'W'hat 'W'ould 'J'esus 'D'o? I heard this in a sermon recently, and it made me think. It made me think about things that I've thought a lot about lately.
We don't realize sometimes how much we have just "swallowed" since we were young. Like The Matrix, we aren't even aware that our version of reality may not be reality. Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny, hopefully everyone figures these out, but what about politics, religions, etc.? Most people go their entire lives still "plugged in" at some level.
What would Jesus do?
Well...for the overwhelming majority of "Christians", He would attend a church service every Sunday morning; for some, the evening service too. He would pay his "tithe". He would teach a Sunday School class. On Wednesdays, he would attend a church service. He wouldn't cuss. He wouldn't drink alcohol. He wouldn't smoke.
He would always dress professionally. At church He would likely wear a suit and tie. His hair would be cut short and neatly trimmed. During election season, he would campaign for the Republican candidate.
He would never be found in a bar. He would never be found in a liquor store. He wouldn't attend the movie theater. He would only listen to Christian radio; no Beatles, no Led Zeppelin...
...or would He?
I'm not implying that Jesus would ever "cuss" or be passed out on a bar stool, but I am not convinced that He would manifest Himself today the way that many Christians would anticipate. With more consideration, I'm not even convinced that He would be allowed to preach in 80% of today's "churches".
Recently, I've started reading the book, Pagan Christianity, by Frank Viola and George Varna. I have experienced "first-hand" many times a quote from the book's introduction: "Such a statement short-circuits the minds of many Christians when they here it." What I am saying and about to say, many under the "church" roof will not even consider. They shut down. They glare at you with "heretic" pulsing through their mind.
I will explore this more in later posts, but this is really "what is wrong" with the church today. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't want to make sense. It doesn't feel the need to make sense. It holds tightly to traditions and dogmatic teachings at the expense of truth and true intellectual thought.
This is nothing new. Such a scenario has played out century after century. Institutions, governments, churches, societies, etc. do not like to have their "norms" rattled. The book mentioned above references Socrates and his method of finding truth by asking questions. Socrates would not tell people what to think. He often wouldn't even reveal what he thought. He would ask questions that challenged the warrants of for drawn conclusions. He was eventually executed by his government for his questions. His questions!!!
Obviously, I haven't been executed, but I have frequently had accusations leveled against me in "the church" for things I never said. "He doesn't think that one should pay tithe! He's trying to rob God. He doesn't think that people should attend church on Sunday! He thinks it is OK to get drunk! Etc., etc. ,etc.". When I hear these statements, I think back, Did I ever even say what I believed...no I didn't. All I did was ask questions that, actually, were never answered.
In upcoming posts, I will examine some of the disparities between what the church says the Bible teaches, and what the Bible actually teaches; what the Church says Jesus Would Do, and what Jesus actually did do. This is also what the book, Pagan Christianity does as well so I will spend time commenting on it.
Having been raised a Protestant with six years of Catholic education, I have experienced many different perspectives. Church history is something that has always interested me. In the ensuing posts, I'm sure this new book will be targeted as the agent for "corrupting my mind", but really all it will likely do is confirm things I have suspected and decided as I have matured, as I have researched and questioned.
Stay tuned for the "exciting" next leg of this intellectual journey. :-)
Friday, July 25, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
Let Them Smoke
Tonight my wife and I went for a walk. It didn't quite capture my full attention at first, but then I couldn't help than notice that something was out of place. Why were all these people just standing out on the sides of buildings? Then it hit me. They were not allowed to smoke anymore in restaurants.
During the walk, I would have classified most of the establishments as bars, but they must have served food and fallen under the "restaurant" status.
Anyone who knows me, knows that I despise smoking. Living in an apartment, I can deal with just about anything, but once the slightest hint of smoke is sensed, I am calling the landlord like a school kid tattle-tell.
I can probably count on one hand the number of business in which I have been in the last few years that allow smoking. I figured if they chose to allow smoking, I would choose not to give them my money.
That's how it works in a "free" society. They choose. I choose. While cigarette smoking is disgusting, the government has no right to tell a private entity (i.e., a restaurant) whether or not it is allowed. Let free-market forces work. The more people who choose not to frequent smoking establishments, the more owners there will be that choose to disallow it. On the other hand, if smokers outnumber the non-smokers, the rest of us "clean" people will just stay home, have our own restaurants.
Dear government, "state" in this case. Please leave your constituents alone. You are not our parent, and we are not your children.
During the walk, I would have classified most of the establishments as bars, but they must have served food and fallen under the "restaurant" status.
Anyone who knows me, knows that I despise smoking. Living in an apartment, I can deal with just about anything, but once the slightest hint of smoke is sensed, I am calling the landlord like a school kid tattle-tell.
I can probably count on one hand the number of business in which I have been in the last few years that allow smoking. I figured if they chose to allow smoking, I would choose not to give them my money.
That's how it works in a "free" society. They choose. I choose. While cigarette smoking is disgusting, the government has no right to tell a private entity (i.e., a restaurant) whether or not it is allowed. Let free-market forces work. The more people who choose not to frequent smoking establishments, the more owners there will be that choose to disallow it. On the other hand, if smokers outnumber the non-smokers, the rest of us "clean" people will just stay home, have our own restaurants.
Dear government, "state" in this case. Please leave your constituents alone. You are not our parent, and we are not your children.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Leave Them Alone
Today, I was reminded of one of the most unfortunately ironies found in the church. Some of the same Christian's who are the most patriotic and celebrate the U.S. and its dedication to freedom are the same people who want to legislate morality. From homosexuality to the consumption of alcohol, many of those who fill the pews want to lobby government to decide for its citizens on these matters. Not only does this contradict with American History, but it conflicts with the teachings of Jesus.
My last entry was a rant on how the government should stay out of people's lives. This includes the 1st Amendment and "[not making a] law respecting an establishment of religion..." We, as a church, want the government to leave us alone, yet some of us imply that it is necessary to control the actions of others via legislation. God, the Supreme Creator of the Universe, allows man to exercise free will. How then could anyone contend that a Christian should do otherwise?
I have recently started reading a book that addresses this very subject: The Myth Of A Christian Nation: How The Quest For Political Power Is Destroying the Church. While I don't agree with some of the premises, the author's basic argument that to promote Christianity through government is contrary to the teachings of Jesus is true.
Jesus consistently taught that his government was "not of this world". It is one of the main reasons that so many would not believe that he was the Messiah because they were looking for a great leader who would topple the Roman government and reestablish Jewish Sovereignty. During His earthly ministry, day after day, Jesus made a clear distinction between His kingdom and the earthly kingdoms.
The Roman government was one of the most idolatrous empires in history, yet Jesus spent much of his time criticizing the Jewish religious leaders for their burdensome legalism and lack of love for others. He wasn't found petitioning Roman leaders to impose his teachings via Roman law; instead, he daily educated and discipled those who would listen.
Those who would listen. He didn't even force people to hear his words, let alone make them believe them.
I once heard an evangelist say, "It's not my job to tell you what you are doing wrong. That is the Holy Spirit's job". To often Christians think it is their job to control, when Jesus told us to go and spread the Gospel. If we were to follow His example, that means to teach, not to control.
God gave us free will. It is why "bad things happen." His very plan of salvation is that His creation turns to Him willfully. Jesus said, "follow Me..." This implies the ability to make a conscious choice. It seems that any attempt by the church to legislate morality takes away this freedom to choose between write and wrong.
My last entry was a rant on how the government should stay out of people's lives. This includes the 1st Amendment and "[not making a] law respecting an establishment of religion..." We, as a church, want the government to leave us alone, yet some of us imply that it is necessary to control the actions of others via legislation. God, the Supreme Creator of the Universe, allows man to exercise free will. How then could anyone contend that a Christian should do otherwise?
I have recently started reading a book that addresses this very subject: The Myth Of A Christian Nation: How The Quest For Political Power Is Destroying the Church. While I don't agree with some of the premises, the author's basic argument that to promote Christianity through government is contrary to the teachings of Jesus is true.
Jesus consistently taught that his government was "not of this world". It is one of the main reasons that so many would not believe that he was the Messiah because they were looking for a great leader who would topple the Roman government and reestablish Jewish Sovereignty. During His earthly ministry, day after day, Jesus made a clear distinction between His kingdom and the earthly kingdoms.
The Roman government was one of the most idolatrous empires in history, yet Jesus spent much of his time criticizing the Jewish religious leaders for their burdensome legalism and lack of love for others. He wasn't found petitioning Roman leaders to impose his teachings via Roman law; instead, he daily educated and discipled those who would listen.
Those who would listen. He didn't even force people to hear his words, let alone make them believe them.
I once heard an evangelist say, "It's not my job to tell you what you are doing wrong. That is the Holy Spirit's job". To often Christians think it is their job to control, when Jesus told us to go and spread the Gospel. If we were to follow His example, that means to teach, not to control.
God gave us free will. It is why "bad things happen." His very plan of salvation is that His creation turns to Him willfully. Jesus said, "follow Me..." This implies the ability to make a conscious choice. It seems that any attempt by the church to legislate morality takes away this freedom to choose between write and wrong.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Because We Need Change
I'm having deja vu. I was only 18 years old the first time, and it was the first election in which I could vote. Governor Bill Clinton campaigned across the country. I pulled my hair out - I did have hair back then - hearing voter after voter responding with "...because we need change" to qualify their presidential vote. Change what?
Sixteen years later, which included two terms for President Clinton, the cliche has resurfaced. It makes sense. Those who regurgitate the mindless dribble are the same lemmings who swallowed the mainstream media generated propoganda in 1992. They are featured regularly on "J-Walking". Ask them to describe the difference between captilism and socialism and get a puzzled glare. Ask them about Britney Spears, and they can spew forth hours of pop culture history.
Unfortunately, I must confess that these voters trouble me much more today than they did sixteen years ago. Back then, Bill Clinton said that the economy was the "worst in 50 years" even though it wasn't. Because the understanding of basic economic principals for many was whatever had been covered by MTV programming, it was accepted as fact and Clinton was going to save the masses from another Great Depression. Even if Clinton's assertion was accurate, it was frightening to me, even as an 18-year-old, that so many American citizens looked to a politician and a government to "fix" things.
Today it is "oil prices", the "mortgage crisis", "universal healthcare", etc., etc. The knee-jerk reaction of the politically and ecomomically uneducated are once again looking to a politician and government. What has changed is that these voters seem to be the majority on both sides of the political isle. Most are more than willing to trade, many knowingly, freedoms for a "quick fix". The sick irony is that many of these problems are direct results of government and politicians upseting free-market forces, regulating and forcing private entities to engage practices that would inevitably produce negative results.
Congress has not allowed a new oil refinery to be built since the early 1980's. U.S oil drilling has been disallowed over and over in the same time frame. Basic economic laws say that when supply does not keep up with demand, prices go up. Of course, when a majority of the electorate know as much about "supply and demand" as they do about nuclear physics, pinning the blame on George W. Bush is unbelievably simple.
We do live in prolific times. Not like those described by Obama when he won the nomination saying that future people would reflected on this time as "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal …", but we live at a time that has a nation on the verge of becoming what it fought for 40+ years during the Cold War.
We do need change, but not those changes promoted by John McCain, Barack Obama, Republicans, Democrats, etc. We need a more educated population with the ability to critically examine those issues that continue to chip away at our right to "Life", "Happiness", and especially "Liberty".
I don't wan't a government forcing me to have health insurance. I don't want a government forcing me to "invest" in a failing retirement plan (Social Security). I don't want a goverment telling me what kind of car to drive, whether or not a restuarant can allow smoking, how to raise my kids, etc., etc.
We need change. We need our freedom. We need the government to get out of our lives. My "hope" is not in a politician, Barack Obama. I don't need you to tell me when and how much money I can donate to a political campaign, John McCain. I want and need the "inalienable" right to exercise free will, to have the ability to make my own decisions whether they be the right ones or the wrong ones. That is the change we need.
Sixteen years later, which included two terms for President Clinton, the cliche has resurfaced. It makes sense. Those who regurgitate the mindless dribble are the same lemmings who swallowed the mainstream media generated propoganda in 1992. They are featured regularly on "J-Walking". Ask them to describe the difference between captilism and socialism and get a puzzled glare. Ask them about Britney Spears, and they can spew forth hours of pop culture history.
Unfortunately, I must confess that these voters trouble me much more today than they did sixteen years ago. Back then, Bill Clinton said that the economy was the "worst in 50 years" even though it wasn't. Because the understanding of basic economic principals for many was whatever had been covered by MTV programming, it was accepted as fact and Clinton was going to save the masses from another Great Depression. Even if Clinton's assertion was accurate, it was frightening to me, even as an 18-year-old, that so many American citizens looked to a politician and a government to "fix" things.
Today it is "oil prices", the "mortgage crisis", "universal healthcare", etc., etc. The knee-jerk reaction of the politically and ecomomically uneducated are once again looking to a politician and government. What has changed is that these voters seem to be the majority on both sides of the political isle. Most are more than willing to trade, many knowingly, freedoms for a "quick fix". The sick irony is that many of these problems are direct results of government and politicians upseting free-market forces, regulating and forcing private entities to engage practices that would inevitably produce negative results.
Congress has not allowed a new oil refinery to be built since the early 1980's. U.S oil drilling has been disallowed over and over in the same time frame. Basic economic laws say that when supply does not keep up with demand, prices go up. Of course, when a majority of the electorate know as much about "supply and demand" as they do about nuclear physics, pinning the blame on George W. Bush is unbelievably simple.
We do live in prolific times. Not like those described by Obama when he won the nomination saying that future people would reflected on this time as "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal …", but we live at a time that has a nation on the verge of becoming what it fought for 40+ years during the Cold War.
We do need change, but not those changes promoted by John McCain, Barack Obama, Republicans, Democrats, etc. We need a more educated population with the ability to critically examine those issues that continue to chip away at our right to "Life", "Happiness", and especially "Liberty".
I don't wan't a government forcing me to have health insurance. I don't want a government forcing me to "invest" in a failing retirement plan (Social Security). I don't want a goverment telling me what kind of car to drive, whether or not a restuarant can allow smoking, how to raise my kids, etc., etc.
We need change. We need our freedom. We need the government to get out of our lives. My "hope" is not in a politician, Barack Obama. I don't need you to tell me when and how much money I can donate to a political campaign, John McCain. I want and need the "inalienable" right to exercise free will, to have the ability to make my own decisions whether they be the right ones or the wrong ones. That is the change we need.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
