The AnteChurch

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

worth reading

noreply@blogger.com (jjinno) — 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 (jjinno) — 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 (jjinno) — 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 (jjinno) — 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 (jjinno) — 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 (jjinno) — 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 (jjinno) — 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

For the love of Vermont

noreply@blogger.com (jjinno) — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:53:00 +0000

Her verdant hills of deciduous leaves

Her hills and rolling mountains

The winter frost, or the spring's sweet air

I love the land I come from

Spirit of liberty, freedom, and truth

Many thanks to the people who raised me

And though I live far from the land of my youth

Her spirit lives on inside me

Why "pro-life" is Anti-Christian...

noreply@blogger.com (jjinno) — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:13:00 +0000

Well I won't go so far as to claim that these people are actively and purposefully seeking to counter the message of the gospel, it is clear that there is a failure to compute. Abortion is violent and distasteful...

But God was pro-choice. He was, he gave Adam a choice, he gave me a choice, Jesus even had a choice. What is more, on the issue of life and death, God is pro-choice... When Cain's offering was not accepted, God told him, "Sin is crouching at your door and it desires to have you, but you must master it." (Genesis 4:7) He could have stopped Cain, but he didn't, he gave him a choice.

It was 19th century secular philosophers who sought to make a justification for morality apart from God: Kant, Neitzsche. Modern Pro-lifers find their justification in the legal and political spheres. Luther said: "God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong (sin boldly), but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world." That's because he understood that it is God who works in us to desire to act in accordance with His good pleasure (Philipians 2:12-13). It is our mistakes which refine us, and give us opportunity to recieve Grace. (Romans 5:20) Hebrews 2:14-15 tells us that it is our fear of death that holds us in slavery.

One of the reasons that it is so easy to fall into the trap of justifying morality without God, is that our morality doesn't come from God. That's a pretty bold claim, I understand that, but maybe now that I have your attention, you'll follow my line of thinking.

In the Garden of Eden, God commands the man and the woman that they are not to eat from the Tree in the middle of the Garden. Now this tree was the tree of the knowledge of Good and evil. It was not a lie, when the Serpent said: "You shall become like God, knowing Good and Evil", rather the serpent was sharing information, that was more desirable than obedience. The serpent offered them that they would be "Like God." And just how would they be like God; well... in knowing both Good and Evil of course.

Now Good and Evil are the basis of morality, we prefer to use the words right and wrong, because they seem less absolute when we transgress them. This is also because our system of morality doesn't jive with God's own ideas of good and evil. Jesus says "Why do you call me good? No one is good—except God alone." (Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19) Jesus also calls us Evil (Matthew 7:11 and Luke 11:13).

Jesus taught us how to set our system of wrong and right back on track: It is only by loving God and our neighbor. This is to say that Jesus taught Ethics, not Morals. The basis of Ethics requires the recognition of importance and value at the level of the individual, first oneself, and then one's neighbor, and ultimately the God in whose image you share. Ethics cannot be codified, because they are situational dependent - very clearly the difference between law and grace.

It is the Christian, then who should be arguing first and foremost that their are no absolutes... not even God is an absolute - in that he emptied himself of his godhead and became a man so that he could demonstrate His Ethos to us, because we were so far off course, and rescue us from our fear of death.

My anti-voting campaign for 2012

noreply@blogger.com (jjinno) — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 20:22:00 +0000

Why I won't be voting in 2012.

I've arrived at the conclusion after years of political inquiry and thought, that the worst thing that an American can do, in order to reform what is largely a corrupt and broken system, is to vote. Consider this: The Supreme court recently ruled that limiting corporate money in the sphere of politics was akin to limiting free speech - therefore, unlike ever before there is more and more political influence by people who have something to gain from the political process. Your vote is for sale, and you aren't even the one selling it.

Voting gives us the illusion that we have a say in the democratic process, however in America, we have long understood that politicians say what they need to say to get elected, and then do whatever they want, it's corporate donors that have the ability to fire them, not you and I. By voting, we lend an air of ligitimacy to the political proces; those scum bags in Washington are only robbing you, because you voted for them, its partially your fault. In reality this is like telling a woman that she got raped because she didn't fight hard enough, or blaming a child for divorce. They want you to play the "victim".

Everytime there is a record turnout, the price for a spot on primetime TV goes up. When that price goes up, the incentive to tell the truth goes down. I'm not playing, are you?

Why I assent to evolution

noreply@blogger.com (jjinno) — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:30:00 +0000

For all intents and purposes you could say that I believe in evolution. I would call it more of an assent, but I accept evolution as the means by which we got to be where we are; the story of origins explained. Here's the thing; I fundamentally do not believe that science and theology are bitterly opposed, but rather good science is revelatory.

Back in 1616, God apparently wasn't big enough to be the God of a solar system that revolved around the sun. The Church stuck rigidly with Aristotle's conclusion, that because of a lack of paralax in viewing the stars, the earth must be stationary. They had a theological argument too; that man was created unique of all creatures, in the "middle" of creation. They believed that man was somehow special and unique, and this was characteristic of the place God had supposedly made for him at the center of the universe.

The multiple arguments against a literal reading of Genesis 1 are solid: Note the parallelism between days one and four, two and five, three and six; It is impossible for the events of day 6 to have taken place in 24 hours, and why would Adam say "Now at long last, here is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh." if he had been created merely hours before. If morning and evening are judged by relative location of the sun in the sky (universally) then how was there morning and evening the first three days, when the sun wasn't created until day 4... and so on.

What we have here is often a case of us taking our ideas and applying them to the text. When we think of man made in God's image, we often imagine in our mind a picture of God made in ours...

Genesis 1 is more closely linked with poetic writing and prophetic writing than it is with history, and so Moses attempt to answer the question of origins is both correct, and yet not literal. (Neither is Psalm 90 literal by the way, which was also written by Moses).

When science reveals something that contradicts my faith, it is correct to presume that possibly there has been an error; that error may quite possibly be in my faith.

Bill Maher is a boob.

noreply@blogger.com (jjinno) — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 21:19:00 +0000

I like Bill Maher, honestly, he's funny, he's often right, and he's no more objectionable than his foils on the right (actually it takes several of them to do what he does alone...). I'm baffled by his conclusion in this video at 2:35... Seriously, Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman, along with half of America, use the Bible as an excuse for their self centered behavior, and what more can you expect from anti-intellectuals, than misquotes, and a failure to understand one of the worlds most studied texts. But Bill stoops to their level, obviously for the shock factor, by saying that the God [who by the way created woman to be the rescuer of man, the Jesus who made a woman the first apostle, the Christianity that says that there is no difference between Jew, Greek, Slave Free, Male or Female,] is the source of all sexism.

Bill Ignorance is the source of all sexism, not Jesus; by playing into that Ignorance, you're perpetrating the very acts you criticize.

Immigration

noreply@blogger.com (jjinno) — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 21:04:00 +0000

Fifty years after Martin Luther King, Alabama is once again at the forefront of legislation that one can only hope will spawn a new wave of civil disobedience. All around the country state governments and local authorities are cracking down on what we have come to call "illegal immigration" Forcing police to work as deputized INS agents. Just this week Gov. Patrick of Massachusetts said he would refuse to sign onto a federal program that would run immigration checks on people who were arrested, and deport them if they were illegals.

Interestingly enough the word Illegal has a Sarah Palinesque quality to it (changing to meet popular demand). We've been hoodwinked into thinking that the "rule of law" is the highest authority, even over Human conscience - I assure you it is not. The status of Illegal immigrant was largely a construct of the 1920's when what was popularly refered to then as the "Asian Exclusion Act" was instituted primarily to keep Chinese and Japanese out of America. Given the strong anti-asian sentiment that led to the the internment of Japanese Americans during world war two and the Veitnam war, the Asian question of race is one that this country still refuses to address.

These miriad of anti-immigration laws restricted immigration to this country by any ethnic group that was not already represented within the United States. These laws were bolstered again in the thirties and forties in order to keep Jews out of the good ol' USA. IN fact no country in the world was willing to accept the Jews. Hitler saw himself largely as doing the entire world a favor... and we are not excused for the fact that we forced boatloads of Jews to sit in harbors and sent them away (as did most western nations of the time).

Today we claim that many Mexicans are illegals, that many Brazilians, Haitians, Cape Verdeans; all here to seek a chance to advance in life, are illegal. But this question of race stems directly from a ethnocentric racism that says that America is for Americans, not the tired weary hungry masses yearning to breath free. If we ask Sarah Palin, maybe she'll explain why that wasn't meant to include non-americans; but I digress.

The fact is most of us are immigrants, or descendants of immigrants, and if we're lucky, they came here before there were quotas. If my grandfather hadn't stayed in the US under dubious legal standing most of his life, I wouldn't be here today.

In the Bible there are dozens of references to God's demand that we care for the widow the orphan and the foreigner among us. Ezekiel 22 explains that God's judgment was being poured out on Israel because not only did they have a lack of concern for the widow orphan and foreigner, Ezekiel says that they were actively trying to defraud and extort them. God looked for a man who would stand in the gap, being righteous (just like Abraham pleading for Sodom and Gomorrah) but he found none.

Many people cite Romans 13, that God has instituted authorities over us... as proof that we should obey the laws of our country, but would you obey a law that said that you did not have the right to pray? would you obey a law that made you call your leader a God? would you obey a law that forbade you to care for a widow? an orphan? then why a foreigner?

On the theme of Wisdom

noreply@blogger.com (jjinno) — Sat, 28 May 2011 17:36:00 +0000

I remember in college, filling out those course evaluations - it seemed that my evaluation of the course was always different at the end (after the exam) than it was at any point during the actual course. Now one can make an argument that once the class is over, one can see the whole picture, and evaluate fairly... but one could also say that in the let down from the stress of the exam produced more favorable evaluations for the professor.

Now luckily for me, I'm not in the education-as-comodity business, and I don't have to set these policies; but I think I've noticed a trend. When I took a job a few years back at Harvard University Facilities Maintenance, I came to the job with years of experience. Not only had I been a landscape Foreman on the North Shore, but I had been the personal gardener on Two large Estates for a total of seven years, and studied pruning and arboriculture besides. I remember running into this attitude; that it doesn't matter what you know, how good you are, or even how you do your job, if you haven't been here as long as us, become as miserable as us, and become like us, you'd better step back.

I once took a position as a Correctional officer, passed the 80 hour course with the highest grade in the criminal justice academy, but when I got onto the job, I met the same attitude.

Over time I learned to expect this attitude, I was super fortunate to have a foreman at the construction company I worked for, who was also a great teacher. He understood that if you don't give young "whippersnappers" a chance, they'll just drift from job to job, until they resign themselves to misery. He seemed to delight in instilling a love for craftsmanship in the guys who worked under him, and he had a way of making us feel good about ourselves... A true master craftsman.

My point in writing this is that we seem as humans to slip into this bad attitude, that "if I had to go through hell, then you should have to go through it too." We call it initiation or hazing if it happens in the military or on a sports team. But what about if it happens in ministry? We tend to make the trials of the next generation just a little harder than our own. We feel justified in giving the professor a better rating, knowing that the class will be harder for the students who follow.

"Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"; and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile." So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future--all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God." (1 Corinthians 3)

"Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such "wisdom" does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice. But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere." (James 3)

manifold wisdom

noreply@blogger.com (jjinno) — Fri, 27 May 2011 03:21:00 +0000

We spend much of our time living in either the past or the future, but in my study last week on Galatians (for the Wednesday Night group) it struck me that there is a certain Zen to what Paul is talking about. If you keep trying (and failing) you condemn yourself... your conscience knows that you aren't living up to your own expectations. It's similar to how Jesus said, hey if you look at a woman and want her, or say to your brother "I hate you" you've already condemned yourself as if you had slept with her, or killed him. On the contrary, Paul is instructing us that it is God who works in us to will and to act (Philipians) to transform our minds (Romans) or as Ezekiel said to give us an undivided heart.

Stop trying so hard to DO that which you think you should do, and rather BE who you are meant to be. There is an element of live in the present, a certain Zen maybe - be faithful with only that which you HAVE. As I read Ephesians preparing for the next section (on the shorter epistles) I'm struck by the purpose of the Church in 3:10 "His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms"

We're so busy worrying about what we're not, we've forgotten what we are.

I know you all knew I'd get arrested some day...

noreply@blogger.com (jjinno) — Sun, 15 May 2011 02:07:00 +0000

In an effort to increase the public involvement of KBC in the community, I've agreed to help raise funds for the Muscular Dystrophy Association by getting Arrested this Tuesday... The fund raiser works like this: people donate to bail me out, they've set an ambitious goal of $1600, and I've only got a little bit of that right now... This is all sanctioned through the Muscular Dystrophy Association; they're the same people who do the Jerry Lewis Telethon. My thought is that every thirty dollars helps to get susceptible a kid with MD a flu shot, and if I get $800 dollars we can send a special needs kid to summer camp... Big deal right? It is.

Unfortunately these kids have a hard life, they're body doesn't process protein, and so their muscles waste. Many of them will never run, or play like we did growing up. A week at camp could literally be the fondest memories these people will ever have. You can help make a difference in someone's life. Click on the link on the right to give your support, and help bail me out for good.

Not forgotten

noreply@blogger.com (jjinno) — Sat, 14 May 2011 02:50:00 +0000

Blogger hasn't had much of my attention recently. Being in a pastoral position, and having Bible Studies and Sermons to prepare, as well as the monthly news letter and such hasn't left me much room for thinking outside of the obvious and necessary. By that I mean that I seem consumed in my daily tasks...which is a good thing, and I'm enjoying it, but I fear that there isn't much for online presence to show for it.

Throughout lent I was wrestling with, and preaching on the basics of the "Gospel" and found myself un-nerved reading Romans 1:16 in a completely new light. Currently we're looking at the subject of individual calling, and purpose in life. Which is an ongoing struggle for me.

But there are a few subjects that really aren't pressing to my congregation that I would like to discuss, and just haven't found the avenue...

Judgement Day

noreply@blogger.com (jjinno) — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 01:49:00 +0000

I preached this last Sunday on the subject of judgment.. For all those people out there swayed like a reed chaisng after the wind... Judgment day is officially NOT May 21 2011 NOR is it December 21 2012... and according to the bible I CAN PROVE IT....

ok, now I know that sounds ridiculous... but this whole judgment day thing has been going on far too long with people leading susceptible people astray. I hate to break the news, but Judgment Day came and went a long time ago. All these people are so fond of John 3:16, but who has read John 3:19?

You see, John 3:19 says "The verdict is this:..." Now the verdict is the pronouncement of Judgment, and Jesus is speaking here about God's Judgment of man...that "men hate light and love the darkness for fear that their deeds will be exposed." That 3:16 verse, you know the one that says that God so loved the world... that he sent his son; that one...- God had to do something about his Love for the world, BECAUSE he had judged the world, and seen that we hated the light... God sent his Son into the world so that the world might not be condemned (3:17) despite it's being judged already.

Defining Prayer

noreply@blogger.com (jjinno) — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 02:06:00 +0000

I'm becoming more and more convinced, that if God listens to our prayers at all, it is surely not in order to get instructions on what to do next. All kidding aside, and I know someone is thinking "but you do not have because you do not ask..." but does God seriously need our laundry list of requests? If he already knows what we need before we ask, AND he even prays for us on our behalf, when we don't know what to say... then c'mon, really?

I shamelessly ripped off this graphic that I saw the other day, because in most cases, nothing is more true. As sacrilegious as this may sound, I think that Prayer is mostly about changing us. When I cry out that I need God, I'm admitting that I can't do anything about whatever is going on. Sometimes that is true, and other times, we're really just asking God to enable our self pity. If we're just going through the motions, then we'd be better off to get off our ass, and do something about the problem.

The alternative to this is of course, not illustrated in the graphic: There are times when there just isn't anything you or anyone can do. It's interesting that at these times, everybody prays (I'm thinking 9/11, Tsunami/Nuclear Meltdown, personal tragedies). Thomas Carlyle said that Prayer is the deepest most native impulse of the heart of man... and he was an atheist. Prayer is almost like a unique type of soul searching thought/emotion, which one becomes gradually aware, is not entirely secret.

When we pray, do we pray to be heard? Do we pray because it's the only thing we can do? Do we chose to pray, or are we driven to it? Is prayer an activity or an attitude? I've got my ideas.

On preaching without notes

noreply@blogger.com (jjinno) — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:43:00 +0000

It's taken a bit of courage to attempt this; if you've tried checking for my sermon notes lately they've been spotty... not because I haven't prepared, but because I've been simply trying to be more spontaneous. So far its been good, but one thing it really drives home for me, is the emphasis on the development of personal spirituality first, academic study second. Using the roughest of outlines, and a list of passages from a concordance, I've delivered some of the most surprisingly successful sermons, whereas the quotes, and dramatic erudition of principles seems to fall on if not deaf, at least slightly bored ears.

I've found the most useful exercise in visualization. Take the concept and the text and illustrate it in my mind; meditate on that illustration, then draw that picture on Sunday morning. It is incredibly freeing to not have so and so's six principles for sermonizing, or thesis, synthesis etc... floating in my mind, although not having a written sermon on Saturday night, can make for fitful sleep- but that's where trial and error, practice, and confidence take over.

There are plenty of you who think I'm nuts, but I was nuts when I took this job, and nuts before that...

The Vending Machine in the Sky

noreply@blogger.com (jjinno) — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 22:16:00 +0000

How pitiful is it that so often when I engage in discussion on the topic of God, either with people with questions or those in opposition, I find myself cornered into a defense of the doctrine of the vending machine in the sky. In all seriousness, an article put out through CNN, said "atheists and agnostics reported more anger at God during their lifetimes than believers" Interesting, that their anger comes from unresolved issues with the Big man... Their "anger [is] focused on a hypothetical image - that is, what they imagined God might be like"

Psychologists can tell you that our ideas about God are fashioned largely as a reflection of how we see other people, and our idea of God's attitude toward us is a reflection of our world view. The problem with this is that its entirely based on "our idea". Now I don't mean to pick on Atheists and Agnostics, but I want to highlight that most of us, formulate an image of God based on who we are... It's only honesty that can bring an Agnostic to say he doesn't know, and the Atheist to say "if that's a god, he can't exist." We all have an idea of God that is too puny, especially most Christians. The message of "just believe" leads people to create their own tiny god who cares about them and has positive intentions toward them; or not

I've often thought that the Hebrew prohibition against saying the name of YHWH was intended to keep the people from discussing God, his nature, and trying to describe him in human terms, to draw a picture of god in our image, to literally Profane His name...