Warren delivered the call during a 20-minute speech to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). It is refreshing to hear stories about Evangelicals who can sound the call for unity in settings that are usually trampled upon in the name of divisive doctrine.

“It’s easier to be an extremist of any kind because then you only have one group of people mad at you,” he said. “But if you actually try to build relationships – like invite an evangelical pastor to your gathering – you’ll get criticized for it. So will I.”

Warren also challenged Muslims and Christians to refrain and protest the stereotyping of any group. He also urged to respect each other even while disagreeing.

I find this side of Warren likable. Not that likability is that important, or even the goal. More than either of those, this side of Warren is what the world needs at this moment in history.

If only people would make this expression a bandwagon, at least as much as they did his Purpose Driven work. After all, as far as purpose is concerned, healthy Christian and Muslim relations are pretty high on the social and spiritual priority list.

Related posts:

1. A Barna Report on Technology in the Church
2. 7 Truths Leading to Solid Organization
3. Ministry Life: A Tale of Two Emails

Related posts:

1. IMG Gets a Brand New Website (It Takes a Village to Plant a Church)!
2. William Penn and the Quakers
3. A Brief Reflection on Personal Cultural Experiences

Thompson specifically addresses beliefs, superstitions and misunderstandings that have been applied to the female anatomy. These misguided applications led, of course, to even more ridiculous but culturally powerful beliefs about women in general that spanned religious, philosophical, and sometimes even scientific expressions. Thompson unapologetically and chronologically exposes more than a few of history’s outrageous beliefs about women and perhaps more importantly the religious and philosophical and medical beliefs and practices haphazardly founded upon them.

A few examples tell the tale. A person with half a wit should be able to connect the dots.

“The blame assigned to Eve for tempting Adam with forbidden fruit lies at the core of many assumptions about women’s psychological nature. Medical decisions, especially ones related to childbirth, reproduction, and sexuality, have been shaded by this prejudice throughout the ages. Indeed, when aesthetics were first introduced in medicine, the biblical proscription “All women must bring forth children in sorrow” was one reason used to deny them to women in labor” (17).

“All cultures create rules for their members with regard to work, play, speech, word usage, attire, social distance, body postures, gaze, and touch as well as boundaries that limit where they can walk, run, eat, play sports, or worship. These rules are so woven into the fabric of a culture that most people do not question their logic. To a sophisticated audience, it may appear humorous that preliterate people held beliefs about pollution with regard to women’s uterine functions. But before we criticize their ignorance, let’s take a look at our own culture. A Miqwah was recently unveiled in Boca Ranton, Florida. This structure, built in an upwardly mobile, thoroughly modern community at a cost of more than two million dollars, is intended for the use of Jewish women who wish to ritually purify themselves after menstruation, and who pay big bucks for the privilege” (20).

“Returning to the Old World will provide us with a fascinating history that links the pathology of both physical and mental diseases in women with the uterus. In ancient Egypt, a wandering womb was described in medical documents known as the Kahun and Smith papyri. Presumably the most ancient medical document, the Kahun (or Lahun, Illahun, or Kahoun) papyrus was almost exclusively dedicated to the issues of women’s health care and the problems of the uterus, though it addressed veterinary medicine … According to Dr. Clifford Snyder’s The Virtual Hospital, the Kahun papyrus discussed such items as a falling womb, dysmenorrhea, and a wandering womb. (if not satisfied by sex or impregnation, the uterus was believed to leave its deep-seated place in the pelvis and search for that certain something somewhere else.) Some of the medicaments it advised were ‘incense, herbs, beer, goat’s milk, and olive oil, vaginal fumigations, and other repulsive substances. The Kahun papyrus dates approximately 2100-1900 B.C.E. and predates the Smith papyrus by two hundred years” (21).

“One treatment for the wandering womb: When the womb wandered toward the head, noxious-smelling substances were burned near the nose to repel the uterus. Then fragrant and pleasing fumes of aromatic substances were directed towards the vulva. This would assist to lure the uterus down into the pelvis, where it belonged” (32).

“The Greek philosopher Plato called the uterus an animal within an animal and argued that it was a major cause of young women’s health problems. If it was deprived of sexual activity or was barren for too long, the disgruntled uterus would exit the pelvic basin in search of satisfaction. In doing so, it would wreak havoc on other organ systems. As Plato stated in Timaeus: ‘In females, what is called the womb or uterus is like a living thing, possessed of the desire to make children … the womb is an animal which longs to generate children. When it remains barren too long after puberty, it is distressed and sorely disturbed, and straying about in the body and cutting off the passages of the breath, it impedes and provokes all manner of diseases besides’” (33-34).

“Meanwhile, Galen, the Greek anatomist, physician, and author, had his own views on the subject, writing that ‘the man is more perfect than the woman [who is] less perfect than the man in respect to the generative parts.’ In Galen’s schema, a uterus was an inverted scrotum: ‘The parts were formed within her when she was still a fetus, but could not, because of the defect in the heat, emerge and project on the outside.’ Galen went on to explain that because of this lack of heat, the would-be scrotum remained inside, which meant that women had semen just like men, but if they went without sex for too long, the ’seed’ would accumulate and cause hysteria … marriage guaranteed sexual activity for uteruses, young and old alike. Or as Galen himself put it, ‘You ought not think that our Creator would purposely make half the whole race imperfect and, as it were, mutilated, unless there was some great advantage in such a mutilation’” (35).

“Unfortunately, early Judeo-Christian thinkers created a set of rules that precluded to help for the problems which plagued women as a result of their errant uteri. western religion could no longer endorse the known cures for women’s ailments because they challenged the principles of virginity, chastity, and abstinence. To satisfy a hungry uterus and restore health via sexual satisfaction was just not acceptable. the days of appeasement by passion and love were over. in fact, any erotic thoughts, feelings, knowledge, or expression were strictly forbidden. As Arno Karlen points out, ‘Christianity expressed obsessively and frantically the idea that women and sex are pollutions, barriers to religious grace.’ Women were to remain virgins until marriage – or, in the absence of marriage, forever. This was the opinion held by many  major writers of the time, who produced a number of books in praise of virginity. Among the treatises dealing with women written in the first seven centuries are On the Wearing of Veils by Virgins by Tertullian, On the Conduct of Virgins by Cyprian, On the True Integrity of Virginity by Basil of Ancyra, On Virgins by Ambrose of Milan, On Holy Virginity by Augustine, Forty-Sixth Letter to a Fallen Virgin by Basil of Caesaria, and On the Fall of a Consecrated Virgin by Niceta of Ramesiana” (39-40).

Women, of course, had little say in matters that directly concerned them. Thompson continues …

“As a result of this early male domination, Vern Bullough writes, ‘misogynism became ingrained in Christianity.’ Perhaps if women had participated in the formulation of the ‘rules’ of the church, celebration rather than disdain would have characterized the founders’ attitudes. As it was, women did not participate enough in the literature to have any influence. They were not only forbidden to teach in the church but were required to be silent” (42).

Thompson says so much more in this book. I suggest you find a copy and spend much time digesting the content.

One of the most interesting aspects of the book is the historic descriptions of uteri throughout the book. It’s hard to believe that as late as the 16th century people thought the uterus was seven-chambered and that males developed in the three right-hand chambers and females developed in the three left-hand chambers and hermaphrodites in the middle one! Incidentally, Thompson points out that the Latin word for ‘left-hand’ is sinestra, which also meant ‘unfavorable’” (55).

If that’s what they thought in the 16th century, what in the world did they think in the 1st Century? We actually know the answer to this question. I’ll save it for another post.

So, what’s the point of all this talk about outrageous beliefs about women through the ages? What difference does our understanding about the history female physiology make in our lives? Well, if you call yourself a Christian, I think it makes all the difference in the world. The bible is laden with misunderstandings about female physiology and these misunderstandings are most vivid in the extreme religious and social guilt female characters feel about things like infertility. There is an even bigger issue in the Bible as regards misguided beliefs about female physiology, but I’ll leave you to connect those dots for yourselves. Meanwhile, I’d grab a copy of Thompson’s book, right away. Then start thinking.

Work Cited: Thompson, Lana. The Wandering Womb : A Cultural History of Outrageous Beliefs About Woman. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1999.

Related posts:

1. The Women Who Didn’t Submit
2. Bible-Carrying Christians by DH Watt
3. Bridget Bishop and the Salem Witch Trials

Garfield Minus Garfield is a site dedicated to removing Garfield from the Garfield comic strips in order to reveal the existential angst of a certain young Mr. Jon Arbuckle. It is a journey deep into the mind of an isolated young everyman as he fights a losing battle against loneliness and depression in a quiet American suburb.

Now that is a great comic strip! There is an entire book dedicated to this?!? Ordering it now…

It also should be noted that this project did not originate with Garfield creator Jim Davis. A fellow named Dan Walsh actually discovered that the comic took a completely different turn when Garfield was removed and the entire focus was placed upon Jon Arbuckle. Davis, to his incredible credit, approved Walsh’s project. Such approval is astounding! Davis’ approval is even more astounding when understood in the context of today’s publishing and copyright laws. Walsh, it seems, had already published his edited version of the comic online before Davis discovered it or gave his approval. Davis gave Garfield Minus Garfield his full blessing, in spite of that slight technicality. Kudos to you, Jim Davis!

Related posts:

1. The Folkography Deep Feed Project
2. The Wikiklesia Project: Self-perpetuating Publishing
3. The Great Comic-Book Scare

I have an example that was born from my own pastoral experiences this past week.

Worship. Worship is a big deal in churches. It’s a big deal in our church. We are an emerging church community. We have very serious thoughts about worship expressions. More than a few of us have experienced Christian worship as big production, overtly-emotional, charismatic, and even manipulative. We also have more than a few musicians in our community who lead bands, write their own music, and play local clubs. Musicianship is a high priority for many of our people; they are an incredibly talented and gifted bunch. That said, no one in our community has any desire to lead production-heavy, emotion-laden, or, god forbid, manipulative worship. None of us wanted to create another Sunday morning show. So, we decided, from day one, to keep it as simple and as basic as possible. Yes. We usually have two or more musicians leading on Sunday. Yes. They have guitars. No. It is not a big production or show. I assure you. I know what “the show” looks and sounds and feels like; this ‘aint it.

One person’s stripped down worship service can be interpreted as a “big show” by another person, no matter how stripped down it really is, depending on the culture, experience, and, yes, personal suppositions.

This past week, a wonderful, incredible and all-around awesome couple shared their interpretation of our community’s worship with me. They expressed discomfort with our worship and style. Their discomfort with our worship expression was serious enough. So serious, in fact, that they have decided to attend elsewhere. Now, our worship is probably not the only reason they have or would cite for their attendance elsewhere. Things like our identity (which is still in formation and probably always will be) and our kid’s program are reasons too. I am, however, focusing on the worship issue because of how that particular issue exposes us as people who are indeed shaped in countless ways by our own experiences, settings, culture, and unconscious/unspoken idiosyncrasies. Further, I think it is important to note how all of these things cumulatively affect our interpretations of things, in this case the thing is a worship service.

So, this couple thinks our worship is a show of sorts. We think it is as stripped and as basic and as creative as it could possibly be. So, who is right?

Maybe we both are right? Let me explain.

On one hand, the majority of us who have experienced big, production-heavy, corporate worship see what we are doing as stripped down and basic as it could be for us; on the other hand, the couple, who are coming from many, many years spent worshiping with The Old Order River Brethren (the singing is a cappella and is characterized by a slow, regular cadence), interpret our worship as a big show.

Who really is being objective in this case? I would say no one! Hasn’t the worship service itself been shaped and in fact interpreted by everyone involved according to past experiences, presuppositions and assumptions? Is our worship completely objective? Hardly. Neither those of us who believe we have stripped it down to the bare essentials, nor the couple who think it all a big show, are being completely objective about the worship expression itself. Our expression of worship was born from our own past experiences – which are completely limited to our own culture; their expression was born from their own. Our final interpretations of our worship service were totally affected and in fact shaped by both.

None of us are objective about anything we are doing on Sunday mornings. We all are shaped by past experiences, culture, and even politics. We all bring the cumulative product of all that shaping to our Sunday morning expressions. There are none who are completely objective.

So, the question that has to be asked then is this: What are we doing on Sunday mornings? Think about it.

Related posts:

1. A Sunday Service at IMG
2. In Utero: The Dawning Vision of Inner Metro Green
3. A Reflective Rant Concerning Postmodernism, Objectivity and The Emerging Conversation

The folk over at Homebrewed Christianity have published a podcast titled Happy 500th Birthday to John Calvin with Paul Capetz: Homebrewed Christianity 56 in celebration of Calvin’s birthday.

This week, (I know … we always say this) is a very special Homebrewed Christianity Podcast. It’s one of those moments where we visit that rummage sale that happens every 500 years and find some pearls of great price. It’s John Calvin’s 500th birthday. In this episode, Tripp interviews Paul Capetz, a progressive reformed theologian at United Seminary. Paul reflects on how Calvin has inspired him – while rejecting Calvinism as a label.

The Homebrewed podcast is as entertaining as it is informative. Give it a listen and let the guys know what you think! Me? I’m going to go eat some cake!

Related posts:

1. Blanc Turns 26, Celebrates by Launching a New Blog
2. The Emergent Village Podcast Relaunch
3. The Council of Constance

It does not take long for questions concerning the relationship between world religion(s) and Christianity to be raised by people living in cosmopolitan settings. The city is a diverse place. It is an urban mash up of ethnicity, culture, religion and art. So, of course, questions concerning religious truth would be asked, and regularly.

There is a simple answer for the question of religious truth. It is this: All religions contain aspects of truth, just as all religions contain aspects of historical relativity, cultural relativity and myth. None were meant to be reduced to quick and easy checklists to be quickly applied to our present personal problems, but instead exist to inspire us in our own time and space to do the same sort of deep spiritual work and embark upon the same mysterious meaning-making journeys for which their founders and writers and original practitioners became famous.

Some would say, however, that no other religion offers truth but their own. Thankfully, that’s not the case. In fact, if one chooses to see it, aspects of truth can be found in all religions and sometimes this truth spills into multiple religions.

Consider, if you will, a few of parallel sayings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth and Siddhartha Gautama. The universality of these parallel sayings and the life teaching and meaning that they ultimately point toward are unarguably inspirational, but are they saying the same things? Look for the truth in these sayings and consider the relevance they have for life and living, universally. Ask yourself, are they saying the same things? Are they founded upon the same truths?

Jesus of Nazareth and Siddhartha Gautama on: Purity

Out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander, These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile. – Jesus of Nazareth: Matthew 15.19-20

One does not become pure by washing, as do the multitude of mortals in this world; he who casts away every sin, great and small, he is a brahmin who has cast off sin. – Siddhartha Gautama: Udanavarga 33.13

Jesus of Nazareth and Siddhartha Gautama On: Compassion

“Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. From anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again.” Jesus of Nazareth: Luke 6. 27-30

“Hatreds do not ever cease in this world by hating, but by love; this is an eternal truth … Over come anger by love, overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving, overcome the liar by truth.” – Siddhartha Gautama: Dhammapada 1.5 and 17.3

Jesus of Nazareth and Siddhartha Gautama live: The Religious Journey

Many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. Jesus of Nazareth: John 6.66

Sixty more gave up training and returned to the lower life, saying: “Hard is the task of the Exalted One!” – Siddhartha Gautama: Anguttara Nikaya 7.68

Related posts:

1. Introductory Queries, Apropos World Religion
2. A Year Ago On Tribe
3. A Mid-week Meditation

Christianity is Finished in Britain, says Church of England Bishop

A long-serving Church of England bishop has predicted that the Church of England will cease to exist within a generation. In an article in the Sunday Telegraph, the Right Reverend Paul Richardson said declining church attendance and the rise in multiculturalism meant that “Christian Britain is dead” (American Humanist Association).

This is a truly remarkable time in human history. Not may of us have lived life on the faultline of a major shift in history and worldview. Is this what it was like when the Greek pantheon of gods and goddesses began to crumble? Maybe.

America is not far behind Britain. American Christianity – and Evangelicalism as we know it – is for the most part floundering, save a few pockets of mega-ministries that may or may not survive the test of time. What is really happening, beyond the handful of mega-ministries that while booming only represent a tiny percentage of the larger population? Church planters everywhere are struggling too. If a church plant actually survives (80% fail) and crests 100 people it is doing extremely well today. So, what is the answer? Seriously? What solution is there for the obvious decline? Is there one? Perhaps not.

I sincerely believe humanity needs to search for a different expression of faith and spirituality. We need to search for one that not only takes seriously the traditions of the past but is also capable of stretching and growing into the present and future. Tired expressions will not suffice. People are smarter than that and they have more accessible information than ever before in human history. Everything has already changed.

I know this much: The emerging spiritual expression must be deeply spiritual and contemporary at the same time. Said differently, a meaningful spiritual expression for our time will have to be expressed in concert with – and evolve along with – all the other streams of human knowledge. Faith can no longer be estranged from all other areas of human understanding and learning. Spirituality needs to be given so much more room to freely grow and honestly evolve. Humanity has always looked back towards sacred traditions past while moving forward into new meaning-making experiences.

A meaningful spirituality for our own time will also be characterized by four important tenets: 1.) The commitment to free and open intellectual and spiritual inquiry, 2.) The belief in the autonomous authority of individual experience and reason, 3.) The study of the ethical dimensions of life and living as individuals sharing global community, and 4.) The search for perspective rooted in ancient traditions and informed by contemporary knowledge and experience.

Some, of course, will say that we need to become even more rigid and dogmatic and exclusive. That sort of expression is to be expected. When a group’s existence is threatened, that group will clench its fists even tighter and become even smaller. This is historically and almost universally true. So, some zealots will become even more close-minded and even more dogmatic and even more exclusive and even more withdrawn from reality. Expect it! That’s the sound of a death rattle.

The rest of us should keep moving forward and try to get involved with what the Spirit is saying to us today, just like all of the characters in our sacred texts had to do.

Of course, we could just say that everyone else is wrong, that their refusal to eat our bread is their own blind fault, and, as if none of the above were true, go on defending the status-quo until our precious sense of self-righteousness outlasts any practical usefulness we fooled ourselves into believing we had.

Related posts:

1. A Random Theology Terms Dump
2. Can We Hear the New Atheists?
3. Emerging and Classic Brethren in Christ Ecclesiology

So, come out Sunday morning and join us in community and help us shape the future of IMG!

This past Sunday’s service is available below, for your consumption. We finally figured out how to record directly from our sound board, thanks to Dean Martin, our tech/media fellow. So, the quality of the recordings from this point forward will be much better than those of the past. I still, however, need to learn how to hold the microphone when I’m speaking. Some parts of my sermon are really quiet because I tend to talk with my hands and move the microphone away from me without realizing it. Mea Culpa. I will learn to keep the mike still! At any rate, I decided to publish most of our service, instead of just a song and my sermon, since we can now record the entire thing. I did edit out the Eucharist part of our service, because we do a lot of joys and concerns sharing during that time. I also edited out offering, because well, you can’t hear anything during that time. Other than that, this is basically what our service is like.

I especially love the closing Lennon by Flinch. Awesome song.

Big thanks to Chris Flinchbaugh and Brandon Seawell for the morning’s music. Keith Slesser is the guy opening with prayer, announcements and a reading (he’s usually leading/participating in music, but he and his wife just had a baby this week – full story @ Keith’s blog). Thanks to Dean Martin for all his tech/media work for the morning. Your presence makes a huge difference, Dean! Oh yeah, I’m the morning’s speaker who keeps moving the microphone.

NOTE: An edited version of the sermon will be made available at the IMG website soon. This is my own hack job, thank you. Dean will have a much better one up soon. Anyway, push play below.

Related posts:

1. Inner Metro Green Community Speakers
2. A Case Study in Objectivity and Interpretation
3. On Regular Community Celebrations of Eucharist

J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye is as classic a novel as it is controversial. Catcher’s literary value is almost totally invested in the symbology that is Holden Caulfield. Holden’s seemingly misguided adventures and expressed apathy with unavoidable phonies points towards a much larger human condition that all readers can appreciate in varying degrees. The character is a familiar one, especially to young adults who are only just beginning to experience a so-called real world and the difficult quest for authentic individuality. This sort of appreciation practically guarantees future relevancy to a novel that has already been deemed a treasure in an original context that can best be described as bland industrialized-american, prosperity-minded, and heavy on assumed social codes/norms. Catcher in the Rye – and more importantly Holden Caulfield – is a biting indictment of the American social context of the 1940s and 1950s. The counter-cultural revolt of the 1960s was an unavoidable reaction to the context created by previous generations, as was Catcher. This, and other events, led to much controversy. The novel was granted much critical acclaim, but more than a few critics characterized it as less-than-serious literature largely in part to the style/tone in which it was written. The book was of course banned by groups and schools because it contained cuss words and sexual themes and situations that everyone experiences but none talk about openly. Controversy also followed the novel because of the connection between it and John Lennon’s assassin, Mark David Chapman. The attempted assassination President Ronald Reagan by John Hinckley, Jr. also has been connected to Catcher, as was the murder of an actress committed by Robert John Bardo.

Basically, Catcher in the Rye is a story told in 1st person narrative point of view by the main character, Holden Caulfield. Holden is a sixteen-year-old junior in a 1950’s prep school located in Agerstown, Pennsylvania called Pencey Prep. Our protagonist and narrator has just been expelled from Pencey because of his total lack of effort. Holden is failing all but one of his courses – English. More than that, Holden absolutely despises almost everyone around him because of their phoniness. No one is real, in Holden’s mind, especially the adults who are responsible for the shallow and meaningless context in which he lives and struggles to find meaning.

Holden leaves Pencey Prep. before his expulsion date actually arrives after a bloody fight with his jock roommate who Holden calls a “sexy bastard.” The fight broke out after Stradlater (his roommate) hints to a sexcapade with a dear girlfriend of Holden’s. Holden of course loses this fight and is left bruised and bloodied. He decides to leave Pencey immediately. He, however, does not go to his parent’s apartment in Manhattan, for fear of what their reaction to him will be for getting expelled yet again (Pencey is Holden’s fourth school). Instead, Holden catches a train to New York City and checks into a shady hotel called the Edmont. It is from there that Holden begins a personal journey that unveils his insecurities, frustrations, apathy, and desperate search for a vanishing childhood innocence, authenticity and meaning. Throughout it all, it seems that Holden is totally incapable of rising above it all. His flight, at every turn, is obstructed by yet another phony living in a superficial world. It seems quite hopeless, at least until Holden reframes his entire approach to life and living in this world. It seems quite bleak for our anti-hero until he begins to subtly – perhaps cautiously – reframe his narrative. In fact, it is entirely possible that Holden was in fact doomed to disappear into his perceived void of phoniness and superficiality before he suddenly realized that his narrative was his to write. Freedom.

The closing chapters of the novel reveal the one thing that Holden finds important and authentic in his life – his little sister, Phoebe Caulfield. It is to her that he ultimately flees. It is in her and because of her that he finally realizes that he must grow up. She is the reason why he chooses to stop fleeing. He decides against leaving New York because of how it would affect her. This was not the first time Holden displayed concern for a child. Earlier in his tale, he commented on how a small child was left dangerously close to a very busy curb. The child was singing a song that contained the line “if a body catch a body coming through the rye,” while his phony parents were carrying on elsewhere completely oblivious to the fact that he was in such a dangerous position on the busy street curb. This event, and more importantly his authentic relationship with Phoebe, exposes the existential issue tormenting Holden, as he himself confesses to Phoebe what he would like to be in life. Holden says in response to that big question, “You know that song ‘If a body catch a body coming’ through the rye’ … I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of rye and all. Thousands of little kids, and nobody’s around – nobody big, I mean – except me. And I’m standing on the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to do, I have to catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff – I mean if they’re running and they don’t look where they’re going I have to come out from somewhere and catch them. That’s all I’d do all day. I’d just be the catcher in the rye and all. I know it’s crazy, but that’s the only thing I’d really like to be. I know it’s crazy.”

Holden wants to “catch” all of the children who run through the field of rye oblivious to their own positions to prevent them from falling off the cliff they don’t realize is there. Holden realizes it’s there, unlike all the other phonies. He can help.

The field of rye seems to be childhood and all the innocence that accompanies it. So, of course, the children would be oblivious to the cliff and in Holden’s mind they should remain oblivious to it. A realization of the existence of the cliff would mean that innocence was already gone. Holden’s innocence was gone and his sad tale is built upon his mad and vain search for it. One can never find that innocence once one realizes it is gone. Holden would be the catcher for the children. Of course, not even he can guard the cliff forever.

The cliff itself is adulthood. The field of rye is not accessible once one takes an ignorant plunge off the cliff and into adulthood. Therefore, children need a catcher to save them from something they don’t even realize threatens. Somehow, in Holden’s mind, the children need to be able to perpetually run through the field of rye with innocent abandon while being protected from all that threatens their fun. They need a catcher to save them from becoming phonies.

In the end, Holden in fact acts as a “catcher” for Phoebe, but perhaps not in the exact manner he excepted or envisioned. Yes, he finally realizes that he is in control of his own narrative, regardless of what the phonies all around him say or do, but in the end he makes a very difficult decision to protect his little sister. Holden grows up, but only as much as he has to grow.

Holden Caulfield stands for young people everywhere who are leaving the field of rye and struggling with the people and world that exists at the foot of the cliff. The world is a place full of personal restrictions, alienating cultural norms and oppressed individuality. A relentless conformity calls children from the edges of the field of rye and towards the cliff that threatens their innocence. Catcher in the Rye undoubtedly resonates with everyone who has taken a dive off that cliff. That pretty much means that all of us can find ourselves in Holden’s tale, somewhere.

Related posts:

1. The Story of Dirk Willems
2. Schleitheim Article III: Concerning The Breaking Of Bread
3. Jesus Loves the Little Children (Adapted)

Before you get all bent out of shape, please realize this is a satire site spoofing the so-called “discernment ministries” who deem themselves more worthy of Grace than the rest of us. So read and have fun! BTW, we are not against “good” discernment ministries that do actual real research and extend grace to others, only the bad ones.

Do check it out! Satire is good for the soul. I’m subscribing and I’m going to blogroll the site with a quickness.

Related posts:

1. The Infantree: Lancaster City’s Young Creatives
2. Making Sense of the Incarnation Notes
3. Internet Evangelism Day 2008

I spent some time routing around my attic. My attic is where I store all of my books. Sometimes, I just go up there and hang out in its quiet and look through the books until I  find one that I forgot I had. It would be an understatement to say that I have a bunch of different kinds of books stored up there. I have everything from Richard Dawkins to a Charismatic Dictionary. I have books by Friedrich Nietzsche and Alvin Plantinga. There are titles up there by Channing, Emerson, and Parker (Early American Unitarians) as well as titles by Spurgeon, Finney, and Edwards. I have books on Chaos Theory and books on Holy Spirit Baptism. My personal library is a broad collection, to say the least.

My last trip to my attic reconnected me with a book that I totally forgot I owned. I’m not sure how that happened because this particular title is an incredible read.

The book is called Possibilities for Over One Hundredfold More Spiritual Information: The Humble Approach in Theology and Science. It was written by Sir John Templeton. Templeton made a fortune by dealing in mutual funds and global stocks. He used portions of his billions to fund research specifically dedicated to science and religion. Templeton was also a member of the Presbyterian Church, but remained opened to the truth, values, and expressions of other global faiths. His mantra was that we – humanity – only realize about 1% of the spiritual reality in which we live. He was a firm believer that science and religion were not diametrically opposed and in fact could inform one another in a way that would lead to even more spiritual information. Said differently, Templeton believed that science could inform religion in edifying and monumental ways, and vice versa. I agree.

Possibilities for Over One Hundredfold More Spiritual Information is a fantastic collection of Templeton’s thoughts concerning the relationship between science and religion. It reads like a handbook for those who are brave enough to chase a spiritual expression that is not estranged from the present and always growing compilation of human data and empirical knowledge.

Templeton writes, “Spiritual information is a realm of study which may expand in ways none can yet predict. But in this book, those words refer to the concepts from religions which have proven beneficial and which need to be supplemented through millions of dollars daily for rigorous verifiable research, especially on those neglected basic invisible realities such as love, purpose, creativity, intellect, thanksgiving, prayer, humility, praise, thrift, compassion, invention, truthfulness, giving and worship. Already, some thinkers are pondering the concept that every discovery in any science helps humans to enlarge their definition of the word god. For example, can humans learn something about god from x-ray astronomy, by subatomic physics or by quantum nonlocality? Or if the expensive search for extraterrestrial intelligence, SETI, ever succeeds, will we enlarge our theology? If discoveries keep pointing our search toward multiplying mysteries, will we begin to comprehend more about creativity? Clarifying the words spiritual information is equally difficult now as the difficulty as recently as 1800 in foreseeing the expansion of medical information or electromagnetic information (preface).”

These are very, very big questions. These are questions that people of faith the globe over should be asking. These are the questions that we should be worrying about instead of constantly arguing over thin and abstract theological issues that should have been settled a long time ago. Personally, I would rather that we move forward, theologically, and invest our energy into the unmined relationship between science and religion and strive to apply all the spiritual information that undoubtedly would be revealed by such dedicated research. Instead, we go on arguing over the minutia parsed from the historically and culturally relative musings of some dead 16th century theologian(s). Ironically, if those 16th Century theologians would have adopted our current approach to theology, they would have had nothing at all to say, and we would not even remember their names. Once again, we prove ourselves unable to actually learn the most important lesson that our collection of historical figures offer us! And what is this important lesson? It’s horribly simple: Work like they worked, think like they thought, but do not appropriate their relative conclusions. Theology is not static; theology does not exist in a vacuum. Each generation must work towards its own conclusions based upon the world and knowledge and reality in which they live.

Sir John Templeton, a Presbyterian, understood this truth. He dedicated his wealth and his time to it. Consider, if you will, some of the things he says in Possibilities for Over One Hundredfold More Spiritual Information.

It is exciting to be alive and to think about all the wonders of discovery that lie ahead for future generations. Where will it all go? What will be its benefits? All we know is that if we knew we would be surprised, because reality is surprising. The adventure of science has shown us that it is very deep, very subtle, often strange and ever stretching our imaginations and expanding our horizons. Persons who view the world theistically often think how inappropriate it is to imagine, as we sometimes are tempted to do, that divinity who created and sustains a vast evolving universe through eons of cosmic time placed our generation as the completed purpose of a creative process. maybe we can expand our horizons and invigorate our sense of purpose if we think that god might have placed us at a new beginning. Are we here for the future and to participate in a grand adventure of the spirit (4)?

Often theologians, religious leaders and laypeople can be blind to obstacles they themselves erect. Many religious people are not yet inspired to hope that the spiritual future could, or should, be improved from anything that has ever been learned before. Many do not imagine that progress in religion may be possible, perhaps by appreciating ways that sciences have learned to flourish and by being creatively open to a discovery-seeking and future-oriented perspective. For so many religious people, the future of religions seems nothing much beyond the perspective of ancient traditions. Some therefore may not want to consider the possibility of a future of progressively unfolding spiritual discoveries (5).

Can humility be a key to our future progress? Without it, will we be too self-satisfied with past glories to launch boldly into the challenges ahead? Without a hunger to explore new possibilities and a restlessness to transcend our ignorance, will we be wide-eyes and open-minded enough to discover new areas for research? If we are not humble enough to learn as children learn, we may be unable to admit our mistakes, seek advice and try again (7).

Can even the best doctrines function for some as blinders serve on a horse? Can they create a kind of tunnel vision? One unfortunate aspect of dogma is that it tends to belittle the infinite variety and nature of divinity. Dogmas are, after all, written by human beings, and human concepts of god are always limited. Would it be unfortunate and a great waste of human energy if every advance or reform in the church had the nature of being a rival from outside? Those well-meaning people within the church would naturally be more resistant to outside intrusion, would would tend to side with tradition, thus strengthening the forces behind the status-quo and ultimately hindering progress (47).

There is so much more big information in this otherwise small book. Templeton does not limit its pages to vision casting, though that is an important and inspiring aspect of his work. He also talks science – a lot of deep science – and connects it to spirituality by raising the questions that result. Like I said earlier, this is a great read. Find a copy. Then start searching.

Related posts:

1. Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?
2. A Portable Horticulture: On Planting Churches
3. The Birthmark: Can We Lose Our Humanity?

I grew up listening to Michael Jackson’s music. Mostly because my dear sister absolutely loved Michael’s music and played it constantly. I’ve seen all of his movies too (e.g. The Wiz, Captain EO, Moonwalker), again thanks to my sister who owned them all. I think I was in 5th grade when Thriller dropped. That inconspicuous little cassette and its short play list (nine songs) changed music, music television (MTV) and white pop culture’s attitude toward black artists forever. Michael Jackson went mainstream and kicked down popular cultural barriers that few realized existed. America no longer needed its Elvis to be white. Eccentricities, oddities, and accusations aside, Michael Jackson’s talent, artistry, skill and love for music can not be denied.

It’s just a shame that once again we have all waited until he died to say it. We are a curious people. We love to build people up so that we can knock them down. Then when they die, we suddenly realize why we loved them and built them up in the first place. It’s strange.

At any rate, Michael Jackson had his problems, but he deserves a lot of grace. He obviously struggled with serious self-image and crippling family of origin problems. His personal struggles were put on public display for all to see because he perpetually occupied the biggest stage and lived his life under the brightest lights. Yes, he had personal struggles and issues, but he’s not so different than many of us in that respect, except that his incredible talent exposed him and his painfully private journey to the galaxy. Would you really want to work out your “stuff” on that big stage and under those bright lights? I venture not, so, in his death, give the guy the grace he should have been afforded in life.

That said, I want to personally thank Michael Jackson for a few of my all-time favorite songs. My iPod will forever be loaded with Human Nature, We are the World, Man in the Mirror and Will You Be There.

Godspeed, Michael. Thanks for the music. Rest in peace.

Related posts:

1. Faith, Love and Life Part Two
2. Ampersand EP by Derek Webb and Sandra McCracken
3. James Fowler’s Six Stages of Faith Development

Interpretive Smackdown: Historical-Critical vs. Literary-Critical

A fascinating article concerning the contentious gulf separating Historical-Critical and Postmodern interpretations of the Bible appears in the Summer 2009 edition of Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL). It seems that, according to the article, the Biblical Studies department is divided on interpretive issues. On one hand, we have those who would advance the modern idea of one ultimate or final reading of the text(s) that is discovered via the interpretive paradigm aka the Historical-Critical approach (source criticism, form criticism, grammatical studies and archaeology); on the other hand we have the postmodern interpretive venture – or literary-critical method – that suggests an availability of several divergent but equally plausible readings that are produced by a variety of experiences, voices and, more importantly, the metanarrative void (Postcolonial Readings, Feminist Readings, Marxist Readings, Black (African-American) Readings, Hermeneutic of Suspicion, Rhetorical Criticism, Stylistic Criticism, Metaphorical Criticism, Post-structuralism, and Myth Theory, to name just a few).

The article, which is titled An Elephant in the Room: Historical-Critical and Postmodern Interpretations of the Bible, is especially interesting because the authors actually suggest that the gulf existing between the two interpretive approaches is bridgeable. In fact, bridge building is the goal. The authors write, “…we hope to make further conversation between these approaches more acceptable (or even desirable).” That is a wonderful hope, but it still remains to be seen if a conversational bridge can be constructed at all. It seems plausible that the literary critics could indeed appreciate the historical-critical method as just another of many voices and readings, while simultaneously rejecting the interpretive idealism that is expressed as “ultimate” or “final” readings, but it seems much less likely that most historical-critical aficionados would return the favor, given the foundational methodology implemented and – perhaps more importantly – the historic presuppositions involved in their interpretive exercise.

I have yet to finish reading the article, as I have only read the introduction. I am especially curious about the method the authors implement in their attempt to bridge the chasm that separates the two interpretive methods: Myth Making.

More random thoughts will follow my completion of the article. These thoughts and reflections will probably be published in a series of posts. Meanwhile, I wonder, what method, if any, do you use to interpret the texts? Why do you favor your method and reject the other? Interesting questions, I’m sure. I’m also sure very few people in pews even give it a thought. That’s another post …

FOOTNOTE: Personally, I appreciate the way that the authors of this article point out the poor and misguided use of the term “postmodernism” by opportunists who try to cash in on perceived cultural trends. We all have witnessed more than a few evangelical individuals and/or churches attempt to attach the term “postmodern” to whatever book or ministry they are peddling. We have all discovered churches that claim to be “postmodern churches” but are only “postmodern” in style (music and furniture), if that can even be called postmodern. Postmodernism is more than a shift in music, meeting time, dress and vocabulary; postmodernism is philosophical understanding and expression that will directly challenge worldviews and stories. Bluntly put, postmodernism is so much more than Len Sweet’s Soul Tsunami and/or Aqua Church.

The authors address this issues directly in the following excerpt.

As an aside, we mention an issue whose full treatment is beyond the scope of this article: the explicit use of the term “postmodernism” and the claim that a book or collection is postmodern. Although we freely use the term “postmodernism,” many of the works that we cite do not proclaim themselves to be postmodern even though they well exemplify the diversity and anti-essentialism of postmodernism. In contrast, evangelical Christian publishing houses now regularly issue books with “postmodernism” in the titles whose content may well not correspond to postmodernism as considered here. These evangelical titles are typically attempts to “baptize” postmodernism and to capitalize on current popular terms such as “postmodern” and “deconstruction” on behalf of evangelical theology.

So, if you sling the word “postmodernism” around, you would do well to actually start looking into the philosophy the term represents.

Related posts:

1. Leadership Gold by John Maxwell
2. The Postmodern Generator: An Endless Joy!
3. The Church as Picnic and So Much More

Yes, that reads like a caustic statement, but it is not. It’s simple, spiritual truth. It is a truth rooted deeply in the Gospels. I promise, it’s there. Look for it yourselves.

It’s also a truth rooted in experience. I had such experiences over the course of the past few weeks. I want to quickly highlight two of these experiences.

Gay Pride Festival VS Family Day

The first came as a result of our church community’s planning. You see, we planned on throwing a big city-wide event on the Saturday before Father’s Day. We thought it would be a good thing for us to celebrate all that fathers do in our city and we wanted to encourage them in areas that are not only difficult for them, but also difficult for the rest of us. Then our team began thinking about how that approach could possibly limit those who wanted to join us but didn’t have fathers for whatever reasons. So, we altered the plan and decided to push it as a “family” rather than a “father” event.

The goal was to celebrate with our whole city, not just a particular segment of its population. So far, so good.

Then we discovered, when we attempted to rent the big park, that it was unavailable because Lancaster’s Gay Pride Festival was being held there on the same day and time. So, we had to shift. We discovered that we could rent the other big park on the other side of the city, which was only about 5 minutes away, and hold our “family” event as planned. That sounded like a good plan, but then we remembered that we live in Lancaster County…

Lancaster County is one of the most religious places on earth, to put it mildly. A lot of the churches in the area flat-out despise the Gay Pride Festival, weather they will admit it openly or not. I have been in churches where they prayed against the event; I have received pastoral group e-mails full of “concerns” for the event. I know for a fact that this is the spiritual attitude towards the Gay Pride Festival in churches all over our county. And here we were, poised to throw our Christian “Family Event” on the other side of the city, on the same day and at the same time as the Gay Pride Festival. It didn’t take long for our team to realize that this event could be seriously misconstrued by almost everyone in our city – Christian or not.

Those Christians who protest the event could see us as the Christian “alternative” to the Pride event and celebrate us for reasons we neither deserve, nor want.

The people at the Pride Festival might interpret our efforts as “just more of the same” from the “same ole’ Christians.”

Either way, our message would have been written by people other than us. We would have no control over whatever message was sent out by our actions on that day. There was a strong possibility that we – and more importantly our message – would have become collateral damage in a local culture war in which we have and desire no part.

So, we cancelled our event. We cancelled not for the zealots who protest the Pride event, but for the people at the Pride event. This was their day and we did not want to blight it with intentions that we had nothing to do with but caused because we held our event on the same day and time. In other words, we didn’t want to become “spiritual” ammunition that others could use to load their misguided and crooked weapons. Our expression of faith is not the same as those who would complain and protest the Pride event, and we did not want anyone to even think that they were alike.

That’s just one of many stories I have collected over the course of the past few weeks. There are many, many more. Here’s one of them…

We’ve Been Together For Over Five Years

A gay couple who frequents our community went through a traumatic experience last evening. One of them had a serious fall at work and ended up in the hospital with multiple skull fractures. He was not in good shape last evening. Our community’s worship director and I went to the hospital and prayed with his partner, friends, and family. His partner was not doing well either, to say the least. He wept and nearly crumbled in the room as we prayed and comforted him.

“We’ve been together for over five years,” he said.

Five years! That’s a long time. His love for his fallen partner was more than obvious. He was in tears. He was devastated. He was a mess. Yes, we hugged him and simply tried to comfort him and offer glimmers of hope, but what we saw there last night, through his feelings of desperation, fear, emotion and tears was true love.

Then an interesting conversational point was raised. He said that it was completely possible for him to have no say at all in this situation if someone really wanted to remove him from it. Why? Because there was no legal right for him to have any say at all in important, life-changing events that affected him and his partner, like this one. Then we talked about insurance and a host of other issues that were not available to them because they are not “officially” recognized as a pair. This was the situation, even after five years together.

That’s a lot for anyone to deal with, as if the traumatic injury was not enough all on its own.

Needless to say, that whole conversation was the catalyst for a lot of personal contemplation regarding the current push for equal rights for homosexual couples. Here is a couple that I personally know, and there I stood, in the midst of their traumatic situation, feeling almost as helpless and hapless as they felt.

I will be quick to admit that my heart was full of sorrow, empathy, and compassion. If I had the power to do so, I would have granted them equality right there on the spot.

So, what is my point in telling these stories? It is a simple one. It’s this: I honestly believe that a lot of people out there, a lot of Christians, have formed their very loud opinions about things like equal rights for homosexuals without actually having experienced what they are going through right now. I think a lot of us have formed opinions and have even called for laws without personally knowing one homosexual or homosexual couple. I think a lot of us out there have been more about law than relationships. I think a lot of us out there think we are representing God when in fact we have no idea who God really is and we have no idea what God does or how he does it. I think a lot of us out there think we are doing the work of Jesus, when in actuality we are merely working for ourselves.

The Kingdom of God deserves more effort than this, and, more importantly, so do people who are not like us.

Homosexuals and homosexual couples are welcomed into the Kingdom of God … and they are welcome to join us in our community as we learn how to become better followers of Jesus’ way of inclusion, recreation, transformation, and love.

Related posts:

1. Lancaster City’s Missional BIC Church
2. Live From 29 Palms: A Quick but Broad Update
3. Family Sledding Fun in the City Park!

The Fall 2008 Issue of Religious Humanism (a semi-annual periodical) includes an interesting article concerning the rise of “New Atheism” titled “New Atheism (and ‘New Humanism’).” James Farmalant – the author of the article – offers readers many brief but enlightening excerpts from a few of the most recent and most popular works published by four leading voices of New Atheism. Who are these four leading voices? Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and, of course, Richard Dawkins. Why are works from all four excerpted and explained? Farmalant needs to substantiate the article’s concluding suggestion that this new atheism basically compliments rather than antagonizes “New Humanism.” The citations in the article are examples of this congruence. That said, Farmalant is also quick to point out larger issues specific to New Atheism that could be benefited by a broader and more expansive approach.

Farmalant, for example, when discussing Daniel Dennett’s work in Breaking the Spell regarding the scientific understanding of religion as natural phenomenon that was perpetuated historically by cultural memes, cites James Brookfield’s critique of Dennett’s work.

James Brookfield, a Marxist reviewer of Dennett’s book, likes his “materialist approach but takes him to task for ignoring Marxist treatments of the history of religion. Brookfield says that Dennett’s analysis benefits from his use of a neo-Darwinian framework, but is too abstract, and could have benefited also from treating religion as a form of ideology rooted in economic relations in human societies. I think Dennett did take some of these factors into account when drawing upon Jared Diamond’s work, but that Diamond’s analysis itself is rather abstract and lacking in historical specificity characteristic of the best Marxist writing on religion.

So, it seems, Farmalent is indeed looking for points of congruence between New Atheism and New Humanism, and has indeed found them, but does not hesitate to point out a few of the more important philosophical and ideological differences existing between the two as well. Farmalant’s approach to the relationship shared between New Atheism and New Humanism is a charitable one, obviously. Instead of focusing completely upon negative and divisive differences, he majors on points of potential congruence while simultaneously celebrating the unique approaches inherent within each philosophy and how this uniqueness could positively benefit each philosophy. So far, so good. If only we all could dedicate ourselves to this sort of charity. The world would undoubtedly be a much better place.

That said, I have a few semi-relevant reflections.

1. What is Religious Humanism, anyway? If I were forced to accept a label it would be Religious Humanism, broadly. Specifically, I’d consider myself a Christian Humanist. What on earth does that mean? I’ll simply quote Gregory Wolfe, who explained Religious Humanism better than anyone I have read thus far in an editorial available online at IMAGE JOURNAL, titled Religious Humanism: A Manifesto.

What do I mean by religious humanism? The theologian Max Stackhouse recently provided a simple but suggestive definition. “Humanity,” Stackhouse wrote, “cannot be understood without reference to God; and neither God nor God’s revelation can be understood except through the lens of thought and experience.”

On the face of it, the term “religious humanism” seems to suggest a tension between two opposed terms – between heaven and earth. But it is a creative, rather than a deconstructive, tension. Perhaps the best analogy for understanding religious humanism comes from the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, which holds that Jesus was both human and divine. This paradoxical meeting of these two natures is the pattern by which we can begin to understand the many dualities we experience in life: flesh and spirit, nature and grace, God and Caesar, faith and reason, justice and mercy.

That, in a nutshell, is Religious Humanism. Religious Humanism neither ignores secular culture and its unarguable advances in the sciences and humanities and arts, nor does it ignore God. Religious Humanism is the term applied to the very demanding art of trying to reconcile evolving human knowledge with a perpetually mysterious universe laden with God’s revelation. Religious Humanism understands both science and revelation to be not only important in the larger scheme of humanity, but also completely unavoidable.

2. What is this “New Humanism” Farmalent is comparing and contrasting with/to New Atheism? This is not entirely clear to me. Is this “New Humanism” simply “Religious Humanism,” or is it an expression of “Secular Humanism” that includes intellectual, historical and scientific concessions for universal religious phenomena? These questions only raise more questions. If “New Humanism” is simply recapitulated “Religious Humanism,” and if “New Humanism” is an expression of “Secular Humanism w/ concessions for religious phenomenon,” then are we not talking about the same thing anyway, when we use the title “New Humanism?” After all, isn’t “Religious Humanism” built upon the same philosophical and scientific framework that Secular Humanism is constructed upon? Further, couldn’t someone like Dennett be called a Religious Humanist if his expression of Secular Humanism actually makes concessions for religious phenomenon? So, what is this “New Humanism,” exactly? It’s quite confusing, to say the least. This confusion of terms makes it fairly difficult to actually apply the congruence shared between atheist and religious humanists in an edifying and conciliatory way. I’m not saying it should not be applied; I’m saying that I’m not sure where to apply it.

3. Christians could learn something valuable from both Farmalant (his approach) and the “New Atheists” (their critique of our past expression) if only we would take the time and seriously listen to what they are saying. New Atheists represent a very, very large and growing group of diverse people. These people have much to say about the expression of God, religion, faith, and church that we – Christians – have perpetuated for the past few centuries. Their voice is an important one. They are our neighbors, brothers, sisters, moms and dads; they are our bosses, co-workers, teachers and leaders. Since when did listening to our critics – or our neighbors – become a spiritual detriment? Can we dispose of the visceral reactions long enough to sit down and listen to what these important people have to say? It may take a miracle for this to actually happen, and that is incredibly and devastatingly unfortunate. We fail. And please note, that we need not agree with all that Harris, Hitchens, Dennett and Dawkins are saying, and I for one do not, but a lot of what they are actually saying may have more to do with the false Deity we have created over the centuries than it does the God who is actually revealed to us through Jesus of Nazareth. These men – and others like them – deserve to be honestly and authentically engaged. They deserve an open listen. They may just be saying a few things that are true.

So, go and find, read, engage, contemplate and search. If God is God, he will be just fine and our expression of God will be better for it. Someone once said, “Any belief worth having must survive doubt.”

I believe that, 100%.

Related posts:

1. Schleiermacher and Humanism
2. I have a Two-sided Coin and No Pockets!
3. A Holy Blur of Sacred and Secular

Related posts:

1. Faith, Love and Life Part One
2. Bridge The Art of Connecting Part Two
3. Bridge: The Art of Connecting

Related posts:

1. Faith, Love and Life Part Two
2. Jesus and His Kingdom of God
3. Bridge The Art of Connecting Part Two

Any debate regarding the nature and worth of human beings that is based entirely upon immediate social structures and/or states, presupposed ethnic and/or socio-cultural prejudices, and historical/cultural relative aspects of religious belief should be avoided by any who wish to ethically address the deep questions raised by an incurably social humanity. Political platformers, social activists, literary geniuses, religious visionaries, philosophers, artists and theologians have argued, agreed, pushed, pulled, and, on more than a few occasions, loosed flashes of brilliance in addresses, rallies, debates, books and films regarding the topic of human civility. It seems, however, that a resolution regarding a universally complementary society remains unattainable. The evil culprit behind this aloofness surely must find its genesis within the ethical trilemma hinted at in the opening sentence of this paragraph (i.e., immediate social structures and/or states, presupposed ethnic and/or socio-cultural prejudices, and historical/cultural relative aspects of religious belief).

Meanwhile, the resultant wars – large or small – rage on. Individuals wishing to participate in any debate concerning the inherent nature and worth of all human beings should at the very least mark as their highest prerequisite the ability to properly differentiate human beings and immediate social structures/states, presupposed ethnic and/or socio-cultural prejudices, and historical/cultural relative aspects of religious belief. Declaration, however, should not stop there! The universals that are in fact available to us all should be part of this prerequisite too! Surprisingly, the effect of such a prerequisite is quite conducive to the disciplines upon which the trilemma is partially and crookedly constructed. Disciplines such as religion, cross-cultural anthropology, sociology, and history are not diluted but instead elevated to their proper positions.

The effect of a blind prioritization upon immediate social structures and/or states, presupposed ethnic and/or socio-cultural prejudices, and historical/cultural relative aspects of religious belief is no more vivid than in the long held debates regarding noble savagery, or, more specifically, the existence or non-existence of the noble savage. The questions concerning noble savagery conceptually rise from the annals of both American and world history, theological and philosophical dialogue, and, most ardently, from the pages of classic works of literature, such as: Shakespeare’s The Tempest, Cooper’s The Last of the Mohicans, Golding’s Lord of the Flies, and Achebe’s Things Fall Apart. The socio-literary messages in each of these works force a reader to seriously question the validity of the philosophical or theological prioritization of civil savagery over savage civility, or, of course, vice versa. I, however, believe the dilemma of the noble savage can indeed be solved by engaging the universal human condition ethically. This particular approach, however, places a very high priority upon religious, philosophical, anthropological, and historical understanding and continued dialogue.

UNIVERSAL HUMAN NATURE

Human beings are social beings, and universally so. Any noble savage debate/enquiry should be immediately tempered by this unavoidable fact. Human beings instinctively search for the social within immediate contexts/environments, regardless of the variety of these contexts/environments. Literary examples of this phenomenon appear regularly in popular works. For example, traditional or expected forms can be seen in familiar literary plots that include groups of children forming social cohesion amongst each other (Lord of the Flies), tribal togetherness (Last of the Mohicans), or the intrusion of the ‘civil’ upon the ‘uncivil’ (The Tempest/Things Fall Apart). Non-traditional forms exist too and serve as examples of not only the human need for social being, but also the incredible lengths at which environmental adaptation is sought in the name of social relationships. A non-traditional example can be observed in the script of Castaway.[1] Castaway’s story reveals a man so desperate for social interaction that he invents a companion out of a volleyball. Granted, the literature cited thus far is fiction, More often than not, however, literary license is really just a license to simply tell or express non-fiction aspects of truth. History itself supports the many ‘fictitiously-factual’ depictions of our social tendency/need to instinctively search for social cohesion as seen in the aforementioned examples of art, literature, and film. In fact, this history is so often preserved in the art and/or artifacts relative to particular eras that is unarguably unavoidable. Even Cromagnon humans – reaching as far back in time as 35,000 B.C.E. – have left evidence of their own instinctive social tendency and form.

Jacquetta Hawkes, a distinguished archaeologist, historian, and author, addresses this pre-historic social inclination aptly in the following excerpt:

[This] reference to a plurality of “groups” needs explanation. In the early days of archaeology, when the existence of this late Old Stone Age world was first being revealed in the cave dwellings of France and Spain, the excavators observed that various groups of distinctive flints and bone tools invariably appeared in the same relative order in the layers of occupation rubbish on cave floors. They were recognized as specialized cultural divisions within the blade and burin tradition and named after the French sites where they were best represented. When very similar remains were found throughout much of Europe and into Asia, the French names were extended to them. Although later generations of archaeologists have preferred to name many more localized cultures of the period and have questioned whether the extension of French nomenclature is valid, there still seems good reason to believe that widespread similarities of culture do in historical truth indicate movements of people or contacts among them. Radiocarbon dating supported this view when it proved that the succession of cultures corresponded to successive periods of time (though with some overlapping), and that in some instances the succession indicated a consistent spread from east to west. [2]

Social illustrations encompassing a broader scope of human history and time are readily available too, but for this particular study, Cromagnon evidence should suffice. Additional examples of this important historical fact would only be redundant. So, with the historicity of humanity’s instinctive social inclination securely established, a much bigger and perhaps even more important idea can be afforded our priority. This bigger idea concerns the specific type or character of human interaction within any given society or societal structure. History testifies to very, very diverse forms of social interaction. These forms are so diverse, in fact, that many of the groups responsible for creating the diversity would also consider them (the diverse forms) to be completely noninterchangeable. This noninterchangeability is as ironic as it is odd, given the fact that the instinctive drive to create civility exists in everyone equally. Herein exists a very subversive problem to the ongoing debate concerning the myth/reality of a being or community of beings who can or should be deemed civil savage(s) or savage civilian(s).

The very need for social being creates civility and diverse forms of civility. The civility, however, may and probably will appear differently as a result of geography, education, religion, culture, and scientific discovery/advancement. So, again, it could be better said that the need for social being creates “forms” of civility. A serious problem, however, is birthed not only from the misunderstanding of alien appearances/forms of civility, but also the forced attempt to superimpose one’s version over another’s in the name of human and/or cultural maturity, superiority, advancement, or even religion. When left unchecked such misunderstanding and superimposition distracts us from the more important and major human dilemma. What is the dilemma? It can be summarized with this age old, two-part question: “How should human beings interact with each other within their immediate social/civil structure, and how should we interact with others who have adapted to their own geography, education, religion, culture, and scientific discovery/advancement and formed social structures and expressions that look nothing like our own?” The solution to this universal issue can be found in a sharp focus upon specific aspects of relational being shared between the perpetuators of these tangible social structures at the local level, and it (the solution) can be realized in spite of any local, geographical, ritualistic, and linguistic peculiarities.

The first step, of course, is quite possible the most difficult. First we have to become aware of our own immediate social structures and/or states, presupposed ethnic and/or socio-cultural prejudices, and historical/cultural relative aspects of religious belief. Then we have to acknowledge and celebrate the same in others. Perhaps then we can discover unity while simultaneously expressing and celebrating our own uniqueness and identities. Should we ever manage to actually pull this off, I think our philosophical, religious, and literary ideas of “Noble Savagery” may just be reset.

Perhaps then, we will discover that civil nobility is realized by many, many cultures and not just our own.

[1] Imagemovers/Playtone (Producer). (2000). Castaway [Videotape]. Beverly Hills, CA: Twentieth Century Fox and Dreamworks Video.
[2] Jacquetta Hawkes, The Atlas of Early Man (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1976), 20.

Related posts:

1. Human Nature Theory and Ethical Orientations
2. Abstracting Postmodernism, Pluralism, and Ethics
3. Everything Must Change Chapter Twelve

Panentheism: Panentheism is the belief that God is the animating source/force behind the universe. Panentheism differs from Pantheism in that it does not equate God with the universe, synonymously. The universe is all God, but God is not limited to the universe.

Pantheism: Pantheism is the equating of the universe with God. God and the universe are one and the same. This differs from Panentheism, which posits God as the animating source/force of the Universe, but different from.

Christus Victor: Christus Victor is a theology of the cross of Jesus of Nazareth. Christus Victor is the title given one expression of Atonement. Jesus did not die to appease a God who required a satisfaction of sorts. Jesus died as he conquered sin, death, systemic injustice, and evil. Jesus of Nazareth conquered death. We now find victory over such things in Jesus.

Natural Revelation: Divine inspiration or knowledge sourced from the natural, or natural human abilities and process, such as nature and/or reason.

Wesleyan Quadrilateral: 1) Scripture – the Holy Bible; 2) Tradition – the two millennia history of the Church; 3) Reason – rational thinking; 4) Experience – one’s personal journey in Christ.

Original Sin: Original Sin is the theological term/phrase used to identify humanity’s inherited brokenness which resulted from Adam’s sin in the Genesis Garden. Original sin is passed along through the human reproductive act. This means we are all inherently sinful.

Foreknowledge: The term foreknowledge describes God’s ability (attribute) to be conscious of the past, present, and future, simultaneously and constantly. God’s knowledge is infinite.

Single Predestination: Single Predestination is a concept which characterizes God as a being who destined some for salvation. Jesus’ atonement is for the whole world. There are those who will not be saved, but their condemnation is a result of their own corruption and sinful wills.

Docetism: Docetism is a heresy which ignored the humanity of Jesus, thus making him a God who merely seemed to be a human. Jesus, in other words, was simply wearing a Jewish disguise and was not really human at all. He therefore could not and did not experience humanity in its fullness. Docetism – or a weak version of it – is quite possibly the most ignored heresy of our time.

Related posts:

1. A Serious Caveat Re: Christus Victor
2. Towards a Holistic Expression of Atonement
3. Penal Substitution or Christus Victor?