MY TOP ALBUMS OF 2013

"The Devil Put Dinosaurs Here", Alice in Chains

"Mala", Devendra Banhart

"The Next Day", David Bowie

"Be the Void", Dr. Dog

"Histoire de Melody Nelson", Serge Gainsbourg

"The 2nd Law", Muse

"King Animal", Soundgarden

"High Rise", Stone Temple Pilots

"The Whole Love", Wilco

"Fly from Here", Yes

What The Sign Language Interpreter Was Actually Trying to Do

Responding to Oppression II

I'm not very political. At all. My theology has developed over the past two decades to the point where I am completely immersed in the methods of Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount. I do not march, picket, boycott, protest, sue, vote, write to my congressman, or engage in any activity that I think employs the political methods of this world. Instead, I get on with the slow, steady, work of the Kingdom in full assurance of my success and the success of the Kingdom.

Therefore, I do not delve into or am bothered by the daily machinations of the current culture war. I really couldn't care less. If a nativity scene or cross or monument to the Ten Commandments is taken down from a public place, it doesn't faze me. I don't cry out for justice when someone is told not to use Jesus' name in a public prayer or if prayer is "prevented" at all.

However, I am extremely bothered when the government begins to order private citizens to go against their personal faith.

I have been closely following a number of the legal cases around the country in which businesses own by Christians are being forced to provide abortion causing drugs to employees and in which florist and cake-decorating businesses are being forced to provide their services to same-sex marriages. I find this completely unconscionable.

I read an article this morning in which a judge ordered that a Christian baker must serve gay couples for same-sex ceremonies despite his religious beliefs or face fines. Obviously, the gay couple who sued this Christian baker could have gotten a cake elsewhere (and probably did). Their interest and objective was not to get a cake but to employ the government to force the owner of this private business to deny his religious beliefs and acquiesce to how they believe all society should behave.

According to the article, the baker and his legal team are considering their next steps.

Now what if this case goes all the way to the top of the American judicial system and the final decision is that this baker and all other Christian businesses are to be forced to provide their services to same-sex marriages, what should the Christian response be?

The decision is actually very easy though the implementation is of the upmost difficulty.

Three choices:

1) Acquiesce and submit to imposed government authority and violate Christian faith

2) Close up shop and seek a business or sphere of society in which one is not confronted with challenges to Christian conscience

3) Ignore government imposition and carry on in defiance

Let's be honest: human nature being what it is (Christian or otherwise), the vast majority of believers will choose one of the first two options (probably the latter rather than the former). More's the pity. Most people have neither the guts nor the faith to actually take their religious beliefs all the way to the logical conclusion. They will voice outrage and protest if a nativity scene or cross or monument to the Ten Commandments is taken down from a public place because it's easy to do so and one risks very little by participating.

Nevertheless, the correct choice is number 3, to completely ignore what the government says in this matter and proceed as before in full knowledge that you are doing the right thing. Again, this is actually a very easy choice to make but the implementation of it is extremely difficult and requires much self-sacrifice.

Here's how it would go:

- The government states that you as a baker must violate your Christian faith and provide their services to same-sex marriages.

- You refuse.

- The government fines your business.

- You refuse to pay the fine.

- The government orders your business to close.

- You refuse to close your business.

- The government arrests you.

- You go to jail, but, as soon as you are released, you reopen your business.

- You continue to mind your business in defiance of the law and in good conscience until either the government relents or you yourself are spent to the very core of your soul.

Of course, this is easier said than done, and I do not believe that most Christians have the faith to defy society and government to this extent. However, this is really what Christians should do and it is the only way in which freedom of religious practice and expression is to be realized.

Wager of Peace?

I've been practically gagging these past few days in my attempts to stomach the celebrations given to Nelson Mandela. It's so difficult for me to hear people from across the political spectrum and from every walk of life state that Mandela was a man of peace who waged non-violent resistance on the apartheid system.

I think the kicker was this article at the Associated Baptist Press: Nelson Mandela: Wager of Peace.

Wager of peace?

Nelson Mandela founded the terrorist organization "Umkhonto we Sizwe" (MK) in 1961 that carried out hundreds and hundreds of bombings on government installations, shopping centers and restaurants. He personally ordered these bombings. He was labeled a terrorist because of it. He went to prison for 27 years because of it. He was offered release numerous times if only he would renounce violence. He refused. And believe me, these bombings killed far more blacks than whites. And he, the MK, and the African National Congress (ANC) violently terrorized and tortured their own people to squash any collaboration and compromise with the apartheid government of South Africa. As late as 1988, Mandela refused to renounce violence as a means to end apartheid. Throughout the 1980s, the government of South African was in negotiations with the ANC to end apartheid on condition that they end the violence and break off relations with the Soviet Union, Mandela refused. The bombings of civilians in the 1980s continued. It wasn't until the break up of the Soviet Union and the end of their support that Mandela and the ANC were willing to renounce violence.

I'm sorry but no matter how noble his cause, Mandela never had a problem using excessive violence to reach his goals. There is nothing Christ-like about this. This is completely foreign to the non-violent teachings of Jesus. For people to compare Mandela to Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr. and others who actually did apply the teachings of Jesus is to do a great injustice to true non-violent resistance.

Wager of peace? Unfortunately, Mandela waged violent war.

There was nothing peaceful about what he did.

 

Responding to Oppression I

Over the past three days I have been meditating upon the manner in which one responds to societal oppression. In particular I was thinking about South Africa in the 20th Century and the more recent news coming out of the Central African Republic. How do we react to oppressive regimes and violent brutality?

Appropriately enough, the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah has just concluded, which celebrates in part the violent but nevertheless successful rebellion of 2nd century BCE Jews led by Judas Maccabeus over the brutal oppression of the Seleucid Empire. Despite the success, the methods employed had a detrimental effect upon the psyche of the majority of the nation to the point that they continually adopted a brigand's means of violent revolution to Roman occupation and oppression in the 1st century CE.

One of the main thrusts of Jesus' prophetic message to 1st century Jewish people was that their current methods of responding to Rome would lead to the destruction of the nation (see the Sicarii and Simon bar Kokhba). These were the violent methods that they had adopted since the Maccabean Revolt that to them had proved obviously effective. Instead, Jesus called on the people to abandon their current way of being God's people and follow his way -  a way so notably put forth in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).

I don't think anyone would suggest sitting down and allowing brutality to happen, but that does not mean that one should respond with brutality. One can engage in active non-violent resistance (see Jesus, Ghandi, MLK Jr., etc.) without using the methods of the enemy. While violent resistance does lead to immediate results, the results can just as immediately be overturned by the same methods. Such methods also have a debilitating effect upon the psyche of both the wielder and the victim. Non-violent resistance is usually a far more gradual process of political change that requires both patience and maturity, but the results are far more difficult to reverse. It also has an uplifting effect upon the psyche (see Jesus, Ghandi, MLK Jr., etc.).

The best way of responding to oppression, brutality, violence, and evil, the most human way, the way that most clearly reflects the image of God in this world, is the method of love, mercy, self-denial, forgiveness, peace, and turning the other cheek.

This is not the easiest road and it is certainly not the method of immediate self-gratification, but it is by far the most effective means of establishing permanent and positive societal change.

As we proceed through the Christmas season, let us meditate upon peaceful approaches societal problems and, most importantly, evaluate the methods of the political leadership we too often tend to idolize.

ABBEY ROAD

The Young Ones

 "Oi! Up Scumbag! Up Scumbag!"

The Moon

"The Moon's current orbital distance, about thirty times the diameter of the Earth, causes it to appear almost the same size in the sky as the Sun, allowing it to cover the Sun nearly precisely in total solar eclipses. This matching of apparent visual size is a coincidence."

Really, what were the odds?

I Think It's a Copy of the Odyssey

What Hinders Baptism?

I read this line in a Baptist Press article. I've highlighted my point of interest.

"Because the seminary is not a church and does not have the authority to baptize, SBTC President Jim Richards said the baptismal pool will provide a place for churches that do not have a baptismal and a place for students to practice the ordinance before entering formal full-time pastoral ministry."

Why doesn't the seminary have the authority to baptize? Do not all believers have the authority to baptize? Did not Christ himself give all believers the authority to baptize?

Actually, HE was given the authority and then commanded us to baptize.

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)

I wonder if only churches have the authority to make disciples and teach. If that is so, then the seminary will have to close down.

And we are baptized into Christ, not the Church.

Sure, we are often bapitzed IN a church building. And we often become members of a church when baptized (providing all the proper forms have been filled out and are accurate, though sometimes such red tape can be done retroactively depending upon the individual situation).

I am quite partial to the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. Philip teaches the Ethiopian and then he baptizes the Ethiopian. No "church" in site (Intended joke). [For another great joke, see The Humour of Deutero-Isaiah in Isaiah 56:3-5]

In fact, when wanting to be baptized, the Ethopian asked one of my favorite questions in the Bible: "What hinders me from being baptized?" (v. 36)

Really, what does hinder baptism?

The Next Pope? An Inquiry

Did you hear? Pope Benedict XVI is resigning as Bishop of Rome. Now comes the biggest steeple chase in 600 years (unless you count Adrian Roger’s retirement from Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis). Soon Cardinals from north, south, east, and west (including St. Louis) will converge on Vatican City to see who will be chosen as the next Pope.

Let me state now publicly that I am removing my name from consideration. First, I already have a lot on my plate and second, I don’t think I would like the commute to Rome each morning. Sorry, no Pope Nicolas Beck I.

But allow me to make three recommendations for the next Pope: Hans Küng, Father Guido Sarducci, and U2’s Bono. (I think Sinead O’Connor removed herself from any consideration after that 1992 incident on SNL)

Here are the positives and negatives of each candidate:

Hans Küng is probably the leading theologian of the Roman Catholic Church and a best-selling author (see “On Being Christian”). Unfortunately, he wrote a book on the Papacy (see “Infallible? An Inquiry”). Of course, he’s in 80s and has been up for this position for a while, but, so far, long time no See.

Father Guido Sarducci is the gossip columnist and rock critic for the Vatican newspaper “L'Osservatore Romano” (or the “The Vatican Enquirer”). Unfortunately, he’s a smoker. So if we see green smoke (fumata verde) issuing from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel, then we’ll know that it’s Sarducci.

Bono might be an edgy choice but I think he would dramatically improve the image of the RCC and provide a little flare to the ceremony. All papal proclamations (especially ex cathedra) could be given in a manner like that of the Zoo TV and PopMart Tours (PopeMart Tour, anyone?). Unfortunately, being Pope may not be what Bono is looking for.

Nevertheless, I’m sure that the College of Cardinals will make the correct decision. But let their work be pro bono.