus raising a question such as "why did that person help in such a way?" In our bid to be different, we have also become isolated, holier than thou and have lost the ability to engage with people who do not think the same as ourselves. We are seeing churches close all because we do not know how to get out of the church bubble. Too many people (especially Nazarenes) mix with the people that they are comfortable with, the ones that look and smell nice. We have come to the end of comfortable times, we have to have a social conscience again - but not because our churches are getting empty and closing, but because we care for these people.

[Co-Authored: William Bergquist and Agnes Mura]

[Derived from William Bergquist and Agnes Mura, Ten Themes and Variations for Postmodern Leaders and Their Coaches. and from a forthcoming book, William Bergquist and Agnes Mura, Building an Appreciative Organization: Themes and Strategies for Effective Postmodern Leaders, Consultants and Coaches. For information on both books contact Emily Browne, Administrator, Pacific Soundings Press, 3550 Watt Ave. Suite 140, Sacramento, California 95821.]

Theme: Acknowledging the Role of Chaos in Our Postmodern World

Fundamental Question

What might we learn from postmodern theorists, observers and critics as well as contemporary physicists and biologists about the nature of change as it is now occurring in 21^st Century societies?

In a 1991 article in Scientific American that has become a classic in the field, Stuart Kauffman introduces a new concept of chaos and order. He describes three different categories or states in which many systems can be placed. One of these states is highly ordered and structured. Kauffman draws an analogy between this state and the solid state that water takes when it is frozen. A second state is highly chaotic. Kauffman equates this state with the gaseous form which water takes when it is evaporating. The third (most interesting) state is one of transition between order and chaos, which Kauffman equates with the liquid state of water. The differentiation between solid, gaseous and liquid networks can be of significant value in setting the context for any discussion of postmodernism in organizations—and, in particular, the irreversibility of many organizational processes. We must look not only at ordered networks—the so-called solid state—and at chaotic networks—the so-called gaseous state—but also at liquid networks that hover on the brink of chaos, if we are to understand and influence our unique postmodern institutions.

The third (liquid) state holds great potential when we examine and seek to understand confusing and often elusive organizational phenomena such as intentions, leadership and communication. Turbulent rivers, avalanches, shifting weather patterns, and other conditions that move between order and chaos typify the liquid state. Liquid systems contain chaotic elements as well as elements of stability. There are both quiet pools and eddies in a turbulent river. Mountain avalanches consist of not only rapidly moving volumes of snow but also stable snow packs on top of which, around which, or onto which the cascading snow moves. Stable and chaotic weather patterns intermingle to form overall climatic patterns on our planet.

The liquid state is one that is filled with edges and shifting boundaries. A liquid, edgy state is also filled with the potential for learning. A liquid system has the capacity to adjust and rework itself into an orderly, solid state. At certain points, however, the solid state (the eddy, the snow pack, or the stable weather pattern) reaches a super-critical state and can no longer adjust to the addition of another change or variant in pattern. At this point the system becomes fluid and an avalanche occurs. Portions of the system take on a very different form, and the system can once again adjust to the addition of a few changes or alterations in pattern. We would suggest that most organizations live on the edge, in the liquid state, poised on the edge of chaos. Furthermore, organizations are dynamic systems that can adjust based on quick and accurate feedback systems. This is first-order change. Yet, at a super-critical stage, organizations can no longer adjust. They can no longer accept any additional change or crisis. The one additional piece of straw has broken the camel’s back. An avalanche begins and the organization changes in a profound manner. This is second-order change. (see our initial description of first and second order change in essay 1.2)

The theory of self-organizing criticality (or weak chaos) and edginess suggests that small events (first order changes) such as a shift in leadership will usually produce only minor alterations in the structure and dynamics of the organization (the snow pack will get a bit wider or a bit higher). However, a change in leadership sometimes will create a major second-order alteration (an avalanche). Furthermore, while the outcomes are dramatically different, Bak and Chen have proposed that the same processes are involved in the initiation of both the minor and major changes, and that the onset of the major event can not be predicted—in part because the same process brings about both outcomes.

The tale starts when Ryan receives a revelation from watching televangelists on late night television—in order to sell more real estate, he must sell to Christians. Taking out an ad in the Christian business directory, Ryan pretends to be a Christian because he learns that Christians want to buy from, live around, and socialize with other Christians. Before long, he does good deeds and fakes being a pastor, which leads to his decision to plant his own church in Bartlesville, OK.

Using a business model, Ryan’s church, The People’s Church, attracts attention making him and his wife, Katherine, wealthy, successful, and respected members of the community. However, Ryan doesn’t actually believe in God or know anything about the Bible, so he has to constantly maneuver his way out of uncomfortable situations using wit and charm. Ryan Fischer is a charismatic leader who would stop at nothing to gain power—for the greater good, of course (and to make a few bucks here and there). What’s interesting about Ryan is that he learns that doing kind things for others makes him not only feel good inside, but also makes him popular.

The book functions as a satire on the way many Christians do church. Having little exposure to Christianity and church, Ryan fakes his way through his pastorate. His mistakes seem like a postmodern leader admitting that he doesn’t have all the answers. When in reality, Ryan doesn’t even understand the questions. Plus, his observations about church—the greeters, children's church, worship music, lighting, stage, sound, and advertising are hilarious. Because Ryan examines Christianity from outside the box, he is almost like an alien studying the oddities of human behavior.

Despite deceiving his congregation about being a pastor, Ryan turns out to be a pretty good preacher—inspiring others to follow God. By watching others experience Grace, Ryan and Katherine wonder if they’re missing out on the bigger picture. Ryan easily shrugs off his feelings, acting as if he is a god, while Katherine seems to be seeking a faith of her own. A dynamic character that gets a little too friendly with the church worship leader, Cowboy Jack, Katherine is Ryan’s moral compass and the voice of reason in an otherwise insane and confusing situation.

The Almost True Story of Ryan Fisher is not only a great read on the surface, but a book that will enable Christians to think deeply about church in America. The questions that Stennett raises through Ryan, Katherine, and the other characters are timeless: What does it mean to be the church? How can a loving God allow such horrible things to happen? Why does worship music all sound strangely similar? Instead of offering pat answers, Stennett allows the questions to linger within the recesses of our minds long after the last page of the book is read. However, instead of writing a boring dialogue on theology, Stennett offers an amusing tale, too.

Print copy of review.

Warren's man-centered gospel is a blight on the church.  He disregards God's call for separation, and seeks to enlist the help and support of false religions in an attempt to cure the world of such things as spiritual emptiness (which only Jesus can do), corrupt leadership, poverty, disease and illiteracy.  After all, these are the things which are spiritually destroying man, not a pesky little thing called original sin.  Warren is effectively striving, through man's devices, to solve these problems instead of looking to God.

God's Word is abundantly clear when it says:  "Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?"  (2 Corinthians 6:14.)  Can there truly be harmony and cooperation with pagan and false religions?  As 2 Corinthians 6:15-16 says, "Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE."

Since the people who practice false religions are really serving demons God demands that we not be bound together with unbelievers.

2 Corinthians 10:18-22:

18 Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar?

19 What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?

20 No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons.

21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than He, are we?

There can be no cooperation with false religions in order to cure the world's ills.  How blasphemous.  Only Jesus Christ can save, establish and preserve... not mormons, not muslims, not Buddhists, not atheists, not anyone else.  Warren should know that God's Word says, ""Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE," says the Lord. "AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you.  "And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me," Says the Lord Almighty."  (2 Corinthians 6:17-18.)

God's Word isn't vague concerning issues like this.  There is a biblical command for separation.  Warren's arrogance and flippant disregard for truth shows the heretical state he is in.  Judging by and with God's Word is righteous judgment, and it clearly convicts Warren.  If Warren truly wanted to save or cure societal problems, he would go out into the world preaching the cross of Christ, he would be proclaiming Jesus and Him crucified.  This is the only thing that will bring people any hope.

California mega-church pastor Rick Warren says Christians should not be reticent to work with Mormons, Muslims, Buddhists, and even atheists to cure societal problems.

In conjunction with the presidential forum he is hosting next month at Saddleback Church, Pastor Rick Warren will convene an interfaith meeting for 30 Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders "to discuss cooperation for the common good of all Americans."  Source.

Yahoo! had an interesting story about the top ten or so films that failed basic history. Mel Gibson was well represented with Braveheart, Apocolypto, and The Patriot.

Apocalypto

This one movie has given entire Anthropology departments migraines. Sure the Maya did have the odd human sacrifice but not to Kulkulkan, the Sun God, and only high-ranking captives taken in battle were killed. The conquistadors arriving at the end of the film made for unlikely saviors: an estimated 90% of indigenous American population was killed by smallpox from their infected livestock.

THE PATRIOT

Revolutionary War figure Francis "The Swamp Fox" Marion was the basis for Mel Gibson's character, but he wasn't the forward-thinking family man they show in the flick. He was a slave owner who didn't get married (to his cousin) until after the war was over. Historians also say that he actively persecuted and murdered native Cherokees. Plus, the thrilling Battle of Guilford Court House where he vanquishes his British nemesis? In reality, the Americans lost that one.

One reviewer called the Patriot "as fascist a film as anything made in decades."

81.      Hunter-conquerors appreciate tantalizing, challenging, and hard-to-capture prey. This motivates men to investigate a woman intensively instead of just for sex.

82.      Men now exploit the superior tactic developed by women, being vague and unavailable. Modern women fall prey to the ingenuity of their sex.

83.      When women sour on their marriage, they turn against men. When men sour on their marriage, they turn against marriage.

84.      What makes sex cheap? The same thing that makes anything cheap—oversupply. Women are in charge, until they make a man ‘purchase’ exclusive rights through marriage.

85.      Postmodern retro thinking has young women mimicking teen boys.

[Previous fortitudinals appear in posts 260, 255, 250, 245, 240, 234, 228, 213, 203, 199, 186, 182, and 176.]

In my line of work I spend a great deal of time with people who can very well describe the experience of being "off course." They don't do so for me to enjoy the ride - they hate it! Rather so that I can help them on the journey.

What is a Bent World? Here's one definition. Watch:

Can we say Bernays or Freud is solely responsible? No. Is it true that we have "all consuming selfish desires"? Who would dispute that selfishness exists and it is a terrible thing. Does that really matter? What does selfishness look like?

"Bent World" takes aim at this selfishness. I write as a selfish person, in a selfish family, among selfish co-workers, in a selfish country. In some sense such admissions provide starting points for anything different. Surely selfishness is a very pleasant country and who would want to leave, right?

You know you want to leave. Leaving and staying gone is what this is all about.

As Shelia Farr briefly mentions in her review of Robleto's shows at the Frye, McElheny's postmodern narratives come to mind when one reads the media listed for Robleto's works on the exhibition labels:

"Child's mourning dress made with homemade paper (pulp made from sweetheart letters written by soldiers who did not return from various wars, ink retrieved from letters, sepia, bone dust from every bone in the body". (Media listing from work A Century of November by Dario Robleto)

Image from the Frye's website.

My immediate reaction to these labels was to be skeptical. Why use these media when one could simply write a label saying that he or she used them in the piece- does it make a difference? But then, I realized perhaps it was possible that Robleto melted Billie Holiday records into buttons and made his own paper using letters from the Civil War era. The more interesting question then emerged; what matters more: the authenticity of the nature of these objects or one's belief in that authenticity?

The works of both Dario Robleto and Josiah McElheny can be considered in terms of their relationships with the museum environment. In McElheny's An Historical Anecdote About Fashion, history is reinvented and reinterpreted through photography, drawings and glass objects transformed by a narrative printed on a label within the installation. Understanding in McElheny's work is constructed largely though that narrative rather than through the objects' inherent histories. Likewise, his The Last Scattering Surface (currently on view at the Henry through August 17) begins as a beautiful art object aesthetically bearing relation to stars and the universe through its shape and literally scattered surface. However, the title (and its references to astronomical theory), highly specific dimensions, and inspiration from an actual chandelier again piece together a complex history for this object created in 2006. In many ways, the history of the objects created by the artist is easier to believe than the absence of historical significance within these recently created objects.

Josiah McElheny. The Last Scattering Surface. 2006. Hand-blown glass, chrome plated aluminum, rigging, and electric lighting. Collection of Phoenix Art Museum, Museum purchase with funds provided by Jan and Howard Hendler. Image courtesy of the artist and Donald Young Gallery. From Art21 Blog.

Like McElheny's works, Dario Robleto's art has histories pieced together, but these are new histories created through reconstructed historical objects that resonate with the viewer's understanding of figures and ideas from popular culture. Letters from fallen soldiers and vinyl records by Billie Holiday are re-envisioned as new artifacts such as buttons and mourning dresses. Viewers that instinctively read museum labels are confronted with a surprising montage of history they never foresaw when first looking at a single, yellow button. In this case, it is easier to reject the true history as false, to understand a button as a button only made meaningful through a carefully crafted label.

from Sometimes Billie Is All That Keeps Me Together, 1998
Shirt, buttons made from melted and recast Billie Holiday Vinyl Records and acrylic spray paint. Dimensions variable. Image from Presentspace.com.

In McElheny's work, when one does not know the story, it is possible have a seemingly straightforward aesthetic experience of glass dresses created from real dresses or a glass burst inspired by an actual star. When one does not read the labels that are part of Robleto's art, the buttons and dresses can become seemingly ordinary, yet beautiful, historical objects arranged in an artful manner. When looking at an object with a history based on narrative in comparison with an object that contains history hidden within its structure, the question becomes, which history is more authentic- the one initially perceived as true or the one we initially want to disbelieve but after careful thought can accept? Then, it becomes pertinent to remember we are in a museum, a place of preservation of the real, where many forms of truth both start and end on the page.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 6

This article is proving to be a long and challenging one. Below we will see certain well known and respectable people, but also maybe a surprising stance on the issue of punishment within the penal system. Below is a commentary on the previous article:

Commentary.

On the surface of it, perhaps the most remarkable fact about Christian understandings of the atonement is the dominance of the satisfaction theory in Western Christendom.

Taken from Northey’s novel “Chrysalis Crucible”, the character Hans agonizes:

“My conclusion from simple observation is that Evangelicals routinely practice an under-your-breath ideologised footnote theology’ that reads repeatedly, ‘Except our enemies,’ when quoting John 3:16 and all similar New Testament ethical teachings. How could Billy Graham tell the North Vietnamese that God loves them when he fully blessed his own country in displaying the exact opposite feeling – hatred unto death? Ho could he do this when he was still praying with the President for victory in the War, when he apparently willed the utter inversion of the Gospel regarding treatment of neighbour, enemy, and Creation?” (Northey, 2007, p.397).

The short answer to Hans’ question is: because the satisfaction theory of the atonement. There is an enormous punitive dynamic in this doctrine that permits Christians of course through “legally constituted authorities”, i.e. the state, to destroy its enemies to which Judeo-Christian revelation says the opposite. A theologian writes, after his conclusion that the univocal New Testament ethic is nonviolence equally for church and state: “One reason that the world finds the New Testament’s message of peacemaking and love of enemies incredible is that the church is deeply compromised and committed to nationalism, violence, and idolatry (Hays, 1996, p. 343).

Columnist Matt Millar wrote ironically of Evangelicals’ take on John 3:16, the all-time most quoted Bible verse by Evangelicals, “For God so loved the world that he temporarily died to save it from itself. But none of that really matters because most people will be tortured for eternity anyways.”

This was not the understanding in Eastern Orthodoxy, which Matt Miller unwittingly points to – Alexandre Kalomiros wrote in ‘The River of Fire’:

“Some Protestants consider death not as a punishment but as something natural. But, is not God the creator of all natural things? So in both cases, God – for them – is the real cause of death.

And this is true not only for the death of the body. It is equally true for the death of the soul. Do not Western theologians consider hell, the eternal spriritual death of man, as a punishment from God? And do they not consider the devil as a minister of God for the eternal punishment of men in hell?

The “God” of the West is an offended and angry God, full of wrath for the disobedience of men, who desires in His destructive passion to torment all humanity unto eternity for their sins, unless He receives an infinite satisfaction for His offended pride.

What is the Western dogma of salvation? Did not God kill God in order to satisfy His pride, which the Westerners euphemistically call justice? And is it not by this infinite satisfaction that He designs to accept the salvation of some of us?

What is salvation for Western theology? Is it not salvation from the wrath of God?

Do you see, that Western theology teaches that our real danger and our real enemy is our Creator and God? Salvation, for Westerners, is to be saved from the hands of God! (Kalomiros, 1980, pp. 4-5).

The protagonist, Andy in ‘Chrysalis Crucible’, muses about..

“… what it would mean to be the son of a feudal lord in some ancient time who fell in love with the beautiful daughter of a serf. The lord of the manor would finally approach the daughter’s father at the repeated bidding of his son. “My son would have your daughter’s hand in marriage.” he would declare, and proceed with an announcement of all the arrangements to be made.

He imagined if, when the father presented this to his daughter, she refused the son’s intentions.

“But you must understand,” the lord of the manor would declare to the father, with his son present, “my son does love her greatly, and has a marvelous plan for her life that he cannot wait to unfold for her. But,” his tone would turn menacing, “if she refuses my son’s hand, then hear this: After a fixed time, which I forwith decree as two months, if your daughter will not have my son’s hand in marriage, then we have together agreed that she shall be subject to the most object tortures and mutilations for three days, after which she shall be fully dismembered and thrown to the wild dogs.”

Then the lord and the son would withdraw to await the daughter’s decision.

Could it be truly said that the son ever loved the daughter if he would contemplate retributive vengeance for not taking his hand in marriage? Could it ever be said that God truly loves us if He was perfectly prepared to exact everlasting conscious punishment upon us for failure to make a decision for Christ? “Once to die, and after this judgment.” Could such love and haterd abide together in the same bosom? Did God love the whole world – except those, of course, He consigned to hell, whom he “loved” with a pure hatred? (Northey, 2007, pp. 552 and 553).”

In the belief that God would give God’s enemies “Ultimate Hell” according to the satisfaction theory of the atonement, it was only a small step for Christians to authorize the state, and to participate in the state’s giving, its enemies penultimate hell in the death penalty (with many forms of exquisite punishment and torture), and in war.

The exegetical problems of the satisfaction theory/penal substitution view of the atonement may be summarized under four considerations:

1. God is set as object, not agent, of reconciliation. But God did not break with humanity; humanity broke with God according to 2Cor. 5:18-20. God is not an angry deity like a feudal lord needing appeasement by expiation. Humanity, not God, needs reconciliation. The central text ids the picture of God the Father in the Prodigal Son story (Luke 15:11ff.), endlessly yearning for reconciliation with his son – a picture of us “all, like sheep who have gone astray” (Isa. 53:6).

2. There is hardly mention in the New Testament of humanity’s guilt. The texts speak rather of humanity’s separation from God. Likewise, in the Old Testament, “atonement” had to do with restoration of a broken relationship with God, not with guilt requiring punishment. “The central concern of the Anselmian theory of guilt and its removal would appear to find inspiration more in Western concepts of justice and punishment than it does in the Bible and its world of thought (Driver, 1986, p. 58).

3. Redemption is not, as in Anselm, freedom from indebtedness and punishment, rather, it is liberation from the former Master, sin, to freedom under the new Master, Jesus (Gal. 5:1). It is a change of lordship, not decree of punishment that is in view.

4. “I often wonder why when the Old Testament and the Gospels see atonement through the perspective of becoming clean from ritual uncleanness; when it is filled with so much about both becoming unclean and being an unclean person contaminating the community and the land, and with an elaborate system of atoning and cleansing administered by the priesthood: that now that the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world comes, it is suddenly understood in a narrow forensic sense? That does not make sense to me. Anselm in a newly Norman world of power and control creates a contractual system of atonement, moving away from the relationship oriented feudal one. The concept becomes more abstract and contractual from the 15th to the 18th centuries by the rapidly increasing influence of the emerging burgher class with its economic and utilitarian interests. The classical school of criminology emerges with a forensic rational choice theory (choice by the individual and reason to deter) and Kant’s a-historical concept that punishment rights a metaphysical imbalance. It is about time that the atonement theory is looked at in its historical context, and that we return to a biblical understanding of atonement, atonement as an historical cleansing. And what does it mean to say that ‘It is finished’? It means: No more executions are needed for satisfaction to be satisfied (Prison Chaplain Henk Smidstra. British Columbia, 23/2/3007).

[Co-Authored: William Bergquist and Agnes Mura]

[Derived from William Bergquist and Agnes Mura, Ten Themes and Variations for Postmodern Leaders and Their Coaches. and from a forthcoming book, William Bergquist and Agnes Mura, Building an Appreciative Organization: Themes and Strategies for Effective Postmodern Leaders, Consultants and Coaches. For information on both books contact Emily Browne, Administrator, Pacific Soundings Press, 3550 Watt Ave. Suite 140, Sacramento, California 95821.]

Theme: Acknowledging the Role of Revolution in Our Postmodern World

Fundamental Question

What might we learn from postmodern theorists, observers and critics as well as contemporary physicists and biologists about the nature of change as it is now occurring in 21^st Century societies?

In the first essay (1.1), we noted that pendulums—and organizations—tend to move toward homeostasis (the same final state) and toward homeo-rhesis (the same pattern). It is difficult in any organization (operating like a pendulum) to change either the tendency to move toward a specific final state or to alter a pattern. Stasis and rhesis are typically only altered with profound—even revolutionary—change. Gregory Bateson describes this as second order change and contrasts this with first order change. Second order change is a process (like fire) that is irreversible. A second order change takes place when we decide to (or are forced to) do something different from what we have done before. A second order change occurs when an organization chooses to provide a new kind of compensation, rather than merely increasing or decreasing current levels of compensation. Rather than paying more money or less money, a leader pays her employees in some manner other than money (for example, stock in the company, greater autonomy, or a new and more thoughtful mode of personal recognition and appreciation). Second order change is required when a leader chooses not to increase or decrease his rate of communication with his subordinates (first order change), but rather to communicate something different to his subordinates than what he has ever communicated to them before. In other words, rather than talking more or talking less about something, this leader talks about something different.

In the case of any second order change, there is a choice point when an organization begins to move in a new direction. Once this choice point is traversed (what systems theorists call the point of bifurcation or what poets call the fork-in-the-road) there is no turning back. Once the fire has begun, one can’t unburn what has already been consumed. One can extinguish the fire, but a certain amount of damage has already been done and a certain amount of warmth has already been generated. Once a leader has changed the way in which she compensates my employees, there is no turning back (as many leaders have found in their unionized organizations). Once a leader has begun to talk with his subordinates in a candid manner about their performance, he can’t return to a previous period of indirect feedback and performance reviews. Once the story has been told, there is no returning to the moment before the story was first told. There is no untelling a story.

In summary, the concepts of reversibility and irreversibility relate directly to those of pendulums and fires, and first and second order change. Just as some changes are first order and others are second order, and some look like the adjustment of a pendulum while others look like fire, so it is the case that some changes appear to be reversible and others irreversible. Those organizational change processes that can be reversed involve the restoration of balance or style. They typically are first order in nature. These processes resemble the dynamics of a pendulum. Other organizational change processes are irreversible. They bring about transformation and parallel the combustion processes of fire, rather than the mechanical processes of the pendulum. Second order change is typically associated with these irreversible processes of combustion.

Throughout the essays offered on this blog, we explore, either directly or indirectly, the nature of irreversible, second order changes in our emerging postmodern world. The implications of organizational irreversibility are profound, for major problems often emerge when organizational fires are mistaken for organizational pendulums. The 1991 Soviet coup, for instance, appears at least from a short-term perspective to exemplify an irreversible, combustible form of change. Whereas the coup leaders thought that the Soviet Union would continue to operate as a pendulum with each new group of leaders restoring the government to its previous state, the people on the streets saw this as an opportunity to bring about a fire—a second order change. There was going to be a change in the very process of change itself. This new order of things was not one of restoration, but rather one of transformation. Even if the new Russian order fails, there will never be a return to the old order. There will never again be a Soviet Union as we knew it during the years of the Cold War. The story can not be untold.

]]> http://circoiberia.wordpress.com/?p=49 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:33:40 +0000 fvillena http://circoiberia.wordpress.com/?p=49 Comenzamos el ciclo de fotos curiosas. ¡Ya saben que en verano hay que estirar las noticias! Aquí les presento una de esas famosas y hippiosas esculturas de "LOVE" en estado pos... moderno. Esta escultura se encuentra en Filadelfia, en el campus de UPenn, y se halla así por remodelación del campus. No es ningún trabajo conceptual... aunque bien podría serlo.

I mean, we're (allegedly) going to wars so that we can establish more peaceful societies, so that people can learn.  We want people to learned so that they can establish more knowledgeable societies, so that they can express themselves in the arts.  And they want to do that...why?  Arts and learning are what start all our wars.  We have no purpose, no goal.  

Everything - every answer we have just asks another question.  And the second that we start to act upon one of those answers, we're denying the possibility of asking more questions.  Once we start to act on it, then we start formulating our own truth and getting ourselves, basically, stuck at a lesser answer than we could possibly reach.  But what makes asking more questions better?  Why continue doing that?  What are expecting to attain?  And where are we going with it?

It seems like greater knowledge just breeds more misery.  Because the more knowledge you have, the more you realize how much you don't know.  So why are we doing it?  What's the point of it?  We're just working towards more war, more tension.  The point of going to war is to make a peaceful society; a more peaceful society is made so we can think & be pensive & study the arts.  And the arts just open you up to more questions.  And all these unanswered questions - and all the answered ones, too - really  just lead to more factions and more war.  I say, let the world implode, let it fall apart.  There's no reason.

There can be no final Answer.  Every answer brings another question.  Everything can be deconstructed further and further.  This is true of the physical world, the mental world, the spiritual, emotional - whatever we wanna call it - it's true of the entire world.  So when we decide to start acting upon one of those answers that we know is not the final answer (but by acting upon it we are choosing to accept it as the final answer), we're not being honest with ourselves.  We're not being true to what we know is real.

*note: I dictated this diatribe to my phone during a nap.  This is the complete transcription of my somewhat-muddled naptime musings.