The AnteChurch

Especially Today, here in Boston

noreply@blogger.com (Josh Jinno) — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:22:00 +0000

Times and Dates

noreply@blogger.com (Josh Jinno) — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 14:01:00 +0000

If one does the math, based on Keplers calculation that Christ was born in 7bc, and not the year 0, then (or any other number of calculations) we find that Jesus was crucified in the year 26AD. This is significant for us in understanding and proving the resurrection because it is indeed on that year that April 1 falls on the first day of the week, or Sunday. The other significant fact about that year is that Passsover was to start on March 14, but because of the way in which it interfered with two Sabbaths, the date was bumped so that it started ten days before the last sabbath of the month (which means it began on March 18th at Sundown, ending with the Passover meal on Thursday March 28th).

This is the same Thursday on which we as Christians celebrate Maundy Thursday or the last supper. The Crucifixion took place then on Friday March 29. Jesus was in the tomb for 40 hours according to the church tradition, which has him rising again on Sunday April 1. Quite the April fools joke if you ask me: Hey I'm not really dead!

Throughout history Jesus institution of April fools day has been diminished by hostile forces within the church, in favor of the old pagan tradition of fertility and "Easter." But even Paul says those who are Perishing find the gospel to be "foolishness" and "The foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man."

Oh, and YouTube is deleting all our videos at midnight tonight!

Babylon and the desert of Sin

noreply@blogger.com (Josh Jinno) — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 12:06:00 +0000

1 Peter 5:13 13
She [your sister church here] in Babylon, [who is] elect with [yourselves], sends you greetings, and [so does] my son Mark.

As I ponder the current state of the Roman Church, I think: If Peters Babylon was Rome, he sees those there as being in exile... If that is so he would never have intended to establish the central headquarters of the church "he was to build" there.

If however Peter meant something like "the persecuted church" or some kind of "realized eschatology" in his statement about Babylon, then Peter probably never went to Rome to establish any church...

context to tragedy

noreply@blogger.com (Josh Jinno) — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 02:55:00 +0000

Death doesn't bother me; sure loss isn't a picnic mourning represents a change within us, how will we go on? how will we survive? how will we fill that empty place in our lives that we had filled with the love both from and for the departed.

But when you think about it, mourning is more about us than it is about the departed. Few if any of us would express sorrow about where we believe our loved ones end up - sure we'll callously do it about someone else's loved ones, but when it comes down to our own, even the most hell-firey and brim-stoney among us lean universalist in praxis. Don't believe me? go to more funerals. The command to love your neighbor as yourself gets a real test when facing scenes of grief stricken loved ones searching for their own way to find meaning to their loss.*

Often when I do funerals, my own meditation drives me to ontological query. What does it mean to exist? Is existence real? Is existence merely a physical thing? Why do we who exist, spend the bulk of our "nows" re-living the past, and pre-living our futures? Is existence possible in either the past or future? Is existence limited to now? If we speak of now in this sense, it is really the "eternal now". If I exist now, then I exist in the eternal now. Neither death nor life then are of consequence to existence. How do I become fully present as an existent being in the eternal now?

When Jesus asked the question about the tower of Siloam in Luke 13, this seems to have been his point. We get caught up in words like "repent" and their connotation today; but what if repent is a call to live in the eternal now? Wasn't this the kind of "life" that Jesus offered; living water; abundant life; truth; light? The past is dim and dark, the future is cloudy, but right now we can be in the light, as he is in the light.

How then do you place context around tragedies? Is not the tragedy itself a chance for us to be present?
Why is it that two tragedies inspire him to talk about a fruit tree that has not yielded fruit in three years? Why does the vineyard keeper appeal for one more year on behalf of the tree, to prune and fertilize it so as to see it bear fruit? We look for someone or something to blame in a tragedy, but Jesus said that there was no point in that. We can spend lots of effort in pointless pursuits lobbying for or against gun control, stricter rules for schools, legislation mandating medications on the mentally ill, or making it easier to place them in institutions - none of which will prevent another tragedy.

When we can distance ourselves from the emotional fury caused by the scenes on the news, and when we can free our selves from fear of death, I can tell you the best way to prevent the next tragedy: When was the last time you reached out to someone who was troubled or emotionally unstable, or unlovely? When was the last time you asked; Who is my neighbor?

*[For those who would like to argue doctrine; watch your practice. For the few who are bold enough to condemn someone at a funeral it probably wouldn't help anyway to point to the doctrine of the keys.]

Windows 8 Start Button; aspects of change

noreply@blogger.com (Josh Jinno) — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:52:00 +0000

Windows 8 is an interesting parallel/analogy in how we humans can dislike change. Seemingly minor things often get us out of sorts - maybe not upset, but it can confuse us. Perhaps I don't need a start menu? But my mind isn't ready to stop clicking on the lower left corner of the screen and opening whatever program is pinned to the task bar there.

Tactics of change are quite important. We often use logic like this: "It's just a small change, it's minor, why does it matter?" which isn't very empathetic, and sets us up for logic like this: "well if it's so small and minor, why can't I have it my way?" Maybe this is why the apocryphal story of Coca-Cola comes to mind. When they wanted to switch from cane sugar to corn syrup, they removed the product from the shelves completely, introducing "New Coke" only to bring back the slightly reformulated "Coca-Cola Classic" once we'd all had our taste adjusted to a different flavor. It was a major gamble to take; and in the end it paid off

At Church we often fall into the trap of the former logic. Somebody thinks the Pulpit should stay in the center of the platform, it's not a big thing why does it matter. Somebody else thinks the announcements should go in the middle of the service, it's not a big thing, why does it matter. Children in the service, Types of music, How the coffee is made, how much heat we use, whether we use a microphone... all little things, so why do they matter.

The fact is that for those affected they aren't little things - that's why downloads of "start button programs" for windows 8 are leading people to speculate that even Microsoft might bring them back (especially after firing their top man).

All this leaves me to ponder: Should I put a start button program on my computer? or should I adapt to the change?

History

noreply@blogger.com (Josh Jinno) — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:31:00 +0000

History is replete with examples we could learn from, if we didn't simply chose to accept the easy explanation. Does Occam's razor apply to history? maybe so, but certainly there is a difference between the simplest path between two points, and the simplest way to understand the path between two points - and so we trip ourselves up on cosmetically altered notions of history.

One example: Why and where did the first modern universities spring up? Our cosmetically altered answer has something to do with the thirst for knowledge and the altruistic spirit of generous benefactors in renaissance Europe. The less cosmetically attractive history reads a long brutal history of crusades, which sent the land into economic hardship. The papal answer to this, was to no longer send armies but inquisitors to hunt heretics... but when the people revolted from even this heavy handed approach, it was figured that institutes of higher learning, if opened to laity could provide a uniformity of opinion and scholarship which served to prevent such heresies from arising in the first place. In a way Universities, and especially Seminaries are the bastard children of the Inquisition and Crusades.

Take such incestuous scholarship forward a few centuries, and people no longer remember nor take seriously major historical figures and their work, the blood of saints and martyrs, chalking such histories that survive as old wives tales. We call these times the "dark ages" without consideration for their cause. One clear cause is the attempt to impose a unifying faith on the masses as a means of subjecting them - with the corresponding emphasis on "orthodox" purity and brutal suppression of heterodoxy.

America has mastered this cosmetic alteration of history. The Boston Tea party was a respectable protest, George Washington was god like, The native Americans were small tribes of isolated peoples before Europeans came, and Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. It is possible to go on and on with this civic nonsense, or we could just witness the retelling of "facts" on the current campaign trail. Given some recent comments however about the importance of deciding the future of our country on the ground of deciding for or against free markets, I'd like to examine some of the glossed over history.

We think of the 1800's as a time of upheaval and conflict over the issue of slavery. We see the racial prejudice and brutality suffered by black people as rightly reprehensible. Toward the end of the war, they were set free by proclamation of the president - not due to his moral or ethical stance, but rather as a means to cause a further blow in this case to the economy of the rebellious south in order to ensure the surrender and unity of the nation. The Great Debate, as we have called it in our history books was all about the morality of holding people as slaves because of the color of their skin; but we never read the writings of southern scholars who posited that the confederacy, the war, the debate was really about the competition of two economic systems.

The truth is, as ugly as it may seem; it was. While abolitionists fought for the end to maltreatment of humans who are our brothers, many of their northern neighbors did just that, even worshiping together with a clear conscience absolved of guilt - for they held no slaves. And yet we do not see the dormitories in Lowell or the twelve and a half hour days worked by women and children with no safety equipment or protection or benefit in the event of injury or sickness or days off (except for Sunday which was strictly regulated as to what was permissible, church attendance was a term of employment). You see: in exchange for a paycheck, the owners of these factories were absolved of having any ethical obligation for their employees; Whereas in the south that ethical obligation stood, however compromised by the notion of property ownership.

Now the Republican party of the 1960's has changed it's tune. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who will openly accept the southern form of economics (and discrimination) but we do find politicians openly embracing the northern approach through their cunning use of phrases like "free markets" and "fair trade." We avoid this comparison due to respect for the many people of color who suffered under the repugnant economic system of the south - but we cannot afford to avert our eyes as Mitt Romney and the like advocate for neo-feudalism saying that it's somehow our fault that we, the 47% who supposedly don't pay taxes, don't earn enough money for the government to see it ethical or worthwhile to dip into our pockets and take what little money the working poor have earned; the sacrifice of the rich to cleanse their conscience from any sense of ethics. I could go on and on about the cult of money... but what about civic responsibility?

Do you know what the Magna Carta is Mr. Romney? Do you understand that the purpose of modern common law government is to restrain the "divine right" of a monarch who owned everything, and could take it away or give it wherever he pleased without any sense of obligation to a fellow man? Because if you do, you'll see that the right of a people to food and shelter as you so malign, is precisely the underpinnings of what we like to tout around the world as "the rule of law."

Saint Leo Tolstoy

noreply@blogger.com (Josh Jinno) — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:02:00 +0000

Banned in Russia, ignored by the West: Leo Tolstoy wrote what could be called a dissertation on the “An Introduction to a Criticism of Dogmatic Theology” where in he lays out a stunning critique of the post Nicene church, its theology, and its appropriation of Christ’s teaching. In “What I believe” he lays down what he believes to be the foundational doctrine of Christ (and God) “Do not resist evil.” It is a fascinating take, even if you disagree with his ultimate conclusion because he asks many of the same questions we ask today: Why has the church in such a concerted way refused to acknowledge any alternate interpretations of Christ teaching? Why are we so eager to participate in the sacraments, build edifices, and proselytize, and yet refuse to keep the command to turn the other cheek?

He adopts the word Anarchy, and yet his form of Anarchy is nothing like our current understanding: His idea is that by resisting evil, we are making judgments as to what is evil and what is good - thus participating in evil ourselves and perpetuating it. By refusing to participate in evil, by not resisting it, the world is changed.... He describes a world that looks much like what the early church looked like as a result of this. You can listen to the audio book for free from Librivox... good for in the car:
http://archive.org/details/whatibelieve_1101_librivox its about 230MB

Gay Marriage or not

noreply@blogger.com (Josh Jinno) — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:58:00 +0000

1 Timothhy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. (NIV)

This passage gives me pause, as I consider the current turmoil in the Church over the homosexual marriage issue. Many say this passage has nothing to do with homosexuality per se; and I agree. However the question it does raise is the interference of the Church in matters of personal living. Many people say that this passage is specifically dealing with the problem of asceticism, however I don't find that a valid argument when we consider the context, or the remainder of Paul's exhortation to Timothy. Here's why:

Immediately preceding this passage Paul gives the reason for his instruction: so that "you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." Again immediately following in verse 6 Paul tells Timothy that pointing this out will make him a good minister of Christ. Some will say that this still does not rule out asceticism, that the Gnostics were pushing a doctrine of material evil to which Paul is responding - but even if we choose to read this narrowly, we must also apply the principle that forbidding homosexual marriage is also a type of asceticism. Chastity has long been one of the key elements of asceticism, and so forbidding any type of marriage in this narrow view must be seen as an ascetic condemnation (since the Church also generally condemns sex outside of marriage).

Rather we must read this passage as a warning against taking sides in a popular discourse in which we are not guided by the Holy Spirit of God. Forcing people to take sides in the homosexual marriage debate, or a debate about meat sacrificed to idols is a side show, a distraction from how people generally must conduct themselves as members of God's household. Far worse, is the implication that doing so opens the door for the abandonment of faith, the seering of our conscience, and eventually demonic influence. David gives us a glimpse of the anguish of such an effect in Psalm 13:2 "How long must I wrestle with my thoughts and every day have sorrow in my heart?"

The problem of course is a resorting to a dead legalism rather than a living faith based on the grace of God. God's method of redemption is not a resistance of evil, but a self sacrificing, loving, offering of himself. Romans 1 of course gives us this warning more sternly: It is because we did not deem it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God we were given over to "shameful lusts..." the answer is not to become legalistic about the "shameful lusts" but to retain the knowledge of God.

Being a part of the conversation: A Primer

noreply@blogger.com (Josh Jinno) — Thu, 24 May 2012 15:41:00 +0000

I've come across a number of people who have no idea what I'm talking about when I mention some of the more "relevant" subjects dealing with "progressive," "emerging," and alternative Christian faith. For any one who does not think it is relevant, just consider the Newsweek cover article from the week of Easter 2012 "Forget the Church follow Jesus." Everyone knows at least one person who is "Spiritual but not religious" - this is relevant.

So, although not exhaustive, I compiled a list of names, websites and resources that are helpful in familiarizing oneself with what is going on (it needs additions for sure, but here's my cursory attempt).

Patheos (patheos.com)
Huffington Post (religion column - huffingtonpost.com/religion)
Tony Jones (and his blog Theoblogy - tonyj.net)
Steve Knight (knightopia.com)
N.T. Wright
Barbara Butler Bass
Kurt Willems (Pangea blog)
Brad Brisco - (sentralizedgathering.com and missionalchurchnetwork.com)
Wild Goose Festival (wildgoosefestival.org)
Wikipedia article on "Emerging Church"
Tony Pappas (Executive minister at The American Baptists of Massachusetts)
Phillip K. Wyman (Founder and Pastor at "The Gathering" in Salem)
Sean Witty (Pastor at First Baptist Newton, MA)
Jim Powell (Weakchristian.wordpress.com)
Roger Thoman (Simple Church)

Books I'd recommend in order to have a fruitful conversation:

Born to Win (James and Jongeward)
The New Christians (Tony Jones)
A Generous Orthodoxy (Brian McLaren)
The Company of the Committed (Elton Trueblood)
The Apostolic Fathers (Lightfoot, Harmer, and Holmes)
No Place For Truth (David Wells)
Pagan Christianity (Frank Viola and George Barna)
Sacred Romance (John Eldredge and Brent Curtis)
A Little Exercise For Young Theologians (Helmut Thielicke)

Economics 101 (or what should be)

noreply@blogger.com (Josh Jinno) — Thu, 17 May 2012 14:14:00 +0000

Colbert and Tyson FTW

noreply@blogger.com (Josh Jinno) — Thu, 17 May 2012 11:29:00 +0000

I guess I'm part of the generation that takes Stephen Colbert and John Stewart more seriously and CNN and Fox News - perhaps because they seem to actually care about the direction our society is going. Humor often is a way we humans deal with discomfort, like fourth graders giggling about puberty. This however is a terrific interview on the need to be inquisitive.

I love his comment about not letting the name fool you; dark matter, dark energy, Fred, Wilma... the thought crossed my mind that this is precisely how we often think about God - we let the name fool us. Further, I think there is a good argument in the statement that any technology sufficiently advanced will appear to be magic... I'd say that extends beyond mere technology to thought process and ideas as well - and I think too many people see God in this light.

As I think about the purpose of Church (apart from the religious agenda) I have come to the realization that its only legitimacy is found in two ways (and this applies to any religious institution): First (and kudos to Ed for his help coming up with this) is "Fostering community." The second one, I haven't made as neat and orderly but it is to help people make sense of the universe of which they are a part - helping them not attribute everything to magic/miracles/etc... Now this runs counter to what most people think religious community is supposed to do, because religious community usually doesn't do this -- but just as the technology for the A-bomb is neither good nor bad, it's what people have done with the power they have which is the problem.

In other words, the role of the church is analogous to this video in many ways.

Rational limitations

noreply@blogger.com (Josh Jinno) — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:25:00 +0000

I've recently been reading a bit of Emerson and Bertrand Russell. This has got me thinking about the subject of rationality. Russell and Emerson have two different approaches to human rationality, and yet they both find it to be one of the most valuable human capacities. Russell, in his essay on why he is not a Christian formulates many of the arguments active today against religion, and yet as an atheist, he must surely account for the idea that in the absence of a deity, religion itself must be the work of human reason.

If human reason can produce nothing but superstition, then what makes our new approach to reason any better than the old approach? Emerson of course argues that this is nothing new. We can and should identify with those who in ages past faced the same dilemmas. Clearly we cannot reject rationality, but on the other hand, we must learn that rationality has it's limits as demonstrated by history - by this I mean that it was rational intelligence which Aristotle exhibited when he theorized that geese spent the winter months underwater, even though he was wrong. It was rational intelligence that led people to theorize that their success in battle was a result of divine favor, it was the best explanation that they could come up with to make sense of the world around them. Rationalism is sometimes wrong. It was rational to warn people about the dangers of the cholesterol content of coconut oil back in the 1980's before we knew the clear difference between HDL and LDL cholesterol - It is also rational to revise our position based on further evidence.

What is irrational, is to disregard further evidence, to be unwilling to adapt, or change. Insistence on the flat world theory, or that geese winter under water despite clear evidence to the contrary would be irrational. Likewise it is irrational to deny the existence of the world, or geese, because my theory about them was incorrect - rather the rational position is to adapt my own thinking based on the best evidence available, understanding that my rationality still cannot be considered infallible, and constantly searching for further adaptations to make. Russell makes a profound observation when he states it "is really due to the poverty of our imagination."

Of what value is a Bachelor of Arts in Biblical and Theological Studies?

noreply@blogger.com (Josh Jinno) — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 03:41:00 +0000

I actually feel that my degree is of quite a lot of value, but when you consider the job prospects of a person with a liberal arts degree, the educational experience counts for nearly nothing. There aren't a lot of companies even willing to hire someone they know has a degree in Biblical studies, and if they are, it isn't because of the degree. With the job prospects most of us have, we find people with masters degrees working at Starbucks and Taco Bell - there isn't much value to be found in the secular job market.

So now that I am actually working in my field, as a pastor, what value does my degree have? For the vast majority of my peers, it is worthless because it isn't an Mdiv. I have to jump through a whole extra set of hoops to get recognized within a denomination - and I get those telling signs all the time about how I need more training, education, and mentoring (even though I've had a mentor for 12 years, and I've continued my education on my own; I'm currently plowing through Barth's Church Dogmatics). My theological education began when I was young, reading my fathers books and listening to his taped lectures from seminary, spending four years studying Theology, and Missions, (and a little film) and internship and two years as assistant pastor under a wise mentor, several years freelancing in missional evangelism; yet there are people who can get a bachelors in engineering, and then spend three years in a masters program and are more "qualified" than I. My education must count for something: Sallie Mae certainly thinks so.

But here's my beef: We tell people in the pews that they are to be equipped for works of ministry, we tell them that there is a doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, we tell them that they are to make disciples, to participate in the mission of God who is reconciling all things to himself. We want them to get off their butts and do something - but what is the message the church is sending to the pews, if with all my experience and education I'm not qualified? They certainly have every excuse to feel that they are not qualified either.

Does the church need walls

noreply@blogger.com (Josh Jinno) — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:17:00 +0000

During a recent conversation about the future of Christianity, the question of "what is at stake" was raised. It seems to me that what is at stake is our attachment, whatever it is that we are holding on to and afraid of losing, or failing to grab that could be beneficial. This got me thinking about the proverbial "sacred cows;" do I have the right ones? Do I need any?

In my current role at a church, it seems to be the prevailing wisdom that when the funding dries up, and the people go away, when the church sells the building or closes its doors, that is somehow a failure. But if we are so attached to the wrong things, perhaps we need to be stripped of them; what if this is God's way of telling us to get out of "our" building and into "his" world? For my part this demands a commitment, no matter how brutalized and demoralized the church becomes. It is because we are not sufficiently "the body of Christ" that we must be refined - and so I find myself redefining AnteChurch yet again.

noreply@blogger.com (Josh Jinno) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:11:00 +0000

Only a courageous poet can submit
work among the arrogant masses
Attempting to reach beyond the limit
of ordinary prose, the poet expresses
inner revelations and conclusions
only to be met by our delusions;
experts we all a crime commit
poetry killed by a mass of cynics
it is not dead for lack of poets
rather fear of pompous critics.

Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus || Spoken Word

noreply@blogger.com (Josh Jinno) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:55:00 +0000

There is a video going around that I've seen dozens of people post to Facebook, and it looks like it is going viral among what I would call disaffected Christians. Tony Jones and others have weighed in on it as crap (my words not his) criticized its "false dichotomies" and its "demonizing of religion" but the reality is this video has struck a chord. I'll admit I personally cringe at a couple of the lines, but I also know that writing poetry is hard - and sometimes you have to take a bit of artistic license.

Part of it maybe the delivery, or the frenetic film style in which it was produced, certainly a poem on it's own would get less notice - but there is a message too, and that's what people like about it. Church seems to have left most of us behind - you can go to a gigantic consumer driven church, or a small dying church stuck in the 1950's, you can go to church to learn how wonderful you are, or how messed up you are; but there seems to be a missing middle ground between the Michelle Bachmans and the Jay Bakkers. Church has been mainly focused on providing solutions for problems - salvation, morality, et. al. but there are many people caught in the middle, not willing to say that there is no sin, and yet not willing to put on a plastic front of self righteousness. There is at its core the fundamental desire to struggle with my sin, my faith, my God because then, my theology is mine, built from a relationship and consciousness of the divine.

There is also sociological phenomena at play. We all have a tendency to look down on those we disagree with, and when left to our own devices, we have shown time and time again that we gravitate toward the programmatic, the replicable, the safe. We institutionalize that which has shown organic promise - we have methods and six simple steps - but people are hungry for more.

Most interesting to me is that this video seems to have struck a chord primarily with younger Christians - people still in the church. There are the disaffected in the pews! I personally struggle with convincing people within my own church that this attitude even exists, that it is not mere indifference that keeps people away, but rather intense personal passion which has no expression in either a stodgy atmosphere, or at a pep rally; and this may be the future of church.

Why I reject morality:

noreply@blogger.com (Josh Jinno) — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 14:23:00 +0000

Recently during a conversation I had the opportunity once again to share my thoughts on the nature of sin. I shared with this individual how in my reading of the Genesis account, I see God command Adam and Eve not to partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - that in the day they do, they shall surely die (Genesis 2:17). I asked, What is morality but the knowledge of good and evil?

We have built a whole system around this concept in the name of "Jesus" and yet he taught a different system; an ethic of love your neighbor as yourself. Morality is concerned with me, it breeds self loathing, or self righteousness - it's all about me. The fruit of this is the judgment of others; something else we're told by Jesus not to do (Luke 6:37). This Ethic of Jesus to love our neighbor is all about others, it compells us to act in the best interest of others, exemplified by Christ's own sacrifice of his life. It makes no categorical judgments but relies heavily upon the concepts of mercy and grace.

Paul's statement in Galatians 3, that the law is a school teacher makes much more sense in this context; It shows us that our natural compulsion to be "moral" puts us in an impossible situation, there is no other way that it can "lead us to Christ." Jesus made that even more clear in the sermon on the mount, for it is not just the deed that is immoral, but also the thought.

For those who think this lets us off the hook, let me ask you; which is easier, to act based on our judgments of right and wrong, or to act always in the interest of others. Let me express it another way with the analogy between a set of directions and a compass. A compass gives us a guiding direction, but no specifics - we have to judge whether to go to the left or right of the boulder, whether the best direction is to go straight up the mountain or around... and there is risk in the undertaking. A set of directions is less risky, we are assured these are the best directions available, and that the directions are absolute - and yet we know that no set of directions can get us to the goal, In fact the directions were given to us to show us how helpless we are following them - so what do we follow?

It is interesting how morality also causes us to judge others intentions, while an Ethic of loving your neighbor encourages us to judge our own (remember the splinter and the log?).

noreply@blogger.com (Josh Jinno) — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:57:00 +0000

worth reading

noreply@blogger.com (Josh Jinno) — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:26:00 +0000

A thought provoking article... while I can't see either evidence of nor the necessity of a "proof" the idea that conscience is an integral part of the universe holds some fascinating implications for a societal ethic which undermines many of the dysfunctional systems in place. I'm currently studying the Bhagavad-Gita in which this notion of divine consciousness/self consciousness is a recurring theme, and draws me back to parallels within the teaching of Jesus (of which there are many). It is refreshing to read these insights from a new perspective, as it lends new language to what might have seemed in the old context to be worn out ideas.

American Socialism

noreply@blogger.com (Josh Jinno) — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 15:42:00 +0000

Which is more socialist; to demand the radical redistribution of wealth,

or to demand that everyone shut up and go back to work and be useful?

See true socialism, does not demand equality; rather it demands that everyone take their place; some are more equal than others for their various reasons (wealth, power, importance etc...) Socialism sees the good of the whole as more important than the good of the component parts, this is how the USSR could maintain power for so long - sure there were Gulags, and sure there might be no opportunity for advancement, but "I'm fulfilling my duty as a member of this Society." In a socialist society we are all cogs in a machine.

Representative democracy, demands that everyone be treated equally, that everyone have an equal voice; truly equal. One may argue that due to education and status, that some are not capable of rising to the level necessary to have such a voice - this of course is a socialist argument (that some are more equal) however, in a democracy, the highest value is the promotion of equality: Education to those who lack it, Opportunity to those born low, money and welfare to those who are in need, so that they might not lose their equal voice, simply because they can't afford to speak or are too occupied with meeting their needs for daily bread. You see, representative democracy sees the good of the component parts as essential to the good of the whole.

Politicians often appeal to the Religious values that our forefathers had when founding this nation. But the religious values that this nation was founded upon, were not some specific moral values, nor did they respect the establishment of religion; certainly some still remembered when men were persecuted and killed for their beliefs not just in the old world, but in the new. The very founding of the nation was undertaken with these words "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" 87 years later Abraham Lincoln had not forgotten the founding principals, or its universal bearings; "a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." The religious convictions of the founding fathers were unarguably based upon this ethic: that some power beyond ourselves has ordained all men equal, and we must strive toward this goal.

But what about Capitalism?

Capitalism is the idea that by allowing individuals to achieve success, and be rewarded for that success, will create a better society. There are trickle down theories, and monetary theories, and investment schemes. But the Chinese system should tell us that Capitalism and Socialism are far from antithetical. Moreover, the trend in America toward recognizing the equality of each persons money, and not their intrinsic equality as a human being - has led us further down the path toward losing what made our national experiment great in the first place.

American Civic values have been lost. Not only have we slipped down the path of not finding intrinsic value in each human being, whenever there is a budget shortfall, we are quick to cut those programs that promote essential equality; Education, Welfare, Essential services. If the police service gets cut, who gets less protection? If the fire service gets cut, whose house will be allowed to burn? See this is a dangerous game of lifeboat, in which we've convinced ourselves that somebody indeed has to go - when the essential American value is that no one goes, or we all do. "Free Market" Capitalism is the seed of Socialism, and it is destroying America.

The language of class

noreply@blogger.com (Josh Jinno) — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 01:09:00 +0000

Have you ever noticed the different language people of different income brackets use when describing economic realities. Watch any investment program and you'll hear about winners and losers, as if this was a game - Talk to any of the families that use our food pantry, and you'll here the language of trying to keep enough food on the table to feed hungry kids, of going to bed hungry, of not being able to afford proper medical care, of slipping through the cracks - one thing is sure, to them this is not a game.

Or perhaps we even disconnect on the meanings of words when we use the same ones. To the investment manager, or the stock-holder, to earn money means to have money in an account somewhere that multiplies. To all the working stiffs, earning means working your tail off, trying to not get sick and miss work and getting a check every two weeks.

And why do we allow the words legal and illegal assuage our concsience of the ethical failure to defend the cause of the fatherless, widow and foreigner? Perhaps it was legal for the Investment banks to bet against us and cause this economic collapse, while making money hand over fist - but it wasn't ethical or right. Perhaps it's illegal for Juan to bring his family here to seek a better future for his children than the life he got facing child prostitution and unprecedented violence by drug cartels - but it is ethical - because you would do it to.

When did we stop caring?

The Christmas Story revisited

noreply@blogger.com (Josh Jinno) — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 18:23:00 +0000

I'm in the process of working on a Christmas presentation that isn't the same old same old. I think we've kinda watered the whole thing down, to the point where while many of us hate the whole commercialization, we're at-least comfortable with it. I've noticed that old engravings and artwork of the nativity scene often have the character of Satan in them, but we've sanitized that right out of the story. Here's the rough draft of what I'm working on for our Christmas pageant this year (may be re-used with attribution):

Let me tell you a little story
Of events that occurred long ago
A battle was fought in the heavens
While other things went on below

With part of the story you’re familiar
A baby, a manger, some hay
But the rest may sound quite peculiar
I assure you it happened this way

There appeared in the heavens a woman
The moon resting under her feet
Clothed in the suns golden radiance
Twelve stars on her brow took their seat

The woman was pregnant with child
You may know how she got there
Pledged to be married to Joseph
Who was afraid lest people should care

That he was not the father
Of this baby within her so fair
Conceived by the power of the spirit
God as a babe she should bear

‘Twas foretold in the very beginning
Her offspring would crush Satan’s head
And so it is not surprising
To find that he wanted it dead

Up in the heavens a dragon
With seven foul heads and ten horns
Awaited the birth of the child
To devour as soon as ‘twas born

This a vision of Christ’s sore temptation
Satan tried to make him bow down
Ultimately he suffered humiliation
On a cross with thorns for a crown

By suffering his salvation was made perfect
For being God, he did not raise his voice
And without sin’s curse to hold him
To spit him out, death had no choice

Being thus brought into heaven
And sitting high up on its throne
He shall indeed rule all nations
His Justice and mercy be known

This is where I join the story
For war was engaged in that night
And I and my minions of glory
Fought darkness with arrows of light

And when we had cast down that serpent
A voice spoke declaring it done
No more to accuse the brethren
The armies of heaven had won

‘Twas to poor Nazarene shepherds
In our most jubilant state
We appeared and sang of God’s praises
And told of the child born late

I can only imagine their bewilderment
On seeing the heavenly host
Encamped in the heavens around them
Scared stiff as if seeing a ghost

Fear not was how I reassured them
Glad tidings of peace and great joy
You’ll find in a manger in Bethlehem
You’re hope, a new baby boy

Glory to God in the highest
On God’s favored ones, peace to them
The battle is now done and over
And born is salvation for men

They went and found this child
With his mother and father so close
All night in and out they filed
Not a single soul dared be morose

But the dragon on earth himself finding
Decided the woman to pursue
But she has gone into hiding
On wings like eagles she flew

Waters he spewed forth against her
But the earth has swallowed them up
God has ordained her protection
From the wrath of Satan’s Cup

So the Dragon, wroth with the woman
Has come to make war with her seed
Those who keep the testimony of Jesus
Who worship in Spirit and Deed

Risky business

noreply@blogger.com (Josh Jinno) — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:27:00 +0000

In investing, the key measure that people must keep in sight is risk. Some investments are higher in risk, while others are more secure. No investment is entirely secure - that's the basic principle of investing, there is a good chance you will make money, but some chance you will lose. In the early days of investing, the idea of shareholding, was to divide the risk, so that no failure would fall completely on the shoulders of one investor. The cost to this was sharing the profits. Over time the cost of risk has been sidelined, and almost forgotten. Risk was something that happened to some, but on a whole if you diversified, the only way things could go was up.

But recently, most people have been exposed to what seems to us to be unprecedented losses. In this circumstance, the government has stepped in to provide some measure of economic stability. Bailing out the banks, kept them solvent, so that mom and pop didn't lose all their deposits. Bailing out the Car maufacturers kept them in business, so that we have domestic production. Similarly bailing our local municipalities keeps bonds secure. The government is mitigating risk, because as a society we did not envision this amount of risk and loss associated with certain types of investments (although maybe we should have).

But everyone understands that monetary investment has risk. If I loan you money, there is a good chance that you will pay me %110 back, but there is also a chance that you will only be ale to pay me 70%. The problem with the comoditization of everything is that things like education are counted as individual investments, rather than social participation in national productivity. In 1998 when I graduated from high school we were told by our guidance counsellors to get a college education no matter the cost. We were told we wouldn't be able to get a job without one. Today, even college graduates and those with post-graduate degrees are facing unemployment. Unsympathetic voices on the news condemn students saying "they knew the risks when they got into this" and yet this is patently untrue. We were told that an education in itself would be valuable, that we would have unlimited job prospects; that in a recession we would have the jobs, not the highschool grads. We were not told of the risks.

But the disgusting part in all this, is that those who invested in us, the banks and government funds that seek a dividend in return for paying for our education, are garaunteed no risk. The school gets its money up front, and a student is obligated to pay regardless of ability, or even bankruptcy. Shouldn't the bankers face some risk? the government says no. Shouldn't companies face some risk? the government says no. Shouldn't investors face some risk? the government says no. But what about college graduates? the government says we are the garauntors of the bankers, the companies and our parents - accept the risk and pay up.

I'm nonplussed...

noreply@blogger.com (Josh Jinno) — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 17:53:00 +0000

So I have a theory, it's a bit of a conspiracy theory of sorts: Journalism majors all over the world are conspiring to insert the word "nonplussed" into print media at any opportunity. It's kinda like the Rickroll, or the game (yeah you lost too) but in an esoteric journalist way...

Of course I have no proof, except the increasing prevalence of this word in just about every article I read. I certainly come to this with my own assumptions, such as that writing generally reflects the usage of language in the culture as a whole. Honestly (and I'm probably showing my ignorance and lack of culture here) I have never heard anyone slip "nonplussed" into a casual conversation; aside from journalists I don't think I've ever heard anyone use it. It's everywhere, from the Boston Globe, New York Times, CNN, Reuters...

It is I am sure a secret plot to leave us all nonplussed, so that they can take over the world.

Ever wonder how the "economy" can be recovering...

noreply@blogger.com (Josh Jinno) — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 20:45:00 +0000

...when you and everybody you know is still hurting? Bet you are doing more with less these days, both at home and at work. Here is a great article on how it works, and why we shouldn't let it: Speed-up