The World According to Adam

Messiah as Lion and Lamb: Revelation 5:5-6 Decoded Via Attunement With Literary Mechanism

2019-05-12T15:02:00.001-07:00

Messiah as Lion and Lamb:

Revelation 5:5-6 Decoded Via Attunement With Literary Mechanism

Adam G. Marquez

NT 512 The Epistles and Revelation

March 13, 2019

Introduction

There is contrasting imagery of Jesus as Messiah found in Revelation 5:5-6. John was ordered to see ‘The Lion’. When he looked, he beheld a lamb. The passage does not present a case of mistaken identity, it does not present confusion, nor is it referencing different characters. John was drawing on imagery, metaphor, and double entendre as literary mechanisms to present the reader with veiled messaging. Lion imagery has its own connotations, and especially so in biblical literature. The same can be said of lamb imagery. Understanding that John was engaged in the telling of his message, and that the means in which he told it matters, brings us to have to draw on tools which come from understanding things literarily[1].

The project at hand, then, is multifaceted. First, lion imagery must be explored to ascertain its value to the pericope. The same must be done for lamb imagery. Thirdly, the matter of John seeing differently from what had been revealed to him begs for discussion. All of that, however, is a build-up to being able to speak to what John’s message is, why it matters, and its significance on the broader understanding of Revelation. As it turns out, the Old Testament theme of salvation is about God’s conquering violence rescuing the believing community from oppression. John, in keeping with New Testament-think changes position to understand the mission of Messiah to be salvation through confounding evil in peace, birthed of compassion and sacrifice. John’s shift is crucial to the soteriological message of Revelation. But in order to get there, the foundation must be laid, and thinking about such things must be done by conceptualizing them literarily.

Thinking About the Bible Literarily

There are really only two approaches to reading the Bible through which all methodologies flow. There is a third, which sits in its own class, and is worth considering because of its broad influence in society, but is not a serious contender in the doing of theology responsibly, except for the consideration of it for remaining relevant. There are three men, each of whom, correspond to, and epitomize a respective approach: Robert Alter, Augustine, and Elie Wiesel.

Broadly, there is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. They are thought to stand in stark contrast; exegesis being a critical analysis of a text with bent toward objectivity, while eisegesis is the importing of one’s paradigm into the text. Zanardi[2]persuasively argues that there really is no true exegesis and that all efforts are, in the end, a form of eisegesis. I tend to agree with Zanardi, but would add that there are spectrums of qualities and elegances of one’s efforts to uncover a text. So, while the industry intuitively uses the term ‘exegesis’ regularly, and by extension ‘eisegesis’ they are, in practice, useless in expressing the epistemological understanding of the pragmatics of theologizing. And that is why Robert Alter, Augustine, and Elie Wiesel will be put to task in bringing about some useful material in the metaphysic-as-foundation for our work with Revelation 5: 5-6.

Robert Alter has made a life of understanding Biblical texts literarily. His hermeneutical approach was birthed of philosophy’s aesthetics and literary criticism, where a desire to understand the meaning of a text was driven by an interest in its literary philosophic footprint, and a fascination with the literary mechanisms it took to get there. Of the three, Alter is the most exegetical (in the sense described above). He demonstrates an empathy for the text, which he hopes to hear, and once heard, hopes to have shape his understanding and theological view. Alter produced the seminal work on reading scripture literarily. In it he wrote:

The shape and meaning of any literary text will naturally be dependent to some extent on its linguistic fashioning. Because of that fact, I refer intermittently to matters of word-choice, sound-play, and syntax perceptible in the original Hebrew, occasionally even offering alternative translations to indicate a significant pun. All of this, I think, should be fairly easy for a reader to follow without any knowledge of Hebrew[3]… etc.

The Art of Biblical Narrative was one of his early works, his ability to interpret scripture evolved and has culminated in his recently published translation of the Old Testament; it is a beautiful work which aptly demonstrates what he was only theorizing about early on.

Augustine’s paradigms were undoubtedly shaped by his gnostic background, and his later acquired baseline of Neoplatonic thought. David Bentley Hart says of Augustine:

…the Latin-speaking Augustine… was far more selective in his use of scripture, was dependent on often grossly misleading translations, and had to expend enormous energy on qualifying, rephrasing, and explaining away a host of passages that did not really conform well to the theological system he imagined he had found in Paul’s writings. This is, if nothing else, instructive[4].

Augustine took a different practicing approach than did Alter. Augustine, whether wittingly or unwittingly, was importing his theology and dogma and retrofitting scripture to accommodate his previously determined beliefs. In the case of Augustine, his lack of awareness of literary dynamics of the text, has had long-lasting, unintended consequences.

Elie Wiesel has demonstrated an impressive ability to read the Bible literarily. Though his talent is displayed throughout his writings, his book, Messengers of God[5], is a showcasing and modeling of the kind of literary thinking Alter strove for. Wiesel’s renderings display the psychology of the tradition of Jewish theology, and brings his reader into an almost irreverent daring in thinking about the text in the more earthy way in which it is innately presented, and in which the western church’s collective mind is always endeavoring to sanitize.

Though Wiesel scores high in the quality and elegance of his elucidations, he falls short in the area of purpose. Wiesel, perhaps like a Michael Jordan or a Muhammed Ali, who were phenoms who possessed uncommon talents which drove their hard work to otherwise unattained places, was a natural. He appealed to scripture, in much the same way an academic might appeal to Shakespeare, for corroboration, validation, or veracity of argumentative position. Scripture was an authoritative baseline by which he could chart the validity of his philosophic, psychological, sociological, and positions on his own trauma; it was thedescription of God, by which he could accuse himself and God for the evil in the world.

The point of the above, and the way in which it pertains to the project at hand is that Revelation, and especially the pericope at hand, is indecipherable unless one proceeds correctly. Revelation, as is the seducing, intuitive inclination, ought not be read through a lens of predetermined theology, doctrine, beliefs, and dogma in the way Augustine would be so inclined. It is designed to challenge all those things. It must be read literarily in the ways that Alter and Wiesel would, should they have been interested in New Testament texts. The form and structure of the text plus the emulating of the way the authorized writers of scripture handled the text, ought to be what drives the reader’s understanding of the content of the text. The form and structure are cued by the literary mechanisms in which the text is delivered.

John himself, telegraphs this by constantly appealing to points in the Old Testament which are specifically literary in nature. He draws on the literary mechanisms which preceding apocalyptic and prophetic material necessarily utilize. For the pericope at hand, the lion must be understood in terms of the biblical literary use of ‘lion’. Then the use of those perspectives must be examined. The same is true for ‘lamb’. Just as important as ‘lion’ and ‘lamb’ is the literary mechanism of John going from a revelation of the messiah as ‘lion’ to understanding him as ‘lamb’. The purpose of that mechanism within the text is perhaps the most important element of all; it, I will argue, is the pivotal moment of Revelation.

The Lion

Massey[6], through a series of rigorous exegetical gymnastics, was able to build a convincing case that there is a prophetic substructure for each of the four gospels. He views four ‘branches’ found in prophetic texts to be the foundation for four expected authenticating identifiers upon which the gospels were written; each gospel epitomizes one of the branches. From there, he sees a correlation between each gospel and the four creatures found in Revelation 4. Massey goes from 23:5-6, to Matthew, to ‘king’, to ‘Lion’, to Revelation 4. His correlations are intriguing and, in the end, quite persuasive. For Massey, lions are kingly, majestic, regal, royal, lacking in temerity, beautiful, sovereign, imperial, authoritative, wise, …etc.[7].

Mounce makes it clear that the phrase “The Lion of the Tribe of Judah” is derived from Genesis 49:9 which is deeply rooted in the collective nostalgia of Israel. It is there where ‘lion’ is given the descriptors of: one who crouches, is kingly, one whose arousal is feared, a ruler impossible to dethrone, and who washes (marks his ruling veracity) in wine (blood)[8]. Trafton makes the point that the lion imagery in Revelation 5:5 is about the conquering nature of the lion[9].

John’s use of lion imagery in Revelation 5:5 is intended to accomplish several functions at once. By employing the title “Lion of the Tribe of Judah”, John calls on the messianic assumption of the believing community concerning messianic identity; he is declaring Jesus as the messiah of Old Testament prophecy. John is expressing that the Old Testament vision of the messiah is ferocious and rules through violent vindication of his peoples’ enemies. In that vein, he is loved because of the hope his people have in him, with the expectation of triumphant rescue (salvation) from oppression and oppressors. John is calling the believing community to remember that the messiah in whom they have hoped is a conquering victor, who rules in ferocious righteousness, and has emphasized power underwriting his governance.

The Suckling Lamb

In his translation of the New Testament, David Bentley Hart makes a distinction between ἀρνός/ ἀρνήν, which are the typical words for ‘lamb’, and ἀρνίον,which John consistently uses in Revelation. His claim is that the latter is intentional as it refers to a little lamb or a lambkin (a lamb which is still nursing); he thus translates ἀρνίονas ‘suckling lamb’[10]. The emphasis on a younglamb adds to the imagery which even more strikingly contrasts the imagery of ‘lion’ than an old lamb, or a powerful ram would. Lambs are more common than lions. Lambs reside among people. Lions are not in as much need of description and literary context for an author to draw on the collective psyche of his[11]audience.

Isaiah 53:7 is the obvious place from which John draws his imagery of the messiah as lamb. In the verses preceding (1-6), the character, who is revealed in verse 7 is given full description. What is interesting about the description is that it is not entirely lambly, however, a transition of ideas is provided. Mounce[12]wrote about the “Jewish stock of messianism” by which he was referring to the collective assumptions concerning messiah which the believing community held. Within those assumptions were the beliefs that the messiah would hold the lion characteristics of power, and would be an overthrower of empire. Isaiah, however insists that the messiah will be lamb-like, and that involves: being despised, forsaken, not being majestic, not attractive, not a drawing spectacle to behold, acquainted with grief, not ‘esteem’ material, afflicted, pierced, crushed, chastised, scourged, the bearer of others’ iniquity, oppressed… lambly. Isaiah’s description, from which John surely draws, is anything but lion-like.

Mathewson[13]has said that John’s messiah was the sacrificial lamb for the sins of humanity, that its horns suggested power, and the eyes symbolize that he sees everything. Trafton[14]recognized that the lamb was not without power, he understands the lamb’s horns to be a representation of power, and an apparatus with which it could gore and best an enemy. As much as that may be true, John must tell us explicitly that this lamb was once a slain lamb.

The Apex/ Lamb is the New Lion

In an effort to approach scripture literarily, I recently conducted a study of Revelation for a Bible study group. When I came across the ‘woe’ terminology in Revelation, I was reminded of Habakkuk which cued me to consider Habakkuk as foundational hermeneutic-lens material for Revelation. I took Habakkuk’s heart cry to be, not only a yawping on behalf of his nation in the face of his current events, but as a heart-cry in response to the relentlessly clinging and ever unsettled matter of theodicy, which frustratingly remains unresolved on the fringes of the backside-of-faith/ doubt. It lingers in the minds of each member, and the collective whole of the believing community. And like Habakkuk, all, who are daring enough to be honest about themselves, God, facticity, and theology, in order to keep believing, in order to remain faithful, must resign to finally declaring: “But I in the Lord will exalt, will rejoice in the God of my rescue. The Lord Master is my strength, He makes my feet like the gazelle’s and has me tread upon the heights” (Habakkuk 3:18- 19)[15].

But. Such resignation is not resolution, it is not satisfactory. To get there, Habakkuk (all of the believing community?) complains, is lionly[16]responded to by God through promises of violent salvation, argues, is lionly given a plan of salvation[17], and finally ends in resignation. It does not take too much literary imagination to hear a resignation which is the product of a brow-beating, surrender; it is the acquiescence of an argument lost to power, not to superiority of conceptual position. When I read Habakkuk, the philosopher in me is left disturbed because I know that God has more game than vanquishing enemies; a dead enemy comfort does not bring, a dead enemy restoration does not afford, a vanquished enemy a dead son or daughter does not bring back to life, a dead enemy reconciliation does not make. And then, there is the matter of Jesus and the way in which, under his messianic governance, all things are made new (Revelation 21).

I have come to understand Habakkuk, among other things, to be the pre-messiah anxiety of the believing community, with real concerns, and real longing to which God mustrespond. I have come to understand that Habakkuk, as one piece of the harmony of the totality of scripture, is really a prolegomenonicalinterlude for the believing community (all of creation?) who is in longing, and who awaits the completed lambly response to their yawp. Revelation is that response. Revelation 5:5-6 is the essential mechanism which transitions soteriology from unsatisfactory incompleteness to satisfactory resolution.

Hays agrees that Revelation 5:5-6 is essential by stating: “The shock of this reversal discloses the central mystery of the Apocalypse: God overcomes the world not through a show of force but through the suffering and death of Jesus, ‘the faithful witness[18].” In referring to the pericope at hand, Mounce writes: “In one brilliant stroke John portrays the central theme of NT revelation- victory through sacrifice[19].” As astonishing and important as this point of reversals is, it is not the only concept to be drawn from John’s literary mechanizing. There is the matter of Christ’s residing amongst us, or the Emmanuel-ness (Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23) of messiah, that being, his relatability.

There is a scene in Job which makes some similar connections to the ones John is reaching for. The book of Job is really about: salvation, going from knowing ofGod to knowing God, and going from second guessing God to faithfully obeying him through hearing him, which is an expression of intimacy[20]. In the scene, Job, after having faced adversity, losing everything,, had his entire belief system about God challenged and deconstructed, had his essence domesticated by God, and his inculturation violently plucked from him, finally has an epiphany where he declares: “By the ear’s rumor I heard of you, / And now my eye has seen You. /

Therefore do I recant, / And I repent in dust and ashes[21].”

Alter’s rendering is important because he brings clarity to the literary idea that Job’s real problem is a lack of intimacy; he is plagued with only knowing God from a second-hand, distanced, indirect, source which is inherently wrought with compromised perspective. This, by the way, is Eve’s problem, and the core concern of Paul in 1Timothy 2:9-13[22]. The problem of ‘hearing’ as revelation, as opposed to direct experience, is a recurring theme which holds negative proverbial implications throughout scripture. Similarly, John hears, via the angel, that it is the lion who is able to open the scrolls. Until he beholds, his knowledge is hearsay.

Job, upon beholding, turns; he repents. That is to say that he moves to face the old way with his back, and the new way with his front seeing/ illuminated, perspective. Working from Joban precedence[23], John, records that John saw the lion which is a turning point for the soteriological purpose of Christ’s messiahship, it was movement from the past, lionly, ways with a resolution toward progress under the way of the lamb. The story of Job entails a message of salvation/ redemption for Job whose completeness was restored, and it entails a message of salvation for his friends who would otherwise have been destroyed. Their salvation was contingent upon Job’s turning. In the same way, John’s turning marks the possibility of messianic soteriology from the point of Christ’s death and resurrection, moving forward.

Summing it up

In stating all of the previous in succinct summery, one can say something like: John drew upon literary mechanisms to punctuate the significance of his statement which was that the messianic assumption of hope through power, dominance, and vindication, which were elements of the collective messianic assumption, was to be re-imagined and understood in New Testament-think where hope, justice, and salvation are accomplished through peace and sacrifice. That is not to say that the lionly aspect of the messiah has expired or lost relevance. It is not to say that incorporating the lamb aspect is new. It is a reminder that blue notes of prophetic theology are pertinent, relevant, and are a balancing essential to the soteriological plan which was shared from the beginning, and that it is within those blue notes that the soul of the story lives. What this means for the Messiah-ship of Jesus is that the believing community must understand that the Lordship of his reign is not monolithic, but nuanced. It is not to be understood in only old modes of imagining, but must take on paradigm-breaking aspects which have always been revealed, but which have been forgotten.

The idea of messiah is essential to the grand narrative of scripture, but John’s insistence of the nature of Jesus-as-messiah, directly experienced, is what makes the grand narrative worthwhile, and ripping it from mere fairytale, animates the story into reality. The world has always only known ‘kingdom’, ‘empire’, and peace through conquering control; matters of governance, and rulership have always, by necessity of how things work, been accomplished through the strong making everyone else complicit through dominance. There have always been multiple narratives, all speaking in harmony, concerning what messiah is, and what the messiah-person would do, but some strains of that narrative were emphasized while others were minimized or forgotten. John’s rendering of the messiah brings about a philosophic reality that can only exist under the unique characteristics of all of the nuanced narratives functioning in an ongoing maintenanced intactfulness; reality presents no other possibilities of alternative forms of governance.

Though there is a turn of emphasis wherein John expects the messiah to be understood in terms of peace and sacrifice, there is the matter of the extreme violence throughout revelation. That God is behind violent judgement throughout Revelation is undeniable. Such violence, however, does not usurp peace or sacrifice; it does not undermine the lamb. ‘Judgement’, invokes assumptions of eternality, hell, and punishment-as-revenge. I submit that judgement, even the most violent of forms, in God’s hands, has the purpose of pushing a reset button of sorts, or creating the possibility of entering a new phase of reordering and perfecting.

The pattern begins early in scripture. Creation becomes overgrown, and, as Robert Burns would have put it, “…Man’s inhumanity to man / Makes countless thousands mourn…[24].” God steps in and destroys while saving a remnant. From that remnant he intends and brings forth another stage of development. That pattern is repeated throughout the whole of the Old Testament. John’s Revelation is a montage of woven imagery which expresses the pattern in many varied ways with an increase in severity, urgency, and an heir of exponentiality, as though at the end of the age, the process had a new pace. Judgement is one of the tools employed by God to bring all of creation, finally, to a complete and transformed renewal. Judgement is not about a petty god throwing a tantrum in the face of things which bring him displeasure. It is an integral piece of the sociological process of evolutionary development to which Creator is faithfully committed. Somehow the animated heap of dust ,which is Genesis’ human, metamorphoses into thebride with whom, God who is completely other in nature, can fully engage.

That repeat cycle of the renewal pattern may have points of intersection with what Jesus does for his people in the area of hope, but is altogether a different topic which happens to run simultaneously with his other project. The point is that the violence, which is a lion aspect of God, does not stop under the new order of the lambly reign. The lambly reign is a new matter which will not be accomplished under the old methodology.

Mathewson observed the truth that: Revelation 4 and 5 were modelled on Roman imperial throne rooms. And that Revelation decentralizes Roman empire and places Jesus in the center of all of creation^{^[25]}. The scene is one in which a new way of governance was being described. The scene is one in which a phrase like, “there’s a new sheriff in town,” begins to express the new order. And, under this new order there is an expectation for things to be done differently. Jesus is Emmanuel, who rules his age of life[26], in unconventional ways, which are free of oppression, and exploitation. That age of life is a kingdom which transcends political bounds and facticity. It is a kingdom which is ruled by principles of love and not rules of complicity. At no other time, or in any other way has the world ever known the possibility of a cohesive collective whole functioning in governed unity without force of violence. The New Testament writers stand unified in the necessity of the above. Revelation is a restatement of it, drawing from the full authority of the Old Testament, placed at the ending capstone of scripture, in which what might otherwise be too open-ended, must find a point of precision at which all of the good news is aimed.

Conclusion

The pericope at hand, at first glance, may seem opaque in meaning, or even contradictory. It is through a literary read, however, that John’s expression can be understood. As is always the case with legitimate art, the vehicle of the content is at least as important as the content itself. What could have been stated in a more straightforward manner was not because to do so would have been to dilute the message and to dismember it from its validating heritage. In a few short sentences, John was able to powerfully convey a disturbance of the status quo, redefine the mission of the messiah for the believing community at the end of the age, reimagine what had been forgotten, and tie it all together to the authenticating veracity of Old Testament authorization via literary connection. John’s conveyance remains an ingenious stroke of brilliance which contributes to the living nature of scripture. The book of Revelation is not just an archaic, opaque, incoherent rambling of an unstable, ecstatic mystic, it is literature authored by the Holy Spirit and expressed through his instrument John; it is logos in the wake of logos incarnate. Revelation 5: 5-6 is ensconced, formatted in literary mechanism, in the middle of that expression for the purpose of gifting all who read it with the hope of God’s redemptive faithfulness in credible, meaningful, satisfaction of humanity’s collective heart-cry.

Reference List

Alter, Robert. 1981. The Art of Biblical Narrative.Chicago, IL: BasicBooks.

—. 2019. The Hebrew Bible.New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

Brueggemann, Walter. 1997. Theology of the Old Testament.Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Burns, Robert. 1786. "Man Was Made to Mourn: A Dirge." In Poems, Cheilfly in the Scottish Dialect, Robert Burns, by John Wilson. Scotland: Kilmarnock.

Gorman, Michael. 2011. Reading revelation responsibly: Uncivil worship and witness following the Lamb into the new creation.Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.

Hart, David Bentley. 2017. A Translation: The New Testament.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

—. 2003. The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth.Grand Rapids, MI : Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Hayes, Richard B. 1996. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics; Cross, Community, New Creation.San Francisco: Harper.

Marquez, Adam. 2017. An Effort to Hear Job Literarily: Challenging Typical PHilosophic Lenses.Academic Paper, Philosophy of Literature, Metropolitan State University of Denver , Denver: Carol Quinn.

Massey, Preston T. 2018. The Branch: A Plausible Case for the Substucture of the Four Gospels.Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers.

Mathewson, David. 2019. "Class Lecture." NT 512 Epistles and Revelation.Littleton: Denver Seminary.

Mbamalu', Abiola I. 2014. "The Woman Was Deceived and Became a Sionner: A Literary-theological investigation of 1Timothy 2:11-15." HTS Teologiese/ Theological Studies/ 70(3)2062.

Mounce, Robert. 1977. The Book of Revelation .Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Robertson, O. Palmer. 1993. The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Trafton, Joseph. 2012. Reading Revelation: A literary and theological commentary.Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys.

Wiesel, Elie. 1976. Messengers of God.New York, NY : Random House.

—. 1972. Night.Hill and Wang .

Zanardi, William J. 2003. "Fabricating Facts: How Exegesis Presupposes Eisegesis." Journal of Macrodynamic Analysis3: 250-263.

[1]Alter, Robert. 1981. The Art of Biblical Narrative.Chicago, IL: BasicBooks, Brueggemann, Walter. 1997. Theology of the Old Testament.Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Robert Alter wrote the seminal work on reading scripture literarily and has been on the frontlines of its development. Walter Brueggemann has been utilizing literary techniques his entire career and exemplifies them well throughout his breadth of voluminous writing.

[2]Zanardi, William J. 2003. "Fabricating Facts: How Exegesis Presupposes Eisegesis." Journal of

Macrodynamic Analysis3: 250-263.

[3]Alter, Robert, “Art of Biblical Narrative,”x

[4]Hart, David Bentley. 2017.A Translation: The New Testament.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

[5]Wiesel, Elie. 1976. Messengers of God.New York, NY : Random House.

[6]Massey, Preston T. 2018. The Branch: A Plausible Case for the Substucture of the Four Gospels.Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers.

[7]Massey, Preston, “The Branch”, 250-251

[8]Mounce, Robert “Revelation”

[9]Trafton, Joseph. 2012. Reading Revelation: A literary and theological commentary.Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys. 62

[10]Hart, David Bentley, “A Translation,” 504

[11]I used the male pronoun here in reference to John, not in an oversight of neutrality.

[12]Mounce, Robert, “Revelation,” 144

[13]Mathewson, David. 2019. "Class Lecture." NT 512 Epistles and Revelation.Littleton: Denver Seminary

[14]Trafton, Joseph, “Reading Revelation,” 64

[15]Alter, Robert. 2019. The Hebrew Bible.New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

[16]By ‘lionly’ I mean that which takes on previously described and defined characteristics of ‘lion’ within the text. I do the same for ‘lamb’ later.

[17]Robertson, O. Palmer. 1993. The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 173

[18]Hayes, Richard B. 1996. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics; Cross, Community, New Creation.San Francisco: Harper. 174

[19]Mounce, Robert, “Revelation,”144

[20]Marquez, Adam. 2017 An Effort to Hear Job Literarily: Challenging Typical Philosophic Lenses. Denver: Metropolitan State University of Denver., I wrote extensively about the literary form and structure of Job which drives a soteriological message.

[21]Alter, Robert, “Hebrew Bible,” 577, Job 42: 5-6

[22]Mbamalu', Abiola I. 2014. "The Woman Was Deceived and Became a Sionner: A Literary-theological investigation of 1Timothy 2:11-15." HTS Teologiese/ Theological Studies/ 70(3)2062

[23]Mathewson, David, "Class Lecture." 5/7/2019, Class discussion led to contemplating that at least part of Revelation is structured in the pattern of Job. If John draws from Job imagery and later employs Joban structure, it is reasonable to consider that he is drawing on the message of Job to influence his message overall, and at each point at where the imagery is put to use.

[24]Burns, Robert. 1786. "Man Was Made to Mourn: A Dirge." In Poems, Chiefly in the Scottish Dialect, Robert Burns, by John Wilson. Scotland: Kilmarnock.

[25]Mathewson, David, "Class Lecture." 5/7/2019

[26]Hart, David Bentley, “A Translation,” 487-547, goes in depth in explaining the nature of the term aeon(and its derivatives) which has typically been translated into English as ‘eternal’ or ‘everlasting’. Without making a statement to the truth value of eternality in soteriological theology, it is worthwhile to say that Jesus, throughout the Gospel of John (and the theme would be picked up elsewhere and throughout the New Testament), at least in part, was referring to an era of his governance which was without precedence philosophically, epistemologically, politically, or in practice.

Response to My Professor

2017-07-05T17:13:00.000-07:00

After reading my Job paper, the professor, for whom I wrote it, gave me feedback, and asked me a couple of questions. Below is an edited version of what she wrote to me, and my reply. I have not changed any of her words, but I did remove the surrounding, conversational content of both of our email correspondence.

I was hoping you would talk about the Babylonian Theodicy, though this isn't directly relevant to your project (although I can see how you could make some connections). The similarities between the two texts is so striking. Job, IMO, is a retelling of the Babylonian Theodicy, a story they would have heard frequently during the Babylonian Exile. If this is so, would that change how we should understand the text (as a co-opting and YHWH-izing of a great story)? All the more so that this story might have (for them) expressed/embodied their feelings of suffering and persecution during this time, a time so brutally awful that they resorted to cannibalizing their own children in some cases (if we are to take these accounts to be true)?

Dr. Carol V. A. Quinn
Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy

As far as the Babylonian Theodicy question goes:

I think the very good points you bring up, as you said, are not really part of my project. However, if we take your position as truth, for the sake of the conversation (I am agnostic on it, because though I am aware of the issue, I haven't studied it deeply to form my own position), having an earlier story or text doesn't undermine the one in the cannon, nor does it my position. There is plagiarism, there is what is derivative, there are covers, there is coopting, and then there are tributes. Take jazz, it is a constant, respectful reworking of that which has come before it which we know to be jazz. For a jazz artist to elbow his/her way to the table, he/she must simultaneously pay homage to all the others who have sat at the table previously, while making his/her unique, signature contribution which must be currently relevant, but not so far unique as to be not-jazz. The deep 'hearing' of that contribution is not undermined by the roots, all of which culminate (at least until the next contribution) in that one performance. To deeply hear that one contribution is to hear the whole heritage, the whole pedigree, of what composes the identity of that one contribution, even if one has not actually heard the particular songs, which have come before.

Besides all of that though, often, later contributions end up being the most pleasurable, and the most useful. I would much rather listen to Led Zeppelin's take on the songs they have reworked than the original versions (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/led-zeppelins-10-boldest-rip-offs-20160622). Surely, by playing tribute to the songs they did, Zeppelin both sealed those songs in the permanent annals of history (those songs would likely have been forgotten otherwise), and gave the world something worth not forgetting in their superior renditions.

As another example, Nine Inch Nails' Hurt was disturbingly, and wondrously profound, but what Johnny Cash did with it was unsurpassed. Had Cash just made up the song from scratch, it would have been something, but that he reworked Trent Reznor's contribution, is what gives Cash's rendition its power. Hurt's preexisting condition is what enabled Cash to make some of his most important artistic statements.

The doing of theology ought to be something like all this. The believing community has always been obsessed with finding that 'pristine moment', that authoritative, official, earliest, orthodox, etc., way of: thinking, believing, expressing, living... there is, however, no such thing. What Ezekiel was doing, for example, was retelling the story for the bazillionth time, for his current moment, which would have eternal implications. He was doing it in the way I have described the doing of jazz. It matters that something came before it; only because that's what gives it its power. It's preexistent form does not undermine his work; it makes it relevant. Cash’s work is not derivative, it is a great act of deep commitment to what has come before, a sacred respect, as well as a refusal to let the past be forgotten, or to die a death of obscuring relevance.

So Job has a preexistent form (sigh of relief); so it is equipped with power-potential for the believing community. If you are correct, then all of the tears of Babylonian exile are accounted for, and interwoven in the Book of Job; they are not lost to history, they are permanently memorialized in the Book of Job. The blood, sweat, and tears lead us to understand that we aren't just left knowing of something out there, but that suffering matters, and that adversity just might bring the transformative process which brings us to a knowing of God. From what I know, the Babylonian Job couldn't do all of that. The Babylonian Job gets us steps in that direction, but it falls short of producing the hope of transformation. One more thing, if YHWH did create, and can skillfully orchestrate the evolutionary development of His creation, and if communication to that creation is important enough for Him to attempt communication, logic would dictate that He is also competent in the overseeing of the developmental telling of His story.

Adam

My Dad Hit Back And It Matters

2017-06-18T06:36:00.001-07:00

An ambassador of self planted his seed and walked away

Obscurity

In defiance, you came into being

A thriving weed

Persisting and unwanted

The imposter took his place

A magic barrel, never full, never satiated

Pour the wine in; fuming rage results

Alchemy

Obscurity/Reduction

Defiantly you hit back with deathly intent

Oh, Man, you hit back and pounded your way into be-ing

But obscurity was bested through life, and not death

You planted seed of your own and remained

Cultivating you, became life for me

I was wanted

Father you, made me something

Because of you I am a father now

With you part of me, and them too

We are something from nothing, something alive from death

Because you were defiant

And hit back

Cultivating, loving, instructing

Be-ing everything they weren’t

Be-ing though they were not

In Pursuit of a Guide for Getting Scripture Right

2017-06-13T16:47:00.000-07:00

The following are some thoughts I’ve been thinking. Actually, in writing them out here, I am trying to wrap my arms around them a bit. That is to say that I don’t have all of this figured out yet, and I am not quite ready to write it out formally. I guess what I am saying is that I am using this paper, and whoever has the courage to read my words, as a kind of sounding board to work through my idea(s).

I think the seeds of these thoughts must have been planted in my mind several years back when I went to a lecture by Walter Brueggemann. I can’t quite remember exactly what he said in his response to a question asked by one of the audience members, but he said something which was fascinatingly disturbing. The individual in the audience asked something about how we can assure that people will theologize correctly. Walter Brueggemann claimed that there isn’t a reliable way to regulate correct theologizing. He went on to explain that there doesn’t need to be, and shouldn’t be such a thing.

He discussed the way in which each generation produces theologians. Some generations produce superior or inferior ones, ones that are more or less responsible, ones that are truer or more divergent from the truth or to the reliable traditions of old. He explained that it is God’s responsibility to oversee the conveyance of His message. All of that resonated nicely with me; it felt simultaneously freeing, and disconcerting to think that we, or someone, or some group, doesn’t have to obsess over making sure ‘others’ get it right. That’s what we do; our insecurities of what others might do, call us to acts of control, regulation, codification, systematization… the pasteurization, homogenization, sanitization, and processing of truth into something innocuous. We turn something that is supposed to be “the power of God unto salvation” into something un-scary, safe, and with an enduring, everlasting shelf life.

So perhaps there is a way of making sure we, as a believing community, are all on the same page for identity’s sake. Perhaps what is needed is not regulatory in nature, but a kind of categorization of what is Christian, and what isn’t. A criteria which is set so we know who is in and who is out…

Of recent I keep running into the argument that true Christianity is a Christianity which adheres to history; the true Christianity is the historic Christianity. But then I keep wondering: what part of history? I know, I know… the part of history that has the creeds and such. The parts of history which agree with the things that the likes of Augustine and Aquinas had to say. The problem is that we can’t really say that one part of history is more authoritative than another. As soon as we start using apologetics to get to a moment in history that is more authorized than another, we have to start explaining why the line of reasoning doesn’t apply to the likes of Muhammad, or Joseph Smith. There was no definitive moment in scripture to emulate; Eden was banned, the prophets endlessly railed against their history and ‘now moments’, Jesus took issue with His contemporary orthodoxy, the ‘Acts moment’ was over before the world had a chance to process it. What is more authoritative than any of the scriptural moments?

I am certain that we don’t need regulation. I don’t think we are in need of a criteria of continuity. The tower of Babel tale would have us believe that God isn’t too excited about homogeneity. And the Book of Revelation describes a church made up of churches whose practices are individualistic, each with good and bad points, none of those points, at least as far as Jesus was concerned while critiquing them, was their lack of homogeneity. But, in the same way we can distinguish jazz from non-jazz, and we can distinguish good jazz from bad jazz (I realize that much of it is subjective, but that is partly my point, and partly, my point is that, generally, we know it when we hear it) we can think about authenticity.

Rather than hunt for an authorized moment to emulate, or pursuing an authorized historicity which is wrought with unreliability, perhaps we ought to pursue authorized individuals who lead the way. I propose that we look to the structure of the text, and the method(s) of scripture’s writers. If we start with the writers of scripture, a group of individuals who God set apart to record His message, and endeavor to emulate the ‘how’ of what they did, we can take away a reliable methodology for the ‘doing’ of scripture.

The way in which scripture is written is informative. How scripture was handled by its writers is informative. By sticking to their form and structure, we adhere to a reliable maneuvering of scripture. The content of scripture is informed by its structure. The message of Job, for example, gets past the modern reader pretty easily unless, and until its structure is considered.

The first and last chapters of Job mirror each other. They complement one another, and almost answer each other in dialog-like coherence. The middle of Job works almost like Ecclesiastes. Ecclesiastes is made up of a series of proposals which are intended to examine philosophical misconceptions of God, and how He has set up reality. After an idea in Ecclesiastes is proposed, each one of the believing community’s incorrect ways of thinking are shot down into absurdity. Ecclesiastes concludes with the only possibly correct way of thinking about humankind’s purpose, and its proper response to God.

Obviously, there is more to the structure of Job than what is contained in the above paragraph, but by noticing the structure, and tracking how it works, the message becomes clearer. Job is all about transformation from someone who knows of God from a distance to someone who knows God enough to be able to hear Him directly. Job’s structure drives the content. Method matters too.

When we consider Ezekiel, we see scripture like none other. Ezekiel doesn’t change any of the sentiments which came before him. Even though many parts are spectacular on the onset, there really isn’t anything new presented in the Book of Ezekiel. ‘How’ he presents the age old, reliable material of the believing community’s collective memory though, well that is everything. It is a new riffing off of the theologizing, which came before, all done in new, and fresh ways which struck the minds and hearts of his contemporary population. He was bold. When the people didn’t hear the old message, the old way, he committed himself to performance art. The message wasn’t changed, it wasn’t watered down, it was retold in the face of Ezekiel’s present darkness.

Such a way of getting the message across sets precedence and implies permission for us to reimagine the sacred text, to riff on it for our now. We can’t learn to do this from historicity, but by studying the form of what has already been written in the sacred texts, and paying homage to their writers by emulating the way in which (the ‘how’) they worked the message over and over again, we can reliably and successfully face off our present darkness. Appointed, authorized scripture writers, with their structures, and methods, are a superior guide to us in getting the message ‘right’, than is historicity.

A Little Sunday Morning Inspiration

2017-06-04T18:54:00.000-07:00

For those of you who know me, you are aware that I am generally not the biggest fan of ‘Christian music’. I can usually take or leave the ‘worship music’ in a church service. I am Usually not impressed with those modes of expression. However, this morning I was presented with a song which struck me. It struck me with its simple profundity, and timely message.
You all have heard me talk about oppression, and you know that I believe the problem with oppression to be its nature. It's nature seeks to reduce a person’s ‘is’ness. It seeks to reduce one from what she/he was intended to be. Oppression is an attempted obscurance of identity. John 10:10 is all about that obscurance. Oppression is an opposing force to Grace. It is an opposing force to the truth of God’s intent.

In a moment in history where fathers don’t know how to be fathers, and where there are few examples of fatherhood, in a moment in history where our ‘this present darkness’, is at least partly made up of the emasculation of society, or at least the confusing of what it is to be a Godly man, or what it is to be a father, we need to hear something of substance. In a moment when individuals struggle to be able to come to terms with who they are, Christianity must beat back the reduction with proclamation. When asked about one’s identity, the typical response pertains to vocation, or a list of likes and dislikes. Who are you?... “I like to hike,” “I am into craft beer,” “I am a democrat,” I am a republican,” I am a brain surgeon,” “I am a receptionist…” Those answers may be small pieces, bits of the greater whole, but they don’t get to the core of identity.

Anyway, all of the above is a set up to write just a little bit about a song we sang in church today. I believe the song was written by Chris Tomlin. Frankly, the verses, in my opinion, exist as place holders for the chorus; they do little for me. The chorus, however, struck me with its simple profundity.

You're a good good father
It's who you are, it's who you are, it's who you are
And I'm loved by you
It's who I am, it's who I am, it's who I am

The message is so simple, and yet so profound. Facing off our ‘present darkness’, the one mired in a crisis of fatherlessness, and identity obscured, the message that God is a good father is a timely message which needs to be heard. Just to know, and to hear it affirmed that God is the Father by which our fatherness ought to be modeled. That He is good; He is not an abuser, and abandoner, an oppressor, a deadbeat…, He is worth modeling. That is big. It is hope inducing. It is comforting.

The next part though, the next part, is something amazing. In a moment in history when so many of us are obscured, and in existence with diminishing meaning and value, a moment when we don’t hear quite often enough from where our value derives, it is necessary for Sunday mornings to be cut through with the simple profound message, and proclamation, that identity properly comes from the Father’s love.
Who I am is ‘loved’.

In Opposition to the Reduction of One Dimensionality

2017-02-18T09:35:00.000-08:00

There is nothing wrong with grief. It is not pleasant, but if you learn how to appreciate it, you can keep the memories preserved in your heart as treasures.

‪We rush to forget.

We ought to be endeavoring to remember well, and constructively.

‪You are going to have to learn the following:

‪One can only love to the degree one can gracefully endure (savor?) pain. If you are numb to pain, you will not have the capacity to love. That is not to say that love equals pain, but only that one who can't smell also can't taste; one's olfactory facilitates both smell and taste.

‪Learn the art of treasuring your history; all the bits compose you.

‪My mom died when I was 18

‪I am angry with her because she did not fight her cancer (she refused treatment, mostly)

‪I am proud of her for dying on her terms

‪My dad cheated on her while in the ministry; multiple times. She thought she should not divorce him, because she wanted to please God.

‪She loved Jesus more than anyone I have ever known

‪Her way out was not divorce but death
enduringly loyal
God
Dad
community
Us

I hate that decision

‪I admire

her strength

‪her resolve

‪I am exceedingly angry at her because she has never held any of my precious children, and wept with love as they embraced her

they have never tasted her tears of adoration

‪I reflect on my life and the way she would have meddled with my adult years.

‪because of that I am grateful she is not here

‪I miss her

‪I want to call her up and tell her silly stupid things

‪I want to share my grades with her

‪I'm grateful she wasn't here to endure witnessing the way life has beat me up

‪I long for her and my wife to be besties

‪(They would've gotten along so well, and my mom would have adored Tiffanie)

‪I had a dream that was so real, so vivid, after she died.

‪It took several minutes for me to realize it was only a dream, after I awoke

‪In my dream she had clawed her way out of the grave and described to me how she had been buried before she was dead & & &

‪She cried a little

‪we talked a lot

‪and then I told her something akin to:

‪I love you.

I have moved on with my life though.

I don't know how to fit you in to my life any longer.

‪I was angry with myself for being so hard

‪I couldn't deny my very real feelings and belief that I needed to move on

‪guilt

‪sorrow

‪relief

‪pain

‪heart racing

‪so many emotions; so much visceral response

‪I hold a conflict of emotions as I live a life which is utterly honoring to her (intentionally)

‪She is still deserving of nothing less

‪she was a whole person

‪complete

‪confusing

‪complex

‪nuanced

‪I should feel about her in a way that expresses my appreciation of all of that

‪to only long for her

‪to only be angry

‪’TO ONLY’…

‪is too reductionist

‪she ought not be reduced

and the whole pallet of colors, the whole spectrum of all must be employed when I feel and remember

otherwise she is only a ghost of thought

‪I love her

‪My conflict is mine

My conflict is a memorial

In conflict I love

My love is true

My POTUS Vote 2016

2016-10-15T10:42:00.000-07:00

The following are my thoughts on how I am going to vote in the 2016 POTUS election, and why. My purpose here is not to persuade anyone that one candidate is better or worse than the other. My intent is simply to share what I am doing since many of you have asked.

Most of us don’t enjoy reading lengthy opinions on politics, therefore, I will let the cat out of the bag from the start. Once you read for whom I am voting, you may want to continue and find out my thinking behind it.

I will be voting third party; Gary Johnson. I will be voting for him for purely strategic and tactical reasons. Frankly, I think he is an idiot. As a Libertarian, I am not impressed with his policies, or the theory from which he approaches issues. Besides not having as much juicy, scandalous smut reported on him, I don’t find him superior to either of the other two. In my view none of the three are fit to be POTUS. I’ll spare the details since every negative thing that can be brought up has been discussed and argued ad nauseam. Still, a quick overview to substantiate my thought process may be helpful.

Hillary Clinton is the epitome of white privilege. She is corrupt in all the ways that Washington politicians are corrupt; her corruption runs broad and deep. She, at the very best, has been careless and flippant with things that actually matter like national security. At worst her actions may be classified as treasonous. Frankly, I am just sick and tired of politicians like her, and her specifically, getting away with things that anyone outside of their group would be prosecuted for and crushingly punished. Enough with abuse of power.

She has accomplished nothing persuasive for me to even consider any accolades that are electable. So she has tried to fight for women and children; not impressive. With all of her considerable power and influence, she has produced surprisingly small positive effect in those areas. I would put the average, underpaid social worker’s actual accomplishments up against Hillary’s accomplishments any day. She, however, is agenda driven.

We have begun to see that she wields her power imperiously to accomplish her personal interests. We have no reason to believe that those behaviors will suddenly change for the better upon being sworn into office; she will only be infused with more power and resource than ever before with which she can continue on with her agendas. Her particular agenda-plus-power is specifically problematic because there would be no functional federal braking system in place with which to slow or stop her. She will have an ability to usurp the constitution, and the conventional executive branch protocol in ways that are not positively innovative, but that are corrupt and damaging in unprecedented ways.

Donald Trump is repugnant. Simple question: When shit hits the fan, will Trump support his own interests or the nation’s? If we are splitting hairs, we can say that Trump would hypothetically be less damaging as a president than Hillary simply because he will be stopped at every turn from trying to accomplish his agenda. While Hillary eludes prosecution for things for which she is known to be guilty, Trump loses support from the entire RNC over a personal phone conversation. I am not downplaying the wickedness of his words or behaviors; that is not my point. My point is simply to illustrate that his own base easily gives up support (I would say rightfully so), and that Hillary’s doesn’t. Hillary would be more effective in the White House than Trump would be.

Donnie, is not qualified to be POTUS in any personal or professional way. He is a disgrace morally, and does not represent compassion, justice, or integrity. He is a half-ass conservative, nor does he have the heart of a liberal whose aim, ideally, is for social justice. He is an opportunist. Opportunists are particularly dangerous when they are also petulant, petty, and vindictive. The office of the POTUS is not supposed to be inhabited by a spoiled, misogynistic emperor-at-heart who models his managerial endeavors after movieland caricatures of the mob.

Gary Johnson is not intelligent enough to be the most powerful man in the world. He is in over his head. He is not a libertarian; he is libertine-light in the thinly veiled disguise of Libertarianism. He is worthy of no more of my words.

Why a Johnson vote then? Simply put: because none of the above should be in the White House. I don’t care what Johnson’s positions are. I don’t care about his morality. I care that it is all but impossible for him to win. What is possible however, is that enough electoral votes for him has real, actual, possibilities of drawing enough electoral votes from both Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump so as to keep all three from the magic 270 votes necessary to prevail in the election. Should none of the candidates obtain 270 electoral votes, congress would have to step in and appoint the next POTUS.

From there things become unclear. It would be unchartered territory. Congress would have pressure and incentive to not appoint one of the three (Johnson would not be taken seriously by them, and Clinton & Trump are currently mired in too much scandal for congress to take sides with either of them). Theoretically, there would be sufficient pressure for them to have to appoint a bipartisan, free-from-scandal, respected moderate. Such a person has to be better than the above options. My vote, therefore, while technically for Johnson, is really a vote for the possibility of a much needed, and desired reset button.

Reflections on Yo Soy Joaquin

2016-10-10T08:10:00.000-07:00

The following is a paper I wrote this summer for my Chicana/o Studies class. My professor asked us to write about an influential Chicana/o personality. I chose to write about a poem, arguing for its influential nature.

Adam Marquez

Christina Sigala

Intro to Chicana/o Studies 1000-002

July 12, 2016

Chicana/o Identity: Reflections on Yo Soy Joaquin

The purpose of this paper is to discuss identity¹ and how it pertains to Mexican-Americans. I have chosen to reflect on Yo Soy Joaquin because it, above any other single influence to which I have been exposed, epitomizes the Mexican/ Mexican-American condition, while simultaneously providing the substance for a much needed mend to a fractured identity. The following paragraphs will be dedicated to explaining identity, what that means to the Mexican-American community, and Yo Soy Joaquin’s role in the Mexican-American community’s growth. This paper will begin, slightly unconventionally, with a concise explanation of what I think Corky Gonzales and his Yo Soy Joaquin have contributed to the Mexican-American community; what that means philosophically, and explanations of my terminology, will follow.

As the toltecatl, Corky Gonzales was able to convey a narrative of the Mexicans and Americans. He retold the history which had been all but forgotten. He evidenced, and validated that Mexican-Americans were somebody; he hurdled the obstacle of diachronic identity. It wasn’t just any retelling of history he gave to Mexican Americans, the narrative was told in an epic poem; an expression dear to the heart of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. Corky Gonzales gave Mexican-Americans the gift of Yo Soy Joaquin, which was the gift of memory, it was a narrative, but not just any narrative, a narrative which resounded with the hearts of Mexican-Americans.

In giving Mexican-Americans a narrative, and retelling their history, Corky Gonzales gave Mexican-Americans persistence. It must be noted that by “narrative” I mean a retold story, a rallying history/remembrance; Yo Soy Joaquin is, in actuality, technically classified as a poem and not a narrative. Corky Gonzales identified, and named the many-faceted nature of Mexican-American identity by using names like: “La Raza,” “Méjicano,” “Español,” “Latino,” and “Chicano” (Gonzales). In the article Terms of Identity: What’s in a Name, Felipe Ortego y Gasca, informs us of the importance of naming; it is essential to the identity of an individual or a group (de Ortego y Gasca). A group without a name is a group without an identity. Early activists who would eventually identify as Chicanos have described their predicament as: being the hyphen between the Mexican and American of the term “Mexican-American” (PBS). Corky gave Mexican-Americans identity by giving name, and validity to their diachronic existence.

By giving identity-through-name, Corky Gonzales was able to distinguishing marks which make Mexican-Americans uniquely identified as a cohesive group with an identity; he presented personhood. Yo Soy Joaquin, is an epic poem, a point at which an entire group can rally around, which infuses dignity, and identity into an entire people group who lacked cohesion; it is a summary of history, it is a namer of identity, it is a carrier of pride, it is a reminder of a meaningful existence; to name one’s self, or one’s group, is a revolt of dignity infusion against oppression and one’s oppressor.

In an article entitled Oppression, for the textbook Race Class and Gender, Frye writes of oppression in terms of the etymology of the word oppression by writing of the nature of its root pressed (Frye 43). Frye claims that for a thing to be pressed, it is by necessity, taking on the image (impression) of whatever is doing the pressing (Frye 43). Such a pressing molds, immobilizes, and reduces the oppressed from his/ her original identity, and stands in opposition to each person coming into his/her own identity. Before Corky Gonzales wrote Yo Soy Joaquin, Mexican-Americans were in a crisis of identity; through a process of Americanization, Mexican-Americans had been made to take on the identity of their oppressor (Vigil 202).

The Americanization of Mexican-Americans wasn’t the only problem though. Before America imposed its culture on Mexico and Mexicans, various European groups had influences. Spain, through syncretic acculturation, changed the nature and expressions of Mestizo religion, spirituality, expressions of worship, and subsequently, an overhaul of culture (Vigil 93, 100). French influence was not as pervasive, but it still had lasting effects. The influence of foreign cultures over Mestizo culture has been far reaching and detrimental to Mexican and Mexican-American identity.

Identity is a big topic with which philosophers have been grappling for centuries. In an article about identity, written for The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Olson lists three essential elements of identity: personhood, persistence and evidence (Olson). Olson was writing about personal identity, but his framework is useful for group identity as well.

For group identity, Personhood refers to the distinguishing marks which makes a group uniquely identified as that group and not something else. This was particularly difficult for Mexican-Americans in the era of Yo Soy Joaquin, as they were not native Mexicans, nor were they accepted as Americans. Ironically, they were expected to integrate into society, as Anglos, while simultaneously being rejected by Anglos. Having common interests, traits, and causes are especially important in this category; they are all things Corky Gonzales identified as necessary and offered in ways in which only Yo Soy Joaquin could.

Persistence refers to diachronic identity, which is the way in which a group maintains identity under changing conditions. The adult version of a child is still the same person as the child even though he/she has taken on different characteristics, experiences, and perspectives. In one way the child/ adult can be thought of as different people because they are dissimilar. But most of the time the child/ adult is viewed as the same person. Documentable history is especially helpful in this category. Yo Soy Joaquin brought to the Mexican-American community a concise, lyrical reminder of its evolving identity.

Evidence refers to anything which helps us establish that a diachronic group is indeed the same group about which we are referring. Marks, in her study of film and art, is helpful in understanding evidence. She discusses, in Loving a Disappearing Image, the concept that diachronic identity needs memory, the preservation of memory, and the retelling of memory (narrative). She emphasizes that it is not just the retelling of memory which is important to identity, but the manner in which the narrative is told, or delivered, is at least as important as content (Marks). Corky Gonzales brought an oral-style recalling which was particularly pertinent as such a recalling is the traditional conveyance of such things for Mexicans.

Concerning narrative, Beatriz de la Fuente gives us some helpful terminology. She describes narrative as, what she terms: “the dialogue between the head and the heart;” the word she uses for that concept is toltecayotl (de la Fuente). She informs us that the conveyor of the dialogue between the head and the heart is the toltecatl, or the artist. De la Fuente’s concept is important to bring up in this paper because I understand Corky Gonzales, through Yo Soy Joaquin, to be the toltecatl of Mexican-American people. Yo Soy Joaquin, went far in bringing identity to Mexican-Americans.

As demonstrated through this paper, Corky Gonzales and Yo Soy Joaquin have been invaluable to Mexican-Americans. They, above any other single influencing factor, have done more to infuse dignity, and bring about a rallying-point cohesion for necessary identity. With a freshly conveyed dignity-filled identity, individual Mexican-Americans and the collective was enabled to forge forward with heads held high. Corky Gonzales’ epic poem facilitated empowerment and gave voice to Mexican-Americans whose dignity was always there, albeit weathered, and latent, and whose voice had been only temporarily muted. With a new voice and sense of empowerment, Mexican-Americans would continue to reinvent themselves in healthy manifestations to take on the twenty-first century as a dominating force. Marquez, 2016

Note

1﷒ In an interview I held with my aunt (My father’s, brother’s wife), Kathy Marquez (formerly Kathy Gonzales), who is the niece of Corky Gonzales, and who was deeply involved in the activism of the Chicano Movement, I learned of the necessity of dignity and identity for Mexican-Americans. I furthered her input with my own extensive research to bring the concepts she felt needed voice concerning the movement. (Marquez (Gonzales))

Works Cited

de la Fuente, Beatriz. "Traces of an Identity." The Aztec Empire 41.52 (2004).

de Ortego y Gasca, Felipe. "Terms of Identity: What's in a Name." Latino Suave Magazine (2005-2006).

Frye, M. "Oppression." Anderson, M. Race Class and Gender: An Anthology. 7. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013. 43-45.

Gonzales, Rodolpho (Corky). 1972. history.msu.edu. .

La Raza de Colorado - El Movimiento. By PBS. Dir. PBS. 2006. PBS Documentary .

Marks, Laura. "Loving a Disappearing Image." Cinémas : Revue d'études cinématographiques Cinémas (1997): 93-112.

Marquez (Gonzales), Kathy. Table Talk: Conversations With My Aunt Adam Marquez. Denver , 13 July 2016.

Olson, Eric T. "The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy." Spring 2016. Plato.Stanfod.Edu. 23 June 2016. .

Vigil, James Diego. From Indians to Chicanos. Long Grove: Waveland Press, Inc., n.d.

Balancing Life While Staying True to Self.

2016-09-03T08:04:00.001-07:00

I am in school and I have several online courses. In my online courses, I am required to interact with the other students through a series of posts. In one of my social work classes a student asked me about how to balance systems (the things which spread us thin in life) while staying true to self. The following was my response:

Ahh, those pesky life-experiences… You wrote about remaining true to self. My very first thought is that it is those life experiences which make up who we are. Our identity, in part, is made up of a series experiences, good and bad. Those memories exist whether we recall them or not; they are a part of us. The trick is in the recalling of memory. In order to know who we are, and to not be obscured by this universe, we must rehash our life-events; the memories which make us who we are. That retelling can be called a narrative. How we retell our memories makes all of the difference.

The first, and most important, rule is that the retelling (the recalling) must be truthful and honest. Denial is counterproductive. Truth and honesty, however, do not necessarily have to be harsh, they just must be accurate (precision is not always necessary). Okay, what I mean is that our retelling can be productive or counterproductive; resiliency is related to what we do with our experiences. It has to do with how we file them away and recall them.

I firmly believe that the art of living has something to do with learning to savor and appreciate every moment for the role it plays in the making of who we are. Savor is a good word, it lends itself nicely to food illustrations. Think of a cook, now think of ingredients as experiences (memories), the arrangement of those ingredients, and the timing of those ingredients is crucial to a savory meal; the arrangement and the timing (cooking) is the narrative. What must be said is that there must be a combination of ingredients, which by themselves may not be desirable, if there is to be a pleasurable food experience. Mexican cuisine, at its best, is full of wonderful spice. The spice is not present, however, for bragging rights. It is there to enhance the other flavors, to work a balance on a plane of experience which otherwise can’t be reached, it awakens the palate to be able to process the other ingredients which have been carefully and intentionally placed, but which otherwise could not be experienced. Chilies on their own, are not pleasurable; they must be paired with other ingredients (even if it is just salt). The point is that life presents adversity (chilies?) and we must savor that adversity, which is done by placing those moments strategically and tactically with other memories. I am rambling…

Last point, the more advicey point… The reason, or the motive behind what we do makes all of the difference. I do nothing from a sense of guilty emotion. Guilty emotion just is not productive. The awareness of true moral guilt and an appropriate response is different than feeling guilty and acting on it. I am motivated relationally. I tell my kids (truthfully), that they are how I survived basic training in the Army. I joined the Army when I was thirty-seven, my thirty-eighth birthday was in the middle of a physically straining and mentally taxing process. There were a couple of marches in the dead of blizzard conditions which were tough for me. With each step I took I would say: “I love you God (step), I love you Tiffanie (step), I Love you Samuel (step), I love you Anna (step), I love you Emma (step), I love you Uriah (step)…” I joined so I could provide for those I love. I focused my energy on the why I was there, and that is how I got through. If your why is always a who, you will be more successful. The who can be God, self, and/ or others (being self-centered can take you to the goal, but produces the least amount of meaningfulness). I would not be nearly as disciplined as I am right now if it was not of necessity. I do what I do, as I have time, so I can be the best Adam, the best husband, father, son, brother, friend, student, employee I can be. I am not reduced because my labor is for a cause, the cause is those with whom I have surrounded myself who are worthy of me investment.

I realize that I didn’t present much practical advice. I think the practical comes from an understanding of how things work, and it is custom to the person and situation. Principle trumps particulars because it is flexible enough to arrange the particulars as needed.

Discussion Notes for the Second Half of Ezekiel 14

2015-11-22T14:05:00.002-08:00

The following is an informal write-up of a Saturday night Bible discussion on the second half of Ezekiel 14. It is abbreviated, and assumes the material of preceding discussions on Ezekiel.

The second half of Ezekiel 14 takes a sharp turn in content and structure from the first half. Where the first half of the chapter was concerned with paradigm-as-idol influencing how God presents revelation, the second half is a lesson on the limits of righteousness-as-salvation from city destruction. The second half of the chapter begins with an announcement of audience expansion.

While we know that "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16), it ought not to be evenly appropriated; it wasn't designed to be used that way. The law was given to the Hebrews, who had just been freed from four hundred years of slavery, and who were in need of an insta-culture, insta-law, insta-civility; a particular group with a specific mission (to be God’s chosen people as model for covenant living), and under specific conditions. The law was given in specificity to a particular group, but designed to provide all of humankind with foundational principles to be used, in practical ways, for all those not in the particular group subjected to it in a regulatory manner. It is true that we live under grace, and that Jesus and His finished work satisfy the law. We are not, however, free from the law on that strength (Jews, hypothetically, are), we, as gentiles, simply were never subjugated to it. The point being that all scripture applies to all of humankind but ought not be used in a uniform manner; it is to be appropriated correctly. It is the burden of the proclaimer to demonstrate the veracity of his/her application of proclamation.

Generally, the Book of Ezekiel was written for Ezekiel’s contemporary Israelites/Judeans, who were in a particular condition of judgement. Generally, we can glean principles from it: God systematically taking down pillars of national pride, glimpses into the mechanics of spirituality, fidelity, the nature of God’s judgement, the foreshadowing of material which enables the arrival and work of Messiah… etc. However, verse 13 begins by telling the reader that this portion is for countries who are facing destruction at the hand of YHWH because of unfaithfulness. The intended audience has just been expanded. If the implicit statement of verse 13 is not enough, the point is underscored by the repeated presentation of the three righteous ones.

Ezekiel names three specific people who are identified as being righteous: Job, Daniel, Noah. They really have no qualities in common outside of their condition of righteousness. Job, as we have discussed earlier, is the universal man, the non-Hebrew, non-Israelite, the one from far (east) over there. Though he was not an Israelite, he was YHWH recognized/authorized, deeply rooted in the Israelite tradition, he stands before/outside of the law. His brand of righteousness was pious-turned-relational. Noah is the fresh start, the new, post-Adam beginning. He is foundational, covenantally relational. His brand of righteousness was staying faithful in a society whose condition was saturatedly evil; an evil with an emphasis on violence. He was the non-violent (pacifist?) faithful one. Daniel had a different role. Block points out that Daniel would’ve been a contemporary of Ezekiel. He observes that scholars are driven to find a different Daniel than the one commonly associated with Biblical narrative (Block, 448). The thought being that Daniel would not have already had the deeply rooted reputation amongst the Israelites which we now assume. I am not, however, worried about that. I think the Daniel in Ezekiel is the Daniel with whom we are familiar. I think he was chosen to be the contemporary faithful one. The Hebrew, bound-to-the-law guy, the one-of-us exemplified (us being the Israelites). He was the one who was faithful to God and country, not his country mind you, under the conditions of captivity within a highly non-YHWHistic, spiritually-driven culture. He was chosen to be in the list because his brand of righteousness was representative of their (Ezekiel’s contemporaries) condition, and because they could relate to him; a hero with a cult following, the mascot, with an already developed legendary status. These three were chosen as a sampling to represent different times, cultures, conditions, nationalities, and dispositions of the “countries” found in verse 13. Their one commonality was righteousness, a term with which we are familiar.

Block defines righteousness in a way that should sound familiar: “…sedaqa refers to spiritual and moral faithfulness expressed in conformity with the divine will.” (Block, 449) The righteousness of the three was what we know faith to be. Faith is necessary and essential to proper living, but it is not salvivic. It is proactive. It is the consistent act(s) of doing the right thing in the face of the wrong thing, in accordance with YHWH’s revealed intent; acts demonstrating the condition of not being corroded by this world or the ever current, “this present darkness.” Sin and non-faithfulness is corrosive. Righteousness opposes corrosion within the agent of the faithful, but it does not corrode corrosion. What I mean is that while righteousness may have preservative qualities for the agent of the faithful one, it doesn’t undo corrosion, especially not in extended agents (the, other, non-faithful one). Righteousness may be necessary, but it is not, in and of itself, salvivic.

Our pericope leaves us wondering what is salvivic if righteousness is not. It should leave us disturbed, thinking that our go-to tricks in which we take comfort: piety, pacifism, rebellion to imposed secularism, might not save us, and assuredly won’t save our loved ones, or our country. Legislated righteousness won’t work; we can’t win God’s favor by making others not have abortions, by making others not be gay, by making others put Christ on coffee cups… Expecting others to live up to the standard which we believe to be, which we have processed out for our convenient use, which we have interpreted as the proper way to live, won’t save us, our loved ones, our country, or other people’s countries. The pericope leaves us driven, challenged to find something besides the go-to of holier-than-thou behavior if we are interested in salvation and the well-being of those outside of ourselves. Ritual won’t do it, sacrificing just-in-case won’t do it, denial/hiding in arks won’t do it, we must look toward transformation.

We are not given a neatly wrapped answer in chapter 14. The chapter ends with a pointing toward justification (vindication?). It points to the comfort of the I-told-you-so. I somehow think that is not the end though. If the stated problem is the inability to save those outside of self with personal righteousness, the chapter's ending of a message of the comfort of the I-told-you-so is unsatisfactory; an end without solution. It is an end without resolution, just a sterile description of what is when we are only internal; when we are only acting out in self-preservation. So then, we ought to be driven toward resolution, toward a solution of external inclusion, a third-possibility-kind of hope, something transformative and not just preservative.
In a struggle to consider what is transformative, I think of things like: Messiah, love, adversity in the hands of YHWH… I know these things are thematic scriptural solutions, so they are the logical rocks under which to find the answer, but the chapter leaves us in a cliff-hanger. For now we must exist in suspended anticipation with the belief that a redemptive solution is forthcoming.

Block, Daniel Isaac. "Chapter 14." The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1-24. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1997. Print.

Form and Function Matter

2015-06-28T11:41:00.001-07:00

I feel the need to say something about current/recent events. I realize that many of you would like for me to weigh in on these topics. I will write briefly on what I think about them and why, but that is not my purpose for writing this. Something else is giving me concern. I will get to that in a little while.

Most of you know where I stand on gay marriage, the Affordable Care Act, and racism. I basically don’t support any of them. Before you get angry, please hear me out and read on.

Concerning gay marriage: I hate discrimination. in a secular society (sorry my church friends, it is a secular society in which we live) where we have laws that favor monogamous relationships in matters of life decisions, financial arrangements, the raising of children, and other related issues, monogamous couples, regardless of gender arrangement, should be seen equally under the law. For those Christians who oppose homosexuality vehemently, it is your right to hold that position and to disassociate from homosexuals or to “love the sinner and not the sin,” or whatever you think is necessary for your moral compass, up to the point of acting coercively. As a Christian brother, however, I should remind you that your standing orders are to love, especially those who you think are unlovely. Your standing orders are to serve and to heal. The nature of your interaction with society should always have the end goal of reconciling people with one another in healthy relationships, and with God. None of that is possible while rejecting or being intolerant toward others. You were given no protocol, for the treatment of others with whom you disagree, besides loving practically or disassociating peacefully.

I also think it is time for the church to lay down its defensive nature, to put on Christ-like lenses, endeavor to be objective, and revisit the issue. The church has had a stance on homosexuality for some time; a stance of intolerance and the belief that homosexuality is a sin that holds a “special” kind of status in terms of the scaling of egregiousness of sins. It has been my experience that those who currently hold such a view tend to do so more on the basis of an inherited, post-early church tradition, of sorts, rather than on a well-structured, Biblically-based, doing-justice-to-the-text’s-spirit-and-law sort of way. For such an undertaking of consideration to take place certain elements will have to be considered. One such element is the quintessence of scripture and God’s heart; if God is love and the whole duty of humankind is to fear Him and keep his commands, and if His commands are to love Him with everything one is/has and to love neighbor as self, then it would be essential for scripture to be understood and deciphered under some kind of rubric of love. Elements like God’s unrelenting insistence, in a repeated, emphasized way, that the sabbath be kept, by all (not just those who were given the law directly, but all YHWH believers/ followers for all time), will need to be treated for what it is, especially since the church doesn’t seem to be too concerned with likewise emphasizing it; yet, the not-emphasized, by God, topic of homosexuality, as we define it in modernity, has become one of the church’s main emphasis. I will maintain that scripture’s handling of the topic is more holistic than the manner in which we have handled it. If taken in context, and thematically, as it pertains to God’s stance on morality and the problem of sin, the texts on homosexuality are more of a warning against coercive sexual acts in general, and the consequence of people’s insistence on obtaining and acting out unmitigated pleasure, than it is some sort of diatribe on consenting, loving, monogamous adults, who are law abiding, and of the same gender.

I digress. My point, here, is not to defend homosexuality, but to call the church to discourse and rationality over the consideration of things it conveniently does not, in legitimate ways, consider; to open a new diaglogue.

I stated earlier that I don’t support gay marriage. I should clarify my position. I don’t support the notion of the federal government being the legitimizing impetus behind contracts that are social and religious in nature. I think it unwise, gay or straight, to petition a body who, otherwise would not have governing authority, to govern the matter. Had my wife allowed it, I would have married her in a social/religious ceremony only, and not given the state any credence. I am a realist, however, and I stand for equal treatment of people under a body of law that exists. That is more important than standing from an irrelevant, metaphorical distance, shaking my finger, and saying that since my ideal is not a reality, others should suffer. I would prefer that marriage, in general (without gender concern), not be a federal matter. By seeking the approval of consolidated power, we legitimize its raw power where it would otherwise have no governing reach. Since it has become a federal matter, however, citizens (despite the church’s opinion of who has God’s grace and who doesn’t) should be treated equitably. I don’t, however, think the manner in which we got there is legitimate. More on that later.

I have arrested your attention and I must be responsible with it so I will make my take on the Affordable Care Act more succinct and brief. The greatest defeating force in the affordability of health care in America is the regulating muscle of insurance on the medical industry. I am currently an employee of the federal government and have served in the active Army. I have come to believe that the bureaucracy of consolidated power, especially when it comes to a nation as geographically and populace vast (in number and conviction) as ours, is an inefficient mechanism to handle the particular needs and desires of the individual. The Affordable Care Act marries the insurance industry and the federal government while making the goods and services of that marriage mandatory. In my mind, that is not a winning recipe for lower costs, greater quality of healthcare, or the fostering of personal liberty. So though I disagree with the very relevance of the Affordable Care Act, as a reasonable realist, I must concede that it is the law, and abide by it, or protest it in relevant, valid ways. However, if the law itself proves to be unconstitutional, or inherently contradictory or invalid, or if the law makers break the law as it is written by enforcing it, my expectation is that the Supreme Court would rule on it accordingly. The manner in which it has been upheld this last week is illegitimate. More on that in a bit.

Concerning racism: it is wrong! There is no getting around that, there are no exceptions. This past week’s Supreme Court ruling on Texas Housing v. Inclusive Communities is not helpful to our culture at large or to our country in general; it provides us with no long-term advancement in the area of maturity as it pertains to racism. The greatest thing we as a non-racist group, or a group vying for a non-racist status, could do is to not make exceptions for people, based on race, no matter how charitable or benevolent the motive. Even in the case where the motive is pure and well-intentioned, if an act or stance keeps some in a category and others not in that category, and is based on race, then both groups have been segregated from each other in invalid and divisive ways. There is no gain against racial barriers in the case of overcompensating for the way things should’ve been in our history, but weren’t. I know this next statement will not be popular, but it is necessary if we are to grow past our current sophomoric level of race-relation maturity. In the case where an unjust police force is systemically and racistly mistreating a minority group, the best thing we can do is stand as a united front, as Americans, in solidarity for the victim(s) in the name of brotherhood, and intolerance of injustice, and not on the basis of racism. We should be taking such things from the injustice-based-on-race realm, even when the racists keeps putting it there, and placing them in the realm of injustice-based-on-humans-being-treated-unjustly. We have no gain, and will experience no growth as a result of codifying the idea of “unconscious racism” in the way the Supreme Court has done. Our collective energy needs to be completely invested in each human citizen of this nation experiencing equitable treatment under the law. Furthermore, labeling something a hate crime brings us no gain. As an example, murder is wrong and we should all be incensed when it occurs because a neighbor of humanity was victimized; the motive of the perpetrator influencing our feelings or decisions on the matter is a little sick. The problem with a murderous act (but really with any unjust act) is humankind’s inhumanity to humankind, not that someone has a certain brand of hate (which may be more or less socially acceptable based on its popularity at the time), in his, heart at the moment he/she commits an intolerable act. In, Texas Housing v. Inclusive Communities, it is worth considering that the Supreme Court has brought us no gain, and greater division, at the cost of more threat to our personal liberties.

The reason I am writing this is because there is an angle on all of this that people aren’t seeing. I wanted to give voice to it before that angle was swept away under a label of bigotry. It is possible for one to be pro-equitability while not being pleased with the procedural way in which it has taken place. Function and form do matter. A disturbing thought occurred to me this week. I was thinking that the manner in which the Supreme Court has handled the recent sensitive topics it has ruled on is not in keeping with our historic protocol. While some were busy rejoicing, and while others were busy being pissy, very few were talking about the procedural irregularities of the Supreme Court, and their certain long-term precedent-making implications, for future constitutional matters. I was thinking about how people got really upset last year concerning the procedural matter of inflated (or not) balls. I don’t know a lot about football, but my understanding is that the deflating team in question would have won regardless of the amount of air in their balls; still, procedure matters in the important dealings of things like official ball games. It should matter infinitely more to us, as a society, that those who are in the sacred position of governing for our liberties do so in accordance with the procedural processes which are in place. Americans enjoy freedom on the philosophic premise that their liberties are inalienable and inherent, they are not given by rulers. Appealing to a ruling class for liberty is, at least philosophically, counterproductive to the idea of liberty, for it predicates that same liberty on the hope of an elite’s benevolence, and forgets that it is not the elite’s to give; it is the willingness to surrender one’s self and one’s power to someone who doesn’t have it in order to obtain the freedom one already, inherently possessed. So, despite how you or I feel about the matters that were in court this past week, we have the responsibility to care about how they are handled as much as we care about the outcome of their handling. Lest you get caught up in all the hype and polarizing narratives, consider that the dissenting judges in the past week’s cases were trying to stay true to their position and function and resist the temptation to rule based on favoritism. It will be easy for people to think the dissenters were being bigoted, or opposing equal rights. They were trying to say that rights don’t come from their desks, laws don’t come from their pens, and that for them to function as though they do, is to create the unintended ripple of division and liberty loss down the road. Lex, Rex.

On The Omnipotent Dance of Philosophy, and the Usefulness of the Claims of the Believing Community

2015-05-13T11:31:00.001-07:00

Philosophers and thinkers have been contemplating, theorizing, arguing and pontificating on “God’s omnipotence” for centuries. According to The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, omnipotence speaks of maximal greatness or maximal power (Hoffman, 1). Morris begins his reasoning in A Modern Discussion of Divine Omnipotence with Jeremiah 32:27 (Morris, 402). The passage was intended to be an expression, of God, to Jeremiah, for comfort; comfort for Jeremiah concerning God’s ability to handle whatever Jeremiah had to face. The passage is a passage of comfort based on competence; it is not a passage intended to elucidate the extent to which God is with, or without limit in his acts, or power. Morris observes that the passage makes the claim that God is “all powerful” or “almighty,” (Morris, 402) but that notion is abstract and lacks precision. In an effort to find clarity and resolution on the matter, philosophers have tried to find universal definitions that work. Early on, Aquinas, for example, attempted to reconcile Aristotelian perspectives of the universe with scriptural claims, in the hopes of creating an elegant rendering of scriptural truths which satisfied philosophic inquiries. He, in a sense, attempted to reframe the claims of scripture to satisfy the form of reasoning required by the philosophy with which he was familiar. Such reframing is the approach most philosophers have taken on the matter; the reframing of claims to satisfy the question. While God, through Jeremiah, queried: “…is anything too difficult for me,” (Jer. 32:27) in an effort to bring comfort concerning his ability to intervene, philosophy begged the question, what is anything? To satisfy the question, philosophers pondered what was possibly, or impossibly “anything” and tried to make rulings on it with the use of various forms of logic. Simply put: scripture presented comfort; philosophy called for precision; and philosophers answered with syncretism.

My position is: though I find the arguments of omnipotence interesting, I find them to be unnecessary and I will explain why I believe that throughout this paper. Should I find myself pinned down to side with a view which has already been offered by someone more credible than I am, I tend to side with much of what Richard Swinburne says in his Miracles and Laws of Nature. I do not, however, completely agree with him since I can see several problems with his position.

Much of the apologetics concerned with the substantiation of God’s omnipotence are involved with defining and redefining terms like, “all,” “every,” “everything,” “infinite,” …etc. By tweaking the rubric or schematic of what is feasible, various individuals have hoped to come up with a solution which satisfies: the claims of scripture, the believing community’s proclivities for orthodoxy, philosophic queries, and the naysayers. If one starts by defining God’s omnipotence by saying that God can do anything, meaning there exists nothing that he can’t do, one runs into the difficulties of God being incapable of not doing the impossible. In such a case contradictions arise, and we are left with a silly portrait of a God who can’t make a rock that is too great to lift, but who must make such a rock if he is omnipotent, or who can’t produce a bachelor who is married, or some other absurd paradox. Intuitively, at that point, we either want to conclude that God is not omnipotent, or we search for some other resolution. As I stated earlier, such resolution is typically broached through a shift in the rules or schematic. For example, Morris describes Kenny’s account which limits omnipotence to that which is: “…logically possible.” (Morris, 411) Such a notion is helpful in that it seemingly removes the problem of dealing with the inconvenient difficulties of incoherent paradoxes. What is gained, however, comes with a price.

Morris points out that: “…it is logically possible to sin.” (Morris, 411) In doing away with absurdity by shifting the paradigm, we have to face questions that actually matter such as God’s ability/inability to sin. There is a dance of sorts that takes place on these matters. The philosophic community maintains an ongoing dialogue wherein opposing sides compete to have final resolution. So the next dance step, as it were, would be to reframe, yet again, what “all powerful” can mean without violating rules of logic. Such a reframing would be a development in the area of what is “logically possible.” People like Aquinas and Swinburne have weighed in on the debate. Swinburne, in particular, has made some insightful contributions, taking the conversation into the realm of miracles. In the next paragraph I will discuss Swinburne’s view to a certain extent. First, it should be mentioned that the cost of the “philosophic dance” is a divergence from the original intent of either the text or the original intent of the topic. Take the above example for instance; we go from God reaching out in a statement of comfort, and end up in a discussion of miracles. The dance takes us from comfort, to miracles, with omnipotence in the middle.

Richard Swinburne brought the idea of miracles to the discussion of omnipotence. Assuming that the definition of a miracle is a “violation of the law of nature,” (Swinburne, 424) Swinburne attempted to reframe the notion. He observes that miracles are perhaps not a violation of laws of nature, but rather, are the fulfillment of greater, less observed laws. Swinburne put it like this: “When an event apparently violates such laws, the appearance may arise simply because no one has thought of the true law which could explain the event, or, while they have thought of it, it is so complex relative to the data as rightly to be dismissed before even being tested, or too complex to be adopted without further testing and the tests too difficult in practice to carry out.” (Swinburne, 428) What Swinburne was getting at can be exemplified with the concept of flight. Imagine that one had never witnessed an airplane in flight nor heard of a flying machine. That person, upon witnessing, for the first time, an airplane in flight, might think him/herself to be witnessing a violation of the laws of gravity and consider the event to be a miracle. Swinburne would argue that the airplane was not violating the laws of nature at all, it was, rather, adhering to other, less familiar laws, such as thrust and lift. He would also claim that it is mankind’s proclivity to settle with the easiest reasonable answer. Not ever having been introduced to thrust and lift, one would likely assume a miracle had taken place before he or she considered looking for those laws with which to explain the phenomenon.

Swinburne would argue that God’s omnipotence should not be framed by what God can or can’t do in theory, but rather, to what he can and actually does do, or at least, what the claims of the believing community insist he has done and will do. Further, he would claim that what God does do is plausible because it is always in accordance with the laws of nature whether or not we realize it. It is on this point which I gravitate toward Swinburne’s position. It is also upon this point that his position becomes vulnerable.

It is convenient to hold the stance that there is an unknown, reasonable explanation for everything to which we don’t have a ready explanation, but there is no way to test such a notion. It can be said that the resurrection of Christ was a miracle, and that there is an explanation to which we are not privy. One can postulate that Christ suffered from a temporary condition which gave all appearance of death but was not death. One can also theorize some other explanation. The problem, however, with Swinburne’s method is threefold. First, in the case in which Christ actually rose from the dead, in a miraculous way, which is in accordance with the claims of the believing community for centuries, and which can’t be proven or disproven, Swinburne is simply wrong. Secondly, in a case where Swinburne would be correct; where some condition mimicked death and resurrection, there is no way to prove his position to be true; there would be no satisfactory resolution. We are left with convenient speculation. Thirdly, Swinburne’s position requires the same kind of faith he tried to circumvent by giving natural answers. He would have us always believing that what we see and can’t explain has a natural answer even if we can’t know it, and even if we don’t have sufficient precedence to reasonably believe it.

Earlier I stated that I gravitated toward Swinburne’s position. Where I find common ground with him is at the point at which he seeks to keep things in the realm of what God actually does, and away from senseless theoreticals about what he may or may not be able to do. Admittedly, we can’t say with certitude that God has done anything, however, I propose that we stick to what has been claimed of him by the believing community. Though I respect the elegance with which Swinburne attempts to reframe the matter, I see its vulnerability. Swinburne’s vulnerability, however, is not the biggest problem. The discussion, at large, is a bigger problem.

Consider for a moment that the traditional renderings of the believing community are true. In such a case, all of the hypotheticals are useless and gain us no ground in understanding the world around us, nor are they helpful in substantiating the need for philosophic discourse. In such a case, God’s action in space time history does not need the assistance of theory. Furthermore, should such the case be true, there would be greater gain from gleaning from what has actually taken place than there would be from speculating about that which could or could not happen. It would be sufficient to say that God’s omnipotence included whatever has been claimed. Perhaps, from this, we could take away some kind of comfort as was intended by such claims in the first place.

Now consider that there is no God, and subsequently, there are no miracles; there is no omnipotence. In such a case, it is useless to theorize about what “is not” except to get a better grasp of what “is” from an antithetical form. Since, however, one would only be theorizing about what something that doesn’t exist was capable or incapable of, what actually “is” would benefit little. Such theorizing would be akin to two schoolchildren arguing over the precise speed at which Wonder Woman’s invisible jet could find its maximum.

I maintain that more often than not, we have a zero sum gain from the philosophic dance which takes us away from what was claimed by the believing community in the first place. Whether or not there is a God, the believing community seems to gain inspiration from their belief(s). The syncretism of claim plus philosophy takes away the magic of the claim and replaces it with implausible postulations. I understand that my stance is bold and on the fringe. I understand that the weakness of such a stance is that it is banked on the goodness of the believing community, and the trust that they are getting the story straight. Earlier I criticized Swinburne for requiring the same kind of faith he tried to circumvent. In turn, my stance requires the same kind of faith with which I accused Swinburne. On the other hand, all stances end with the need for faith, for even evidential claims must establish their believers’ trust before they are accepted. Swinburne’s issue wasn’t the matter of faith itself, but rather, landing back at faith after having tried to escape it. Swinburne at least attempts to keep the dance in the realm of what is real and explainable rather than into the realm of the absurd.

Works Cited Page

Hoffman, Joshua. "Omnipotence." Stanford University. Stanford University, 21 May 2002. Web. 13 May 2015. .

Morris, Thomas V. "Chapter 39: A Modern Discussion of Divine Omnipotence.” Philosophy of Religion: A Guide and Anthology. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000. 4014. Print.

Swinburne, Richard “Chapter 41: Miracles and Laws of Nature.” Philosophy of Religion: A Guide and Anthology. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000. 4014. Print.

Thoughts on Racism: a Facebook Post Inspired Response

2015-03-15T11:13:00.000-07:00

One of my friends posted a clip on his Facebook page with the following comment: “I salute his response to the fullest.”
The clip can be found at the following link: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10203392826771428&fref=nf
The clip is of a young man who was convicted of murdering two individuals. Upon his conviction he was given the opportunity to express remorse. He used the time and media coverage instead to express solidarity. He ends his statement by raising his hands and stating: “Black lives matter.”
I was disturbed with my friend’s stance. The following is my response. It has been slightly edited to make it more blog-format-friendly, to give it a little context, and to create some clarity (keep in mind that it was written with spontaneity and informality). It, however, mostly remains in the original Facebook comment style in which it was first written. My friend respects me in general and has left my comments up on his page unchallenged.

All lives matter.

Hey guys, he killed humans and showed no remorse. He instead shifted the blame by talking about a separate injustice.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

If he judges the white man for murder, how does his murderous act suddenly become just?

If this same man decided to balance the injustice by killing my Uriah, or my Theo (who undoubtedly would appear white to him), because somebody with dark skin was killed, would you still be saluting? Come on man, injustice is ugly and wrong regardless of to whom it is perpetrated. We ought not encourage anyone with such behavior. We ought not applaud anyone who continues the evil. Promote people who speak inspiration and who do Compassion + Justice + Righteousness.

Man, you know I love you. And you know my heart bleeds when racism is acted out. Holding bitterness doesn't change things. Holding bitterness makes sense, it seems kind of justified, but it isn't helpful. I fear that such bitterness is taking hold of the heart of Black America.

If Black America is outraged (and rightfully so) at the unjust, racially motivated acts that take place, because unjust acts ought not take place, then Black America should rise up and create justice in our culture. Justice does not equal revenge- though they may be related, they are two entirely different things that ought never be confused. Black America certainly should not be using unjust acts to justify its own bloodlust. Black America ought not accuse others for being unjust while responding by acting unjustly.

I fully concede that America needs to continue to grow and evolve beyond racism. I am not claiming that there is no racism, or that I am comfortable with racism. But I am uncomfortable with what Black America is doing about it.

Black America complains (again, rightfully so) that there is disunity and that its members are not treated fairly or equally. The elephant in the room though, about which we are not supposed to talk, is that I am not so sure that the majority of the members of the black subculture in America really want to live American lives. There is a confusion between "white" and "American." Acting civilized is not a white thing, it is a matter of dignity. It is American, because generally and historically speaking, America strives for the dignity of the individual. Where we get it wrong we evolve and change over time. So while many act out in subversive behavior (not knowing that they are acting out against human dignity and not against whiteness), and then accuse others of not showing empathy or sympathy, or full support, America is left baffled. Please allow me to talk freely for just a second, I mean no offense, I just want to keep dialogue open, and help expand perspective. I have the balls to talk and love, so let's talk...

I am going to give you a real example of what I am talking about; an example that happened to me and that has become kind of a norm in our culture, something about which stand-up comics could easily joke because of its accepted prevalence (well, at least minus my response in the matter). I was once trying to watch a movie in New Orleans. It was an afternoon matinee so the theater was nearly empty. A black man decided to sit right in front of me. I don't care that he sat there or that he was black; I normally wouldn't even think to think to identify him as black over any other description, but it is pertinent here. The movie started. He took his phone out and for two hours he preached into the fucking phone. He ruined the movie. But he was black so its okay right? I am not supposed to get angry because the threatening black man has free license to act socially distastefully right? In our current social structure, I am not allowed to defend myself against a black aggressor who is causing harm because it will be framed as a racially motivated act of aggression on my part; I am not allowed to look at a black man in a way he doesn't like or I will be confronted because a white man should know his place of not even seeming disrespectful, I am supposed to just sit back and let a black man do whatever he wishes with no negative response or I am a bigot. The underlying assumption in such situations is that my response to bullshit is a response to race, and not bullshit. The underlying assumption is that my intolerance is predicated on the assumption that black people are a certain way and I, as a white man, am intrinsically judgmental. The funny thing is that I am not even white, so the black assumption of me is off (but that is okay, right?). What I am saying is that Black America wants its cake and wants to eat it too. Black America despises being misjudged, but hypocritically misevaluates the situation all the time (again, that's okay though because he's black).

None of that is me though. I don't see black, I see man. I am a man. So I went up to the man after the movie. I confronted him as a man. I said, "Hey man, you ruined my movie, how about you reimburse my ticket?" He, assuming that I was white and had no right to be confronting him took an aggressive stance and said something about his girlfriend being in the hospital and he had to talk to her, and that I had no right... Me: "So go visit her, you still owe me a movie." Him: "Let's go get the manager." Me: "No let's talk this out man to man or fight this out man to man, because you are a man and I am a man, we don't need someone else arbitrating your bad behavior." Then he brought up the black thing, and how I was being racist... blah, blah, blah... Me: "Nope, I don't care who you are, you are a man and you ruined the movie, fix it." He ended up apologizing. My whole point, though, is that Black America has our culture by the balls, where we are not supposed to be able to talk about bullshit, we are supposed to accept bullshit, we are supposed to court mediocrity and distasteful behavior all because of that word racism.

Now, there is racism. It is wrong. It rears its ugly head all too often. In these strange times, it is more important than ever to be specific, almost obsessive about getting things right. When it is actually racism it needs to be called such and needs to be eliminated in productive ways that include compassion+justice+righteousness. When it is not racism, it needs to not be treated as though it were. There is no such thing as fair and until we all deal with that we will not grow. We do, however, need to shoot for a little less hypocrisy. If a white man came on tv and said the same things that the guy in the youtube clip said under similar circumstances (except that he had killed black people) there would be hell to pay from the black community. But since we are in the culture in which we are, the black man gets saluted.

How about we collectively (without regard for race one way or another) salute dignified men acting dignified with dignified causes!?

Newsflash: The American majority is ready to rally behind Black America against racism and knows that the black man is greater than bullshit behavior. Unfortunately, it seems Black America hasn't come to realize that yet though.

I have one more thing to say. I appreciate the patience, endurance and careful consideration of anyone reading all of this. Please try to be objective about what I am saying and know that I have nothing but love in my heart, an interest in truth, and the hope that we can all get this better- together.

I am going to evidence (evidence is not proof, it's just evidence- but it needs to be considered) that America is less racist than it is currently being given credit for.

Fact: A white cop shot a young black man in Ferguson and killed him.

Fact: There was rioting in the streets.

Fact: There was rioting in the streets before all the evidence was out. There was rioting in the streets under the assumption of racism. (I am only stating facts at this point- before you get all argumentative, know that I am not saying anything, at this point, about whether or not it was actually racially motivated, just, unjust, defensive... etc.) The fact remains that assumption, at least originally, was enough to get violence out in the streets.

Fact: The white cop claimed that what he did was not racially motivated. (That does not make him innocent, and it does not mean that he was being truthful, but it does mean that his motive can't be immediately determined)

Fact: The guy in the above youtube video killed humans.

Fact: The guy in the video, with intent, and of his own volition, framed his act under racial pretenses. That is, he made it a racial issue (even if the murders themselves were not racially motivated. If a white man killed two black people in the same way it would be assumed to be racially motivated). One could easily argue that the murders were racially motivated, but that aside, his act(s) became racial the second he contrasted his murders the to allegedly racially motivated crimes perpetrated by white men.

Fact: With objective proof (as opposed to mere assumption) there is no white rioting in the streets over a proven racially motivated crime against white people.

How about we broaden our horizons and be outraged at injustice period. How about we be outraged and post on Facebook about Christians being killed by Muslim extremists just 'cause they are Christian? How about we get outraged every time a black person is killed by a white person or a black person? How about we get outraged every time a white person is killed at the hand of a white person or black person? How about we get outraged at injustice because it is unjust, not because it falls into the category for which we root? How about the only team we all choose to rally behind is team dignity against team criminal? Or team Love as opposed to team factions?

On Orthodoxy and Pandering

2015-03-10T10:30:00.001-07:00

I am torn on the current issue orthodoxy vs. the loss of identity for the current church. I lean conservative in most matters, so it is more comfortable with me to side with the old-school approach in some ways. On the other hand, I can see the devastating social effects and philosophic isolationism that it often brings too. I am concerned with our tendency to make things so all-or-nothing, especially when our conclusion-making just might start at some incorrect points. First of all, let me say that I believe the Bible is completely authoritative and God inspired. I believe it is God authored. It is the universal by which all believers should chart their course collectively and individually. The manner in which we approach those timeless truths from generation to generation, however, is what is important to this conversation. I believe that while the Bible is true for all generations with the same amount of authority, efficacy, and relevance it is to be uniquely, skillfully, contemporaneously and freshly lived out in each generation. That is not to say that it should be watered down, or made to conform to our boxes (our reality should be informed by scripture, not scripture informed by our reality). Just as each person must know God through his or her own journey and relationship development, so each generation must know God in its own way. Paul talks about “rulers of this present darkness.” I suspect that, in part, he was expressing to us that each generation has its own present darkness to have to face uniquely and against which its Christianity must be relevant and effective.

One of the ideas I have been wrestling with for some years is what I, for lack of better terminology, have begun calling the problem of the pristine moment. Let me explain what I mean by that. It seems that throughout history groups of believers have looked for, and often settled on, a definitive, authoritative (pristine) moment in Judeo-Christian history to emulate. A moment that is as close to a perfect form for the believing community to model as possible. Should we be trying to get back to Eden, or the theocracy of Moses, or the times governed by David? Perhaps we should be making a journey back to that moment described in the second chapter of Acts. I have always found it interesting that orthodox Jews dress in throw-back, old-school garb. Why? They hail from a brand of old European Judaism whose adherents wore clothes that were contemporary to them; now those clothes are dated. Why did the orthodox Jews choose that moment, that style, that strain to emulate; what made it more Jewish, more orthodox, more authentic, than any other (earlier?) form? Or consider the Amish- why? Why that moment, why their specific brand German language, why those clothes? I get it: there is a reasonable answer to each of those specific questions. But today’s Amish are not who their originals were. They now come from here. Why not emulate something else as being more authentically Christian now? Why is so much of the Catholic Church modeled after a form of Christianity that came hundreds of years after Christ’s death and was several cultures removed? While I ponder those questions, I am left even more baffled by the protestant form of worship found in modern American culture. It zealously claims some kind of authoritative stance on scripture, but what makes it more authentically Christian than what the Greek orthodox are doing, for example? I don’t think the answer is found in measuring each form or expression of worship that each believing community has held, in search of the pristine moment. The answer lies elsewhere altogether.

I have come to understand a principle that I discovered while reading through the part of the Old Testament that gives nauseating detail about how the tabernacle and all of its contents were to be constructed. I read through it wondering what could be learned about the character of God in such an opaque and uninteresting part of the Bible. I was a contractor for several years so the thought came to me that though the plans given by God in scripture were detailed and precise, the end result would potentially be different in the hands of each contractor who attempted to build in accordance with those plans. Given that the plans were carefully and faithfully followed, there are infinite possible expressions that would satisfy the criteria of a God-sanctioned product. So while the Bible is unwavering in its stances, there is at least the possibility that God’s heart has room for many varied acceptable expressions of the fulfillment of the requirements found therein. The tabernacle is where the light bulb went off for me. It is not the only place this notion is found in scripture though. Whether we are considering the way the Hebrews and Jews worshipped YHWH, as prescribed by Him, differently from generation to generation, or surveying the differences of the churches (some good, some bad) in the book of Revelation, it is undeniable that there always have been, and will always be varied forms of acceptable expression of YHWH worship; of doing Christianity “right.” Actually, Christianity as a development of Judaism is its own example of what I am saying. I have learned one more thing that I think is useful to this kind of a conversation.

I have learned that scripture, among other things, is a cacophony of voices singing in unison the message that God has choreographed and is currently orchestrating to express his heart. Please note that I am not saying that the Bible is open to modification; it is not, it is a closed cannon. God’s inspiration in accordance with scripture, however, is always fresh. It is comprised of poetry that is to be understood poetically, history that is to be taken historically, narrative that is to be taken literally and metaphorically, and on and on. Furthermore, this wonderful expression of God is not to be understood in terms of particulars for the full picture, but rather, in terms of principles. For example: the law of Moses was given to a specific group of people who had an almost emergency kind of need for law and order after the obtainment of an overnight freedom from 400 years of slavery-as-culture. That law was known to be temporary almost from its inception. So while, on the terms of grace and the fact that it simply does not apply to our non-Jewish, slave-free selves, it is not ours to live out; well not exactly. It applies to us in principle. There are many things that we can learn from it like principles concerning ideal living. We get a snapshot into the heart of an eternal God and what He thinks, and how He handles newly freed people. We get to see a little bit about how He perceives ideal relationships lived out. So while it doesn’t apply to us in specificity, it is ours to be wrestled out contemporaneously; it is useful to us, in our culture, in the now.

I oppose the watering down of the Bible or of Christian culture. I oppose making it user friendly to the point that it changes in essence. On the other hand I challenge the notion of pristine moment choosing, and more specifically, I challenge any pristine moment that is chosen (hint: we have not found it, nor have we become the pristine moment, nor is there one to be found). I believe that God has us on an evolutionary developmental trajectory from Genesis through the eschaton (I am not speaking of Darwinian evolution as it pertains to genetics or creationism), wherein he slowly grooms us into being His bride and slowly reveals Himself to us. The Bible and Christian culture are not vehicles for formulas of living. We are not to approach it willy-nilly either; we don’t get to just pick and choose what works for us conveniently or expediently. We are to catch a rhythm of God’s heart beat and wrestle out our generation’s ideal Christianity so we can best serve God in the now.

In Search of a Universal: It Ain't Hell

2015-02-16T13:25:00.000-08:00

Unlike it was for the ancient Jew or the earlier Christian YHWH believer, the modern Christian’s Christianity is predicated upon the notion that the main point of the religion is to avoid hell and get into heaven. I don’t think many people would easily admit the above point, but as a matter of practicality, Christianity in the 21st century western world has really been reduced to that. The natural conclusions of a religion whose main point is present investment for a post-death payout usually ends with some kind of a spreadsheet of dos and don’ts by which one attempts to muster his way passed the pearly gates via the brute force of a perfectly disciplined and applied will. As I read through the Bible, the text doesn’t seem to support the 21st century American set of assumptions about Christianity very well, if at all. As I read through the Bible, I am struck with several questions and a drive to find a premise of belief that is more true to the religion’s intent.

If one takes the claims of scripture seriously, one has to admit the existence of some kind of heaven and hell because they are each claimed to be a reality by authoritative figures like Christ. Besides confirming their existence, scripture does not say much about heaven and hell. Most of our mind pictures and assumptions concerning these two places come from the imaginations of medieval theologians and authors of epic fiction. Without Dante Alighieri’s “Divine Comedy,” which, by the way, was a poem that came about centuries after the death of Christ, we would not have the developed concept of hell that we enjoy today. Without guys like Thomas Aquinas we simply would not have the involved concepts of heaven and hell that we assume come straight from the pages of scripture. Knowing this makes me wonder why, if not heaven and hell, what? What have people believed in the past; are their reasons good reasons for us?

I often wonder: If the majority of scripture represents the pre-Christ YHWH believer, and if that representation makes little accommodation for a developed concept of the after-life, if the majority of believers have worshipped God (to His satisfaction?) with only a rudimentary concept of heaven and hell, how then can Christianity be planted on the foundation of hell evasion? I don’t think Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego had the promise of paradise in mind when they made their hard stance saying: “O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to give you an answer concerning this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire; and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But even if He does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we are not going to serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.” (Daniel 3:16-18, NASB) Something drove their convictions; something beyond the starting point of the modern believer.

What motivated the ancient Jew or early Christian to worship God and often times die for Him if not the dangling carrot of Heaven and the threat of eternal damnation did not? Certainly the disciples of Christ did not follow, especially not initially, because they were sold on the reward and punishment. As I read it, scripture insists that proper teaching put God as the center point. Genesis opens up with God as central to the story. From that point on God is seen constantly vying for the center point as mankind endlessly campaigns for that seat as well. If it is true that proper theology has God at the center and not mankind; if scripture is about reconciling us to God from self-centeredness to God-centeredness, then placing rewards and punishments into the foundation of belief is to put mankind and his/her desire in the center seat which is then a delegitimization of the belief. That is, if proper theology insists on God-centeredness as a mark of authentication for true YWHW belief and service, then a self-centered sub-belief is not legitimate and subverts the belief. Knowing this bothers me and drives me to look for a universal which is understood more properly as the quintessential element of the foundation of the Judeo-Christian belief.

I have landed somewhere at approximately fear and obedience. The book of Ecclesiastes makes the claim that: “The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person.” (Ecclesiastes 12:13, NASB) The idea of the fear of God is nearly foreign to our culture and deserves involved development which is material for another conversation altogether. Suffice it to say that the fear of God is directly related to His centrality and mankind in relation to it. Obedience, as I have come to understand it, is the one philosophic key that exists which allows mankind through the door of other-centeredness. The caveat is that obedience must be a heart-felt expression in response to God’s revealed intent that, though it is aware of and acknowledges reward and punishment, is not motivated by them; it is motivated by the fear of God/ God centrality.

I have observed that the Levitical/ Deuteronomical law was given to a group of people whose culture, though it remained distinct, was subsumed by 400 years of Egyptian worship, law, socio-economics, and culture. In an act of emergency society making, YHWH put forth temporary rules that would, if followed, establish a peaceful society wherein human relations were: harmonious and as equitable as possible within rubric of their contemporary cultures, were compatible with relating effectively to YHWH, and in which the ecology would thrive best under the strain of its occupants. Simply put, His law was a set up for ideal relationships. It was a platform that would set the stage for an evolutionary trajectory of a developmental mankind who was to grow in his/her ideal and emotional maturity as it pertains to those relationships. Jesus summed up the whole notion by saying: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 23: 37b-40, NASB)

The point is that we are to “do” Christianity, not from a motive of hell evasion or heaven securance, not from a self-centered starting point, but from a God-centered starting point which, it turns out, is a stance of love; a stance of ideal relationship mastery. Starting with self, with reward and punishment as the guiding force, ends with a Christian-like expression that ends in do’s and don’ts as a universal. On the other hand, starting with love as the universal, the God-centered stance, drives a developed implementation of principles that often lands outside of the do’s and don’ts box. The love universal requires an intimate understanding of who God is and how He is in any given situation. It is not a stance that can be made while encumbered with insecurity. The proper starting point is the Biblical idea of the fear of God and the response of obedience.

105 On Mandated GMO Labeling

2014-10-21T09:47:00.000-07:00

How would I vote on the proposed legislation that would make GMO labeling mandatory? Below is my answer along with the work behind my math.

I oppose GMOs (although not on the basis of scientific evidence that shows health problems caused by them- that evidence doesn't persuasively exist to my knowledge). My opposition to GMOs is more of a common-sense, and systems oriented stance. I think that the companies that push GMOs are simultaneously getting wealthy from a system that is not sustainable in the long run, is not responsible to the world that we are called to steward, and is collateral-damagingly oppressive to our international neighbors (not to mention the bees). On top of all that, common sense would tend to forecast that the unintended consequences of GMOs will have significant health ramifications to the coming generations. Simply put, and in theological terms: GMOs are relationshiply (I just made that word up... and it is different than "relationally") irresponsible, and not in keeping with how God calls us to act toward the world around us.

All that being said, I believe in free-market capitalism and limited government. Insisting on labeling will have the negative effect of giving minimal standards for large corporations to manipulate, circumvent, and treat with duplicity. Also, another thing to consider is the way "organic," "fat-free," "zero calorie" have all been codified by the federal government and, in terms of legalese, literally mean something different than they originally did, or than we think they do. They are terms that agribusiness uses to, simultaneously, cover their butts and market to the public. Mandatory "non-GMO" labeling will assuredly suffer the same fate.

Then there is the matter of Government coercing the free-market. Whenever regulation is imposed on industry, the consumer will suffer and the producer's ability to please the consumer becomes limited and more difficult to accomplish.

Currently, those who care enjoy the benefits of the voluntary labeling that many participating companies who are proud of producing non-GMO foods provide. This seems to be the perfect answer. If a company so chooses, they can earn extra money from consumers by hailing the virtues of their food. And it works. Should one of those companies not be honest about their claims, they would assuredly be exposed and suffer the loss that comes with money-voting. Companies have more to gain/lose when facing the public with their claims, than they do in front of a government who is probably on their side anyway. The loss of public interest and its money is more devasatating, and has greater long-term consequence, than the fines imposed by courts. Think of Chipotle raising their prices and going non-GMO while enjoying record profits. McDonald's, on the other hand, in the same consumer climate, is experiencing a decrease in profits for one of the first times in quite a while... all without governmental regulation. Or consider Monsanto, who though regulated, does what it wants, pays whatever fines may be imposed, and carries on.

So while it is intuitive to invoke the government to make seemingly good things happen, those good happening are better enacted organically (no pun intended), through awareness and public money-voting. If the public demands its food to come a certain way, the producers will accommodate (given they are not too regulated to be able to). I feel strongly that legislation is not the only social mechanism with which to bring about positive change in society; it, in all actuality, has proven to not be a very good one. Awareness is the first step; we don't need labels for that. We just need to keep the conversation alive through word and deed.

My final answer is:
I oppose the legislation. GMOs and their production will prove to not be good in the long run. GMOs and their production are things from which we ought to learn to free ourselves. That freedom should come as a result of enlightened consumer demand.

Feet of Clay

2014-09-28T13:40:00.001-07:00

For several years I have been on a sustainability kick. Many people have assumed that my kick is health inspired. It is not. The discovery that sustainability had a direct correlation to health was confirmative to me. It was serendipity. I arrived at sustainability after much contemplative thought. I was inspired by theology. I came to notice patterns in scripture that drew me to view things more holistically. It occurred to me that God is a master designer who designs sustainable systems that are potentially progressive and which improve when properly managed. It also occurred to me that systems that are not sustainable, and the designers of those systems, eschew the proper, sublime and elegant architecting of The Great Designer. Unsustainability is evidence of things done wrong, a properly God-choreographed dance missed. And though one can pursue sustainability as act of worship, it is not road to spiritual perfection. It is evidence (not proof) of life properly understood; life properly lived. Sustainability, as I have come to learn it, is always going to be a part of my world-view repertoire, however, there is a next logical step.

Introducing... Connectedness

Connectedness is the word for this era. Sustainability keeps us connected to life and how it really works. Life is not really comprised of instant, to any other generation that has ever lived, magical results that come at the pressing of a button or the click of a mouse; it is not made of meat whose origin is the supermarket, and whose natural habitat is a Styrofoam platter with a plastic blanket. It is not endless resource used disposably for our whims. It is a brick and mortar existence that comes from real things that grow and breathe. It is a spirituality that is tethered to ebbs and flows of seasons that have purpose inspired by The Great Designer who structured cycles with intentionality. Learning about sustainability can teach us about connectedness. But it is the disconnect from which we suffer; from which we ail. It is through disconnection that we can ponder the possibility that there is no Creator. It is through disconnection that we prioritize entertainment more than we appreciate art. It is through disconnection where we are confused about things like freedom of religion versus freedom from religion. The disconnect from how things actually work lead us to an arrogance of belief where we have a kind of lawyer-produced narrative-in-place-of-reality existence where the best told story becomes authoritative “truth.” Common sense has become an obscurity, an unintelligible curiosity that has no meaning... disconnectedness.

It all starts at Genesis with a couple who transgressed and became disconnected from: God

Themselves

The world around them (think words like serpent, thorns & thistles, cursed ground...)

The rest of the book is all about reconnection. Reconciliation.

We are being called further and further from a real reality whose existence is only possible as a result of lack of connection. This present darkness’ name is disconnection.

This era’s Christian mission is, by necessity, connectedness. I forecast that a running theme will come out through sermons, devotions, discussions, and public forums in this season... connectedness. As you hear, listen for connectedness. As you track the choreography of God’s interplay with us, observe connectedness. Invoke connectedness as the world tries to pull us away through distraction, smoke and mirrors, the temptation of disposability, complicity and finally our disintegration as humanity. Connectedness is the antidote to the robot-like-morphogenetic-protein kind of transformation into which we are devolving. Go therefore, and relate, connect.

Some Quick Theo Thoughts I Had

2014-04-24T17:50:00.001-07:00

I've been doing a lot of thinking lately.

I was contemplative today as Wifey explained to me the results of Theo’s hearing test (Theo hears fine but we will have to watch for some future hearing problems that could develop). She talked while I listened. She gave me details about a place called the Sie Center that she scoped. The Sie Center is a Down Syndrome clinic that we are told is an amazing resource to the parents of, and for children with Down Syndrome. She gushed with emotion as she spoke endearingly of all the emotional support She, Theo and I have. She talked about how blessed we are to be in Denver with our friends and with the many resources we have here. All of that talking got me thinking about how I have possibly underestimated the effects that Down Syndrome may have on Theo and our family.

Part of me thinks that Down Syndrome is a condition whose effect will create just another series of challenges that we will have to face as a family. Facing challenges is not new to us so I am inclined to not give it too much merit. If it isn’t calamitous, if it isn’t urgent, it probably isn’t that bad, right? But... There was the way Wifey was talking... The way so many people are showing such amazing support... all of the expressions of love for Theo... Am I missing something? Should I be panicked? Should I be preparing myself mentally for something about which I am in denial or about which I just haven’t taken the time to consider?

What I do know is that I want to create an environment where Theo’s siblings are not compromised in the shadow of his special needs, but where we give him all the tools, support, teaching, and resources needed to live out his full potential, whatever that might be. I know that I would be remiss if we did not lean on the wisdom and support of others who have walked similar paths, and yet, I am apprehensive of others’ input. We must keep this endeavor of raising and training our son Marquezian. I know that there are lots of great programs out there that help, but help with what? I mean what is the end goal of all the helpers? I don’t have an internal need to make my son normal or even as-normal-as-possible. I am driven to equip him to be the best form of him he can be; to have full expression of who he is in his essence. I am not writing in response to all of our friends who have shared an outpouring of helpful suggestions and resources. I am heavy with the how and what of information that the “experts” are so eager to share.

One of the things weighing on my mind is a natural, healthy skepticism when it comes to the medical industry. I am not extreme on this. I admire medical innovation and I am grateful for the quality of life it has created for us in the U.S.. My skepticism comes from two basic places. The first is that I firmly believe that money, particularly and uniquely in the medical industry, often times speaks more loudly than science and has prioritized concerns other than the best interest of my family members. The second thing that sets me ill-at-ease is the belief that school and experience are not enough to make one wise. I will concede that doctors know more about medicine than I do. I am not sure, however, that if I were equipped with the same knowledge base, I would employ the same strategies and tactics when problem solving as the doctor du jour. I would like to think that whoever is giving advise or is attempting to impart into our lives comes from a source that is in line with our convictions and sentiments; I would like to know that we share the same goals and can respect each other’s strategies. All too often information comes from the medical industry in condescending, this-is-the-way-it-has-to-be-one-size-fits-all kind of ways. Life experience has taught me that there is almost always more than one way to skin a cat. We have mountains of research ahead of us.

Whatever happens I know this:
Theo has the most amazing mother, the most committed father, and the best team of loving and supportive siblings a boy could hope for.

Theo Has Arrived! The Narrative Takes on Unexpected Changes

2014-04-09T07:08:00.001-07:00

When Tiffanie first started talking about having “one last baby” I was apprehensive. The last two births left me shaky. Uriah came with a phrase that shook me: “That doesn’t feel right!” He came healthy and Tiffanie was fine, but I had never heard that particular form of concern come from my wife before. Victoria came with more blood than I had seen in the past births and it freaked me out. So when one more was in the talks I was concerned to say the least. The moment we discovered that Tiffanie was pregnant, I made plans to do what I had been putting off for years and met with the Army surgeon who had the best reputation for vasectomies. Tiffanie was concerned about me through the whole pregnancy. Where I was usually excited and doting, I was nervous and tense this time. I was stressed out with things like leaving the Army, procuring housing and some kind of stable income. There was the move, five kids, enrolling in school and becoming a student all over again for worry fodder. Things were happening all too fast. But, none of that stressed me out as much as a feeling I couldn’t shake. In the back of my mind and heart there was a constant nagging sense that something tragic was going to take place. In those days I slept lightly and prayed often: “Lord, please don’t let my wife die, please don’t let the baby die, please ensure that the baby is born in good health. I kept sensing impending calamity and it killed the joy I had with all the other pregnancies. I didn’t want to worry Tiffanie or freak her out so I kept it mostly to myself. As the months went on and we started settling in, Tiffanie often asked me, out of aggravation, why I was so distant. It killed me to be distant but I didn’t know how not to be. I didn’t want to do or say anything that would scare her. Meanwhile, Tiffanie was fantasizing and planning the ultimate birthing experience. We were to have a home-birth complete with a children’s blow-up (birthing) pool in the bedroom.

Everything was perfect. People had sent beautiful, sentimental art that Tiffanie lovingly hung in our room for the occasion. We were surrounded with the loving support of each of our friends, expressed in his or her own way. I was settled into school and work life, and we were living in a beautiful home that was sized perfectly for our large family. Money was not abundant, but it was stable and we were okay. Life had certainly been more stressful in the past but I struggled to get into the moment. Besides my gut feeling of danger, I was full of worry because I had been ill, complete with alternating chills and sweats, for two weeks previously to the night our son was to be born. In an effort to savor our final experience of birthing, Tiffanie insisted that we not find out the gender of the baby until birth. We had chosen Liberty Hope as our female name and Theo Emmanuel as our male name. Actually, it’s officially Theophanies Emmanuel. Tiffanie wanted Theo as a name, but I wasn’t sold on it. Tiffanie favored it for its meaning: “Divine Gift.” I agreed to Theo on the condition that we officially name him Theophanies but refer to him commonly as Theo. Theophanies is a reference to something theologians talk about; a preincarnate appearance of Jesus in the Old Testament (I’m a nerd, I know). Emmanuel means: “God with us.” He is our divine gift who appears in the narrative of our lives, in unexpected ways, bearing the presence of God. -I am getting ahead of myself- The birth was beautiful, amazing and perfect. Theo appeared four hours after Tiffanie’s water broke and without even a push. I was relieved and full of dread. I just wasn’t convinced that things could go that perfectly without bad news too. Theo's birth Told in Pictures

I didn’t sleep much the nights after Theo was born. I was paranoid that I was going to make him sick and that he would end up in the hospital. I listened to him breathe to make sure that he wasn’t struggling for air. I hovered to make sure he was eating. Eventually, I fell back into my routine. I was at work when Tiffanie called me with a serious tone that doesn’t often come from her. She is usually full of joy and one can normally hear the smiles in her voice even over the phone. This time their was no smile in her voice as she told me that the pediatrician was directing us to get a blood test that would determine whether or not Theo had Down Syndrome. For the first time I was able to breathe a sigh of relief as the haunting feeling was assuaged. I was finally able to comfort Tiffanie because I knew that this was it; there would be no death, no calamity filled stories of ill-health, no further reason to wonder. A week later that blood test came back and confirmed that Theo has Down Syndrome. The good and comforting news was that Theo is healthy in all the areas of concern for infants who have Down Syndrome. Theo’s heart is healthy, his digestive system is healthy, his lungs are healthy. Theo has been nursing since day one (only about three percent of infants with Down Syndrome can nurse) and growing at a better than to be expected pace. While we know that we will be facing many challenges, we are overjoyed to have the opportunity to add this amazing treasure to our family. Our Theo is adored by his siblings. He is our perfect little man.

Theophanies (Theo) Emmanuel Marquez... Ah, life is good. Our family is complete.

Our friend Taryn Quintana is a photographer. She lovingly and skillfully captured our beautiful home birth in series of images (don't worry guys, there isn't anything too scary to see). She has them posted on her Shine Images Facebook page: Theo's Birth Told in Pictures

On Raising Well-behaved Children

2014-03-17T06:45:00.000-07:00

Parenting can be a tricky endeavor. Parenting is a personal expression, and I believe in the sovereignty of each parent to express his or her parenting in his or her own unique way. The most fulfilling compliments I ever receive always involve the good behavior of our children. Well-behaved children don’t come easily; having well-behaved children takes intentionality and a lot of hard work. I've decided to share some of my thoughts, and some of the methods my wife and I use in our daily parenting.

The other day, we had to take one of the kids in to see the pediatrician. Since most of them are still pretty young, we took the whole crew; all six kids. After the exam, the pediatrician complimented us on our beautiful family and asked how we managed to keep them so well-behaved. I responded: “We don’t negotiate and we never make idle threats.” Though that response is true, and is essential to raising well-mannered children, it is not the whole story. There are several other key elements we employ in our efforts to raise well-behaved children.
Our foundational elements did not come about easily. In part, they were developed as my wife and I courted long distance. We discussed how we would raise children and how we would discipline them. We read and researched. When it was our turn to parent, we watched and emulated. We watched and took notes of everything we didn’t want to do. Sometimes we succeeded. Sometimes we failed (the best instructor of all). Following are some of the ideas and principles that have guided us.

Law making:

The rules of the house and their substance is very important. I have observed many parents arbitrarily throwing out terms like no and stop usually in response to an undesired behavior which goes against the parents' comfort, or convenience. Parenting that way encourages children to have expectations calibrated on self-centered gain. My wife and I have thought long and hard about the rules we make and keep.

We came up with two foundational principles upon which all of our rules are based. The principles are often, and clearly, articulated so that our children aren't just learning 'what' things displease us, or make us happy (the trap I believe most parents fall victim to), but 'how' to do the right thing. Our goal is to teach them 'how' to think, and to implement morality. 'What' to think is not our first priority.

Our first principle of rule-making is individual and collective safety (we abbreviate this principle by calling it 'danger'). We base rules on the idea of creating safety, and avoiding danger. This principle is intended for both the individual, and for the collective whole; we want our children to be aware of personal safety, and to be aware of the safety of those around.
Our second guiding principle is nick-named 'relationship'. 'Relationship' is about one’s behavior, and how it must add to the positive, or constructive, experience of those around; one's behavior must not leave someone else's experience compromised or negatively impacted. 'Relationship' is the principle under which we require our children to chew with their mouths closed (it's about an awareness of those around). It’s this principle upon which we stand for things like: not screaming in public, not running in stores, or speaking rudely. 'Relationship' is the catch-all category under which we insist that our children make choices that build healthy relationships, and avoid choices which act corrosively against healthy, or potentially healthy relationships. We are quick to point out that all evil committed in history has the common thread of broken relationships.
We allow our children to argue, as long as the argument is productive, and doesn’t violate our principles. They are not, however, allowed to be petty or coercive. We insist that our kids do chores, and keep their areas tidy. Though each of the rules that govern chores and tidiness can roughly fall under our two main principles, our practical goal is to teach our children methods of productivity, self expression, and the empowerment of being able to accomplish activities with excellence, and with a sense of rugged individualism, all while working well in a group or team.
Unfortunately, decreed rules and principles are not enough. Rules and principles must be initially enforced before they become natural. That brings us to the matter of punishment and discipline.

Punishment must never be wrought of vengeance. It must not serve self-centered gain. It should not be implemented to make one 'pay' for what he or she has done wrong, nor to balance the imbalance which impropriety seems to create. Punishment does not right wrongs. Punishment is not a reconciliation of badness in some cosmic auditing system.
The goal of punishment is to stop incorrect behavior, and to reset it for correctness; it creates the possibility of redemptive living. This is important because it teaches the child’s mind the proper place for justice, and the necessity for the occasional use of measured violence (I mean 'violence' philosophically; an interruption of the status quo, and a resetting of the direction one is going. I am not advocating physical harm). It is essential for a healthy individual to believe that he or she has the power to ward off victimization and sometimes that can only occur with justifiable violence. This is where my response to the pediatrician comes in to play. When punishing our children, we don’t negotiate terms. The punishment is predetermined. The standard punishment is consistent, and almost always the same, regardless of the infraction. We do have an exception for lying. Lying merits a double measure.
We make no idle threats. Obedience to known rules brings about the known consequence; period. There are cases where my wife and I choose to exercise greater wisdom, and decide that punishment won’t bring about the desired affect of behavior-resetting. We realize that sometimes grace and mercy are better agents for resetting than punishment. In our home, punishment always comes with much dialogue. It is necessary that the child not only know for what he or she is being punished, but that he or she understands the implications of his or her behavior, and the philosophic end of those actions.
Above all, the most important ingredient of punishment is compassion. Our children, once punished, are always shown affection. We tell our children that we love them, we hug them, and we make sure they understand that we see what they have done separately from who they are. We explain that we punish to bring out their best which is the opposite of patronization or condescension; we value them and their ability to behave correctly, their ability to make wise decisions, and their ability to understand. One of the ways we can express that is by holding them to a standard. We respect them enough to treat them with consistency, and love them enough to do what it takes for them to not be judged by others according to their indiscretions, but rather, to be judged on the beautiful characters they have each learned to express and display.

Sometimes there are gray areas. Take tattling is a good example. Tattling leaves the one being tattled on vulnerable, and is almost always vengeance motivated, or attention-seeking on the part of the tattler; there is no tolerance for it in our home. We refuse to be pit against one child in favor of another. We insist that our kids not tattle on their siblings, or friends. We insist that our children stick together, and work things out internally as much as is reasonable. There is a caveat. The caveat is that, if potential danger can be avoided, or if another’s actions are causing eminent danger, an adult must be notified to provide protection. That covers matters of sexual impropriety, bullying, threats of harm from others, things that are told in confidence which they know are red flags... etc.
In the end, good parenting is an other-centered endeavor where parents impart their best into children, and creatively use structure to teach them how to not be self-centered. Good parenting seeks to equip, train, model, prepare, instruct, shape, and coax children into being able to have the freedom of, and ability to, fully express their individuality while living out their full potential. Good parenting is about savoring every moment with one’s children, remembering that something cannot be savored until the heart is intent on appreciation, and until the object being savored is lovingly drawn into it’s greatest

savorable form.

On GMOs and Libertarianism

2014-02-18T10:26:00.002-08:00

The following is my two cents on an ongoing discussion that some Libertarians are having on the issue of GMOs and GMO labeling:
The issues here are getting way too confused and muddled. GMOs (and by GMOs I am specifically referring to the practice of gene splicing and related practices that have not been possible until recently through current technology) as they pertain to Libertarianism need to be discussed in terms of personal freedom and liberty. Coercion is the antithesis of freedom and liberty. There may be scientific problems with GMOs and there may not, but before we even get there, we can observe that the companies that are in pursuit of, and the driving force behind, GMO technology are making their wares available at large through coercive means and alliances with an ever expanding federal government. That is a matter of concern for Libertarians and does need to be discussed. Adding to that, any solution to the coercion we observe should not be coercive. We must creatively explore solutions that create freedom of choice. The government is not the only mechanism in a society to fight that society's giants. We have the free market as a better mechanism. Those who think there should be labeling ought not demand the government enforce it, that would not be very Libertarian; they should push for public awareness, and a grass roots demands for labeling by rewarding companies that label with patronage.
A side issue I have here is that science and truth have existed before the concept of peer review and they will exist after. I read two books several years ago that gave me pause: The Great Betrayal by Patrick Buchanan and Food Politics by Marion Nestle. I am not saying they are perfect scientific proof to silence all people with differing views from mine but those two books were fodder for thought that has lead me to some doubt in the omnipotent peer review method. Generally speaking, I am a fan of the peer review, however, as an individual with some intelligence, I am aware that peers are comprised of fallible people. Those fallible people are sometimes biased, bought, incorrect, careless...etc.
In the end, when I see monopolies comprised of big business married to the federal government, there should be an automatic red flag that we all see; Libertarians of all people should be the most suspicious. There is a correlation to observe, that being, that where consolidated power coerces, the ecology (human health as well) suffers. I am not prepared to "prove" that, I am not claiming causation. I am merely asking you to remember history and watch this unfold.

Crazy Gets a Bad Rap

2014-02-08T12:09:00.000-08:00

I have a buddy who is struggling with too many thoughts. I struggle with that too, often. That struggle and 2Corinthians 10:5 inspired some thoughts that I'll share. I am not claiming to lay down proper theology or doctrine here. This is just a bit of creative thinking informally and quickly jotted down on cyber paper.

I am crazy.
I demolish my crazy daily and subdue it; force it into captivity to work for me. I squeeze it into productivity in me and discipline it to create expressions to bless those around me. As worship, as life-living, I subdue it to obedience. I lord over it to bring out loving acts to promote healthy relationships at every angle I can imaginatively asses, for that is how one makes it obedient to Christ.

It is the crazy in me pressed into balance which makes me be
I am that guy who is willing to think the thoughts others aren't willing to face
I am willing to say things others shudder to utter
I am the guy who will live out my convictions regardless of consequence
I will wrestle me and I will wrestle God until there is resolution
I will continue on though there is no incentive in sight
I will savor things others find bitter
I will stand firm when others run away
I will creatively love until there is redemption and transformation
I will rebel against the status quo (when the status quo must be challenged) in meaningful and relevant ways
I will challenge this present darkness with eternal truth and life lived well

The most brilliant, amazing, and beautiful contributions made by mankind are the products of someone hammering crazy into something worthwhile. One should never strive to sanitize crazy away. One should never strive to normalize it or subject it to the rulings of the mean average of society. One, rather, should endeavor to master crazy for the purpose of productivity, beauty- love. Crazy is what enables us to revolt against mediocrity.

Why I Read the Bible to My Children

2014-01-29T07:09:00.003-08:00

I read a chapter out of the Bible to my family every night after we eat dinner. I prefer to read from the Old Testament. I prefer to read more obscure texts. I always try to make sure that we complete an entire book before moving on to the next one. I make a point to not expound or explain during these occasions. That is not to say that we never discuss or that I avoid answering my children’s questions; that kind of interaction is reserved for different times.

The reason I do what I do can be summed up with one word: familiarity. I believe that the Bible is the most reliable description of God we have. I want my kids to be familiar with that description. I want them to hear the words for themselves without the encumbrance of speculating medieval philosophers who were influenced by the thinking of the Dark Ages. I want them to hear the words untethered from the boxes that theologians have forced them into for too many years. I want them to hear the words in the context in which they are presented; not in the reformulations made to support arguments that kowtow to the psuedo-intellectuals of eras past, or for that matter, present. I want them to understand the New Testament in light of the Old Testament. I want them to understand what Paul is saying because it sounds familiar from the reading several nights past; I want them to hear how Paul repurposes words that are ensconced in the history/text from where he came. I want them to hear the many cultures, time periods, writing styles, literary mechanisms and personalities that all sing in concert; individual voices that can each stand on their own but which are each offerings lent to the great continuity that is the voice of God. I want them to hear God. I want my children to hear others speak erroneously about God and think to themselves: “That doesn’t sound like the God to whom I’ve been introduced.”

I read so that my children take seriously what is so important to me. I read unencumbered because I want them to fall in love with what I love without me having to try to sell them on it. I read without the marks of insecurity that come with too many explanations, too many excuses, too many suspicious sounding helping words. I read to them without the stammering voices of people who forced the text into their small worlds and didn’t let it breathe. I read the words as they are so that my children can hear the words speak for themselves. I read so they can know God and not just know someone else’s description of Him.

Essay 1

2014-01-25T21:04:00.000-08:00

I am taking an English course this semester. I have decided to post each essay I am required to write for class.

The following is the first of the essays:

There is an ongoing, polarizing debate occurring in the United States right now concerning the idea of health care. There seems to be a common belief that there is a lack of affordable, quality healthcare in the U.S.. The response to which has become a debate about how we are going to get people insured. On one hand, conservatives appeal to private industry to insure as many people as possible, while, on the other hand, liberals look toward governmental solutions requiring taxation and the consolidation of insurance. I fear, however, that, we as a society, may be asking and debating the wrong question. Articles such as the one I recently found by Chad Terhune entitled "Healthcare’s High Cost” have me suspicious of the need for insurance. Perhaps we should shift our mindset from our dependence on, and our addiction to insurance as a solution, to questioning the place of insurance, and thinking of affordable solutions to healthcare outside of the insurance paradigm.

Though this article is was written over a year ago, and draws on information from David Belk’s research which predates the article, it is more timely now than ever. Mr. Terhune’s article and Mr. Belk’s research speak to the greater community of Americans, who are currently scared. Many people are losing the insurance policies they once held. Many employers, in response to the climate of uncertainty that the Affordable Care Act has unwittingly created, have cancelled the health insurance policies upon which their employees have relied. The target audience for this article may have originally been those who were afraid of what the healthcare landscape would look like going into the implementation of, what was then, the new legislation, but now shifts, seamlessly, to those facing the fears of unaffordable healthcare costs. For all those fearful of their lack of insurance and increasing healthcare costs, this article brings the timely message of hope that one may be more able to afford healthcare by cash payments than through insurance.

In his article, Mr Terhune quotes Dr. Belk with an example of the cost of healthcare paid in cash versus the cost under insurance coverage: “Billing for MRIs are generally in the $2,000 range, he said. "Why on earth should it be that much? Imaging centers will do it as low as $350. But they'll bill $800 knowing Medicare pays about $500.” I was taken aback to see examples of how the true cost of medical care is exploited for those who believe they are “covered” by insurance. I suspect that we have been brainwashed into thinking that the answer to all of our healthcare woes lies somewhere with more, and better insurance. What if we dared to challenge that notion? What if we dared to think that insurance is the problem? What if we dared to innovate beyond the insurance paradigm? This article is not the ultimate authority on the matter, it doesn't answer all the questions, or solve all the problems, but it just might point out a crack in the armor of the god of insurance to which we, as a society, bow.

Chad Terhune. "Healthcare’s High Cost'"
The Huffington Post. The Huffington Post, June 18, 2012. Web. Updated Feb 27, 2013.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/18/pay-cash-to-your-doctor-s_n_1571564.html

Why I Am Not a Vegetarian

2013-07-21T11:16:00.001-07:00

If one prefers to not eat meat, whatever; go for it. In the same way another may not like onions, broccoli or brussels sprouts and refuse to eat them, I can condone the refusal of a food no matter how grieved I may be at the closed-mindedness or the way in which said person is missing out on life. But, if one espouses compassion for animals as a reason not to eat meat, I get annoyed.

I mean, if one is going to rally with extreme measures for animals that he or she doesn't eat, I would think it fitting to do acts that are productive and not passive. Acts that, by virtue of their inherent soundness, are proselytory due to there superior nature. Look, if you want to help Mr. cow, expand the market of meat produced by farmers who care for their animals and who farm with compassion, respect, and ecological healing in mind and deed. Eating meat can be one of the most helpful things one can do for animals on a large scale. Trying to opt out of a system that is impacted by choice, (passivity) is actually quite a significant choice. Refusing to eat meat means that all food dollars, for that person, will go to non-animal agricultural products, most of which, are now produced in ways that negatively impact the ecology to such degree that animals, even if not eaten by humans, would suffer as a result. Not to mention that eating non meat products exclusively puts us, more directly, in competition with those animals that such a person would be endeavoring to help.

Many think that the ecology left untouched by humans leads to a kind of pristine-nature-intended-perfection. We have no evidence of that. What we have been able to observe is that nature at her best, thrives when cultivated by responsible caring humans.

One who truly cares, is proactive, not passive. One who truly cares, eats conscientiously and with a mind bent toward sacredity in such a way that he or she is mindful that life sacrificed responsibly and with gratitude promotes the furtherance of more life. Such a caring person is strategic and tactically spends his or her money so as to promote compassion for the animals.