A father walks up to his son on the day of his confirmation and tells him he has a small gift. He hands his son a small wrist band with the recognizable four initials WWJD – What Would Jesus Do? The father tells the son that the meaning of this wristband would help him all of his days and make dealing with his life and relationships easier. The next day the boy sat glumly on the family’s front porch. “What is the matter, son?” The father asked him.
“Well, nothing,” the boy began, “Its just I have this problem…”
“Did you think about What Jesus Would Do?” the father quickly responded.
“Yes, of course,” the boy said slowly, “The problem is I don’t think just don’t think Jesus would have gotten himself in this situation.”
Below is a parable. Feel free to comment and share thoughts.
———————————————————————————————–
There was once a great professor who was well known through out the land. He was an avowed atheist who wrote and spoke of the certainty that there was no God or afterlife. The professor had a great following but deep in his heart, he knew that he hid behind his brilliance and intellect. His crusade against religion had not brought him the meaning he desired. The professor felt a hunger for truth, even if he had no idea what truth might be.
During his time at the university, the professor had heard of an old mystic who lived up in the hills outside the city. Up in the mountains the mystic had created a small community for the people society had rejected: the poor, the sick, the lepers, the unwanted immigrants. The mystic was said to be the wisest man and this rumor had from time to time made the professor quite jealous. But eventually his desire become stronger than his pride and the renowned professor packed a bag and hiked up into the mountains.
After a good day’s journey, he arrived in the mystic’s small community. He found him in his small hut, deep in prayer and meditation. After a time, the mystic opened his deep green eyes and looked at the professor.
“What can I do for you, my son?” He said quietly.
“All my life, I have believed and taught that this life is it. Nothing before and after. No God pulling the strings. But instead of this belief freeing me, I feel nothing. I am alone. Even my fame leaves me unfulfilled. Teach me the meaning of truth.”
“You do not believe in God?” the mystic asked.
“No. I have never felt or seen him in my life. I have never had reason to believe God exists.”
The mystic nodded. “If there is no God, there is no great being to fix the mess this world is in. It is up to us. Near your university I know there is a homeless shelter and an orphanage that are always in need of volunteers. Go and work there as much as you can, and there you will find truth.”
The mystic closed his eyes again and began to pray. The professor returned to the university, disappointed in the mystic’s reply.
The following weeks the professor began to volunteer during the weekends at the shelter and orphanage. Gradually over time he began to volunteer his evenings as well. Within two years, he had enjoyed his work so much that he quit his job at the university and become the director of the orphanage. He began to write about his work at the orphanage, and his published works had begun to bring in enough money to refurbish the building and provide more facilities for those in need. For the first time in his life, the former professor felt true love and meaning for the work and people he had touched.
One morning the former professor returned to the mystic’s community up in the hills. He rushed into the mystic’s home and found him praying but began to speak anyway.
“I was wrong!” he shouted. “I was completely wrong! There is a God. I have seen his love in the smile of an orphan. I have seen his mercy in the soup line, his joy in the embrace of another. I have seen his words of love written in the lines of a poor man’s face. And although I do not know him fully, There is a God!”
The mystic stood up, smiled, and went to embrace him.
11
Mar
09
My Thoughts on “The Watchmen”
(No spoilers)
The Many Faces of Dr. Manhattan
Philosopher Voltaire once said that “if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him”. So it is logical that Dr. Manhattan should be born into creation. A regular scientist that is biochemically reformed through a lab accident, Dr. Jon Osterman becomes a nearly all-powerful blue being that can create and transform matter. He is used by the U.S. government to deter the Cold War Soviets from nuclear war. While some call him a God, Dr. Manhattan is much more subdued about himself: “I don’t think there is a god. And if there is, I doubt he is anything like me.” Over time, Dr. Manhattan becomes less interested in every day life. He no longer enjoys the comfort of his girlfriend or for that matter any other living being. The so-called god is lonely and misunderstood. “Why would I save a world I have no stake in?” he asks.
As is seen in Dr. Manhattan, the absence (or the feeling of absence) of God is present through out all the film. Most of the characters don’t believe in God and at best, believe that God is uncaring and far away. There is a great sense of existentialism that runs through the plot. One of the heroes Rorsach laments the death of an innocent girl by saying that neither God, fate, nor destiny killed her, a human being had done so of his own free will.
But despite this, I believe the heroes should be the happy. While normal men and women tremble at the prospect of nuclear war, it is the Watchmen who have an ability to change the outcome of their day’s events. They fight for what they believe in; they are funny, witty, attractive, and powerful. These superheroes should be the happiest people on earth, fighting for what they believe is righteous and good. But they are not. They are miserable.
Rorschach, himself a victim of child abuse, lives out his life fighting and killing criminals and murderers to try to avenge and save his former self. Rorschach only understands punishment and violence, not love and forgiveness.
Drieburg himself is a man facing middle age and eventually death. He is starving for truth and meaning. He is wealthy, but alone. He is not motivated by justice, merely a new found sense of adventure.
Ozymandias believes in trying to save the world, a noble feat, but in doing he tries to become God. But when a flawed being has indescribable power, even saving the world can nearly destroy it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and what if the man on that road has a nuclear bomb?
In such a world even when you are fighting even for what is right, it can be draining. It can change you, undo you. The truth is you cannot win because you are not God. Even in the film they say, “not even Dr. Manhattan can be everywhere at once”. We are mortal, we make mistakes, we misjudge. On our own, we cannot save this world. The heroes of “The Watchmen” all too late learn this tragic truth.
When we are working for things we believe in, (truth, love, justice) we can loose track and forget what we meant to do in the first place. Like a corrupt policeman, we can end up becoming what we initially set out to stop or prevent. We are mortal and we are not strong enough on our own to do much good without something to anchor ourselves to. In whatever we do, I believe that is the search is for God. We must never stop searching, looking, loving, believing/questioning, hunting, crying out for God. Somedays I wake up feeling like a devout Christian, other days I wake up with nothing but doubts. But I never stop searching. Because without God, we are merely people in costumes doing a terrible job at trying to be God.
23
Feb
09
Real Christians are Crazy
If you talk to most people about religion, I’m sure that the word ‘crazy’ crosses their minds at least once. A good friend of mine last year got very frustrated with me upon learning I was religious, assuming that naturally I was narrow-minded and crazy (and there is the greatest oxymoronic truth of the 21st century: people being intolerant of the religious because of the assumption that they are intolerant). But let’s face it, this view has a basis. Just think of protesters at a gay man’s funeral holding signs that say “GOD HATES FAGS” or of Muslim fanatics flying planes into buildings. In today’s world it appears rational for people to decide that religion is only for crazies. But what if religion, or more specifically Christianity, is only for crazy people…but not the kind of crazy you are thinking of.
There was a great episode of the TV show House M.D. in which a humanitarian who works to bring free medication to Africa (Think Jeffrey Sachs or Bill Gates) is brought into the hospital. Dr. House calmly thinks there is something wrong with the man, and he is not talking medically:
“There’s an evolutionary imperative why we give a crap about our family and friends, and there’s an evolutionary imperative why we don’t give a crap about anybody else. If we loved all people indiscriminately, we couldn’t function.”
House thinks that the man is crazy for caring about those that don’t affect him directly. And in the ways of this world, he is crazy. We are taught to care for our loved ones, hate those who oppose us, and forget everyone else. We have to look after ourselves because no one else will. Those that fall through the cracks, well…that’s life. This is the truth of the world that Dr. House speaks of. And what’s more, House doesn’t respect or admire this man for the generous work that he does. He despises him.
Jesus warned his followers “If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as one of its own. But because you do not belong to the world and I have chosen you out of it, the world hates you.” Jesus could have easily said “You are not of this world, so the world will think you are crazy.” Why help the poor? Why feed the homeless? You can’t make money or help your own family by doing that. People will distrust you for trying to change the natural way the world is. In essence, Jesus calls us to a higher path than our “sane” worldly nature:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
Loving your enemies? Crazy. Praying for those who persecute you? Sheer madness. But Jesus has called us to change this world with agape, love for mankind. So perhaps my friend was right in a way that Christians are crazy, just not in the way he imagined. Far too often Christians are known for intolerance and hate, not for forgiveness and love. To truly follow Christ (because that is what being a Christian means), is to risk everything for love, and being that selfless is believed to be downright insane in this world.
Churches and communities that push the envelope fascinate me. The groups that challenge themselves to try new things and to ask new questions are always ones that I will follow. Simon and Garfunkel once wrote “God bless the church service that makes me nervous”. If they were talking about a specific group, they undoubtedly would be talking about Ikon.
Meeting in a bar in Northern Ireland, Ikon is a worship group that is self-described as “iconic, apocalyptic, heretical, emerging, failing”. Ikon was originally developed to explore the relationship between mysticism and postmodernism as well as to rethink the structures of religious communities in a contemporary environment. The gatherings span the liberal/conservative, theist/atheist, Protestant/Catholic divides, and are in essence a form of “theodrama,” employing live art, drama, poetry, prose, ritual, liturgy and music. I cannot speak for Ikon enough and find it an important development in the practice of Christianity. Although Ikon at times makes me nervous, it does not take away from the wonderful things that Ikon is exploring and opening up for discussion in the theological world.
Next week I hope to hear one of Ikon’s founders, Peter Rollins, speak.
Inevitably I am always asked what I think about homosexuality. I hate this question because it is not really about the answer: It is about me. The person asking the question is trying, whether consciously or not, to place me into one of two categories. If I were to say that I am against homosexuality, I would be judged a crazy conservative Jesus freak. If I were to say that I am not against homosexuality, then I would be deemed a little weird for being a Christian but one that you are able to have an intelligent conversation with. With the question of homosexuality, I am judged either way.
But as much as I hate the question, it is an important one. Homosexuality has come to be a cause of great division within the Christian world, notably in the Anglican Church. But to most people’s dismay, I cannot give them a definitive answer. I have such complicated feelings and the issue itself is so complex that I cannot give a simple agree or disagree answer. But what I can say with certainty is that the church as a whole has dealt terribly with the issue. Instead of acting with compassion towards homosexuals, we have often times cast them out. Many people in the church have treated homosexuals with judgment, malice and hate. South Africa’s former bishop Desmund Tutu gives a clear response to these actions:
“I could not for any part of me be able to keep quiet, because people were being penalized, ostracized, treated as if they were less than human, because of something they could not change- their sexual orientation. For me, I can’t imagine the Lord that I worship, this Jesus Christ, actually concurring with the persecution of a minority that is already being persecuted. The Jesus who I worship is a Jesus who was forever on the side of those [who] were being clobbered.”
Through out much of the Newer Testament, Jesus’ language is filled with the desire to reach out to the outcasts of society. Jesus talks of rejoicing in finding the lost coin, the one sheep that is not in the pen, and the return of the Prodigal Son. Jesus was mocked by the religious leaders of his day because he dined with tax collectors and prostitutes, some of the most hated people in Jewish society. His life and words are a testament to searching out the forgotten and powerless. The Hebrew Testament even tells us that God “defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger”. As Christians, we must strive to do the same. We must always be for the immigrant, the slave, the homeless, the orphan, and the widow. We must be for the drug addict, the prostitute, the refugee, and the persecuted. We must be for the transgender and the homosexual. The Christian community is always open to those rejected and hated by worldly societies. If we are not open to everyone, including homosexuals, than we are not truly following Christ’s message of love and radical inclusion.
I have recently become interested in the book Deconstruction in a Nutshell, by John D. Caputo and Jacques Derrida. Both write about the philosophy of deconstruction, a topic of great interest and influencing in the Emerging dialogue within Christianity. Deconstruction as a concept is both simple and complicated, conservative and radical. Deconstructionism, in a religious sense, is the idea that we must deconstruct, reconstruct and change institutions in the desire to best obtain what the institution is meant to possess. A religious example of this would be to say that in order to best engage people and to make church more culturally accessible, we must change and adapt the service from time to time. Deconstructionism is essentially about the ability to evolve and change institutions to better exist in changing times. “Success today guarantees troubles tomorrow,” Brian McLaren once said. We must change in order to survive.
There are many critics of deconstruction. One of the main complaints is that the philosophy is anti-establishment and nihilistic. This is far from the case. As the “father of deconstruction”, Jacques Derrida has worked nearly all his life with various educational and philosophical institutions. “I love institutions,” Derrida writes in his book. Deconstruction cannot be said to a method in which institutions are summarily destroyed. Deconstruction is about making institutions better, more effective and more efficient. Below is a parable that I hope will better describe the desire of deconstructionists:
There once was an old master sculptor who was respected far and wide. He had announced to his apprentices that he was working on his final masterpiece. But the old man never desired for his clay to dry and harden. He believed his living creativity was his art, a part of himself mixed into the clay. To let it dry, the old sculptor thought, would be to let it eventually crumble, fall and be destroyed. So he would always sculpt and change the shape of his masterpiece. Sometimes it was large and wide, sometimes it was small and narrow, but the old sculptor never allowed it to dry. When asked about when the long awaited masterpiece would be completed, the old sculptor would respond dryly, “My art is alive so it will never be finished. To be alive is to change. It will be finished when I am finished.”
Deconstructionists view institutions the way the old sculptor viewed his masterpiece. Institutions must always change in order to better embody and reflect their values and beliefs. If an institution is not allowed to change or cannot be changed, it is no longer alive. Thinkers such as Mobsby, Rollins, and McLaren have begun to apply many deconstructionist ideas to Christianity and the church. So much of the church is wrapped up in ancient traditions and rites that unfortunately hold no relevance or importance today. But if traditions hold no relevance today they should not be kept for tradition’s sake. Like the old sculptor, we must be more than ready to change: We must embrace it.
Few people are quite as interesting as New York writer A. J. Jacobs. He recently wrote a book on his experiment to live a whole year of his life biblically, following every rule in the Bible. After a year of living as a fundamentalist in New York City, Jacobs speaks about what he has learned, including that the Bible is a poor excuse for a rulebook. I hope you enjoy the video.
31
Aug
08
What is Church, Anyway?
Most people have distinct ideas that are attached to church: Sunday mornings, family, uncomfortable sweaters. But what is church, really? What is it suppose to be?
The English word church comes from the Greek/Latin word εκκλησια/ecclesia, literally meaning an assembly. The original ecclesias were political bodies that governed at the local level in the Roman Empire. All voting members of the ecclesias were wealthy land-owning Roman men. The first Christian churches, on the other hand, were the exact opposite. Many of the first church members were women, children, minorities and slaves. For the early Christians of Rome and Jerusalem, the idea of calling their gatherings ecclesias was intentionally ironic. They were pointing out the social exclusion of the world’s governments and more importantly that in God’s Kingdom no one is excluded. Because of this belief, church was a way they were able to visibly live out their faith, by inviting in the poor and oppressed. In a world where the powerless are ignored and forgotten, church is meant to be a vehicle in which Christians help the oppressed find a voice. At the heart of Christianity is a desire for radical social justice born out of a love for the outsider.
Many people see church as a spiritual contract and God as a divine enforcer. If a person goes to church regularly, they can feel less guilty and they not fear God. If they don’t go to church, then they deserve the guilt and all the bad things that happen to them. Church should not be about guilt and fear. It is about us interacting with God and our community out of devotion. Every time we are at church (or from the outside when we look at church in general), we must always ask ourselves: Are we living out our faith? Are we helping the poor and oppressed? Are we working for the Kingdom of God?
24
Aug
08
Knowledge is (Not) Power
Not long ago I had the pleasure to meet a good friend of mine’s father for the first time. He was a fun and interesting guy and had a pension for expressions and phrases. One of his favorites happened to be “knowledge is power.” After our meeting I realized that I don’t think that expression is actually true.
In the past couple hundred years, in what many people call the “Modern Era,” it certainly was true. Imagine you lived in Europe four hundred years ago and you had this desire to learn about God. The only source of information for you was probably the local priest. In all likelihood you cannot read and even if you could there are not that many books around. There are no public libraries and books are incredibly expensive. So in essence you have to listen to the priest because the priest has all the information. He can read the Bible, you cannot. Because of his position the priest is likely believed to have a direct spiritual line with God. The priest has the power… and you have to listen.
But in today’s world, the so-called “postmodern world,” knowledge is not power. From religion to car insurance, information is free. In any given town, there are many religious leaders from different traditions that would be happy to tell you how they view truth, God, and anything else. People in positions of power are no longer believed to be special because of their authority. Quite the contrary, they are often times doubted because of their authority. Today not only can you read the Bible, you can read the Koran, the Torah, and the Internet. You can read the Bible and disagree with your priest or pastor’s view. You don’t need your priest to tell you about God. Wikipedia can do that for you guilt free.
I think there is a beauty in information no longer being power. By taking away the possibility of manipulation, it opens up a way to healing and empowerment for the average person. My friend Pastor Sean Witty put it best:
It is not like it used to be. A pastor or priest used to be the only source of information about God so people listened to them. Today people do not need me to tell them about God. They can go online, read a book, ask someone else. But do people still need pastors to help guide them and offer them wisdom from experience? I believe that they do, probably more than ever.
Today religious leaders no longer have that sort of power. In the wake of that there is space to help and love others for those leaders who are inclined. But for those religious leaders who do not desire to help but desire to control, I think they will find few people willing to listen.
