lockmeaway's Xanga

Political Advertising

Sun, 08 Oct 2006 03:53:58 GMT

It's that time of year when every other commercial on American television is a political campaign advertisement. Ungodly amounts of money are spent trying to convince the few people that actually vote that the candidate is worthy of the position...or that the other person is completely inadequate for the position. In most races, I'm sure both candidates are at least halfway capable. Two notable exceptions (IMHO) would be the last 2 presidential elections...but that's another story. Back to the point...the campaigns can quickly turn ugly, especially if one side is polling poorly or really needs to fire up their base. That is what Asa Hutchinson, the Republican gubernatorial candidate, seems to has turned to (To be fair, Mike might have too, just not while I was watching football today). During only two consecutive commercial breaks earlier, I caught three different (and one repeat) 15 second ads about Mike Beebe, the Democratic opponent, each posing the question, "How liberal is Mike Beebe?" The concluding remarks were "too liberal", "extremely liberal", and my personal favorite, "outrageously liberal". Well, when you put it that way Asa, why wouldn't I vote for you?

Waiting on the World to Change

Wed, 04 Oct 2006 04:12:17 GMT

Recently I downloaded the new John Mayer album Continuum. Haven't listed to it too much yet, but I have caught the first track a few times. It's entitled Waiting on the World to Change. Here are the lyrics:

me and all my friends
we're all misunderstood
they say we stand for nothing and
there's no way we ever could
now we see everything that's going wrong
with the world and those who lead it
we just feel like we don't have the means
to rise above and beat it

so we keep waiting
waiting on the world to change
we keep on waiting
waiting on the world to change

it's hard to beat the system
when we're standing at a distance
so we keep waiting
waiting on the world to change
now if we had the power
to bring our neighbors home from war
they would have never missed a Christmas
no more ribbons on their door
and when you trust your television
what you get is what you got
cause when they own the information, oh
they can bend it all they want

that's why we're waiting
waiting on the world to change
we keep on waiting
waiting on the world to change

it's not that we don't care,
we just know that the fight ain't fair
so we keep on waiting
waiting on the world to change

and we're still waiting
waiting on the world to change
we keep on waiting waiting on the world to change
one day our generation
is gonna rule the population
so we keep on waiting
waiting on the world to change

Perhaps it's a bit cynical, but I think there are plenty of people that resonate with it's theme. There are so many things they want to change in this world, but they feel they have no power to make it happen. There are times even I have that feeling.

The question I want to pose is this. What is it that you are waiting to change? And what do you perceive to be holding you back?

OR if you've stepped out there to pursue change now, what change(s) are you hoping to realize?

Excellent Reading

Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:07:17 GMT

Came across this blog while at work today. Read it and leave your thoughts.

Does Your Shoe Fit King?
by Shaun Groves

Torture

Sat, 30 Sep 2006 18:56:54 GMT

Why are we even having this conversation in America? Especially among the Republican party which supposedly represents moral values?

Torture is "the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty."
torture. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Retrieved September 30, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/torture

For some reason this conversation has focused on the type of people we're dealing with--The fact that they don't play by the rules of traditional armies or nation-states. What a mis-guided way to look at it.

To save you from asking the question, what would I do if presented the choice of possibly saving a loved one by torturing someone that might have valuable information, I'll answer it now. Yes, it's a difficult situation. But I pray that under no circumstances would I choose to torture someone for the pain they have caused me. First, they might not have the information. Second, I would not be loving them as my neighbor. Third, I would be taking a situation into my own hands rather than placing my trust in God.

All I ever needed to know about this subject, I learned in kindergarten...

Ever heard of the Golden Rule? In some form, it was posted on the wall of Mrs. Mosley's kindergarten classroom. The point is that when you are about to take an action that affects someone else, ask yourself if you would want them to do it to you. It's that simple.

Funny how that idea is expressed in at least 8 major world religions.
Christianity - So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 7:12)
Confucianism - Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state. (Analects 12:2)
Buddhism - Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. (Udana-Varga 5,1)
Hinduism - This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you. (Mahabharata 5,1517)
Islam - No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. (Sunnah)
Judaism - What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary. (Talmud, Shabbat 3id)
Taoism - Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss. (Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien)
Zoroastrianism - That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself. (Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5)

And in the field of moral philosophy, Immanuel Kant formulated his Categorial Imperative - "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end." (2nd Formulation) This is different from the Golden Rule in some ways, but would still prohibit torture because it is a violation of imperfect duty (if I understand correctly).

Sadly this does not seem to be part of the discussion. And sometimes innocent people like Maher Arar have suffered. On bahalf of America, I apologize to Mr. Arar. Maybe the American government will step up and do the same.

I Timothy 2:8-15 - Part 3

Fri, 29 Sep 2006 05:50:16 GMT

Verses 11-15
Very Literal – Women must not talk in church. Men only are to be teachers because a woman was the original trouble maker. They should have children and be satisfied with that.

Somewhat Literal – Women should not teach men. Paul is not excluding women from singing, however. They should not raise too many questions or create problems and distractions for the men who are teaching. This is how it was from the beginning because the woman deceived man.

A New Approach (many of these thoughts come from an NT Wright presentation. The transcript is available here.) – The literal views do not seem to conform to a proper hermeneutic—people (a generalization, I know) don’t approach v8 with the same interpretive method as v9-10 or 11-15. Women regularly contribute ideas in Bible classes and they sing in our assemblies. Perhaps we’ve read/translated the passage improperly because of traditional assumptions.

Note that in I Corinthians 11, women prayed in the assembly. Later in the same book (chapter 14), Paul says something very similar to 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Surely he’s not contradicting himself.

First Corinthians and I Timothy are the only places with passages that read like this about women, and it’s interesting that Corinth and Ephesus each had a temple to a goddess—Aphrodite and Artemis respectively. A place where all of the priest roles would be filled by women.

Now when we actually look at verse 11, notice that it is not a restriction, rather an instruction or permission. Women should learn in full submission to God, just as men should. At this time in history, it would be uncommon for a woman to be educated. NT Wright goes on to interpret verse 12 this way: “I don’t mean to imply that I’m now setting up women as the new authority over men in the same way that previously men held authority over women.”

Why say this? The only example these women had of female religious leadership was the Artemis cult. Paul could be saying this to Ephesian women (and Corinthian women) because he knew they were being too bossy or perhaps creating a disturbance about issues they had not studied.

The word “authority” means “being bossy” or “seizing control.” Paul says it would be wrong for women to take over. But can’t some roles involving speaking in the church be shared, especially if the woman has done her part to study and know what she is talking about like verse 11 says?

Sorry that the last explanation was so long, but because it is not typically heard in my tradition, I wanted to make sure to spell it out a little better. Also, there are probably some other various interpretations or nuances I neglected.

Some will now say that it’s impossible to genuinely approach the text and come to one or more of these conclusions. But I believe that this is entirely possible. Even if we were all able to read the original languages, some amount of interpretation has to occur.

So with that said, can people of different traditions and schools of thought still commune together? Can they still celebrate the bond they share in Christ together?

Barton W. Stone answered the question this way and with this I close:
"I blush for my fellows, who hold up the Bible as the bond of union yet make their opinions of it tests of fellowship; who plead for the union of all Christians; yet refuse fellowship with such as dissent from their notions. . . Such antisectarian-sectarians are doing more mischief to the cause and advancement of truth, the unity of Christians, and the salvation of the world than all the skeptics in the world. In fact, they create skeptics." ("Remarks," Christian Messenger, August 1835, p 180)

I Timothy 2:8-15 - Part 2

Thu, 28 Sep 2006 04:25:47 GMT

With that as our introduction, Mark and I began to present different views of 1 Timothy 2:8-15 (who argued each position is irrelevant as we weren’t necessarily presenting our own view).

The Text from the New International Version:
⁸I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.
⁹I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, ¹⁰but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
¹¹A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. ¹²I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. ¹³For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ¹⁴And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. ¹⁵But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Verse 8
Prayer Posture – Paul desires that men assume a certain posture before God when praying. Perhaps it is one of those things my tradition (Church of Christ) doesn’t completely engage such as the laying on of hands or anointing with oil. Nonetheless, Paul asks men to do this because it will help you to focus. Like sitting up straight in your chair will help strengthen your muscles and stimulate focus, Paul realizes how lazy and distracted we can be at times. Raising your hands to God indicates a desire to receive from God as well as mimics the actions of a child when they want to be held their parent. We should engage in this practice when we pray.

Unity – Men are prone to arguing. Paul calls men to set aside their disputes and be unified. “Lift[ing] up holy hands” is secondary here, and Paul might have inserted any other similar action such as share your food/possessions or give praise and glory to God.

Observations: I’m not sure what to say about how my tradition takes this verse today. It almost seems to be ignored. I definitely haven’t seen any hands in the air lately at my church, and I’ve heard people called liberal and progressive if they were to do such a thing. I also see churches disputing the silliest of issues and refusing to recognize their common ground at the foot of the cross.

Verses 9-10
Strict Modesty – Please remove the braids from your hair, lose the expensive clothing, and check your jewelry at the newly installed donation boxes (all proceeds will go to Kingdom work, but probably not to Children’s homes). Women with these things will be a distraction.

Modesty – The specific items Paul mentioned were appropriate for the women of 1^st century Ephesus. Today those might not matter as much. But women should still dress in accordance with modern U.S. modesty (modesty would obviously be different in Afghanistan or Mexico). The same don’t create a distraction applies. We don’t need our men lusting.

Good Deeds – This phrase seems to imply social obligation—spending time and money on less fortunate people…perhaps even to act as a benefactor of the town. After all, St. James tells us that faith is best demonstrated by what we do! Consider also Lydia (Acts 16): likely a prominent business woman, seller of purple cloth. You think this woman didn’t dress well?

This seems like enough for tonight...Feel free to add other possible interpretations. And please avoid ripping on one viewpoint or another. The point is that someone could come to one of these or a similar conclusion in their genuine search toward understanding Scripture.

1 Timothy 2:8-15 - Part 1

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 04:54:42 GMT

This fall I have had the wonderful opportunity to co-teach the college class at West Side with Dr. Mark Elrod. Each week we get together for a couple hours to discuss things we've been reading and prepare for the lesson. Hopefully the students have been engaged by our study of 1 Timothy like Dr. Elrod and I have.

Now I'd like to share some bits from a lesson we did recently over 1 Timothy 2:8-15.

We began with this question: Is it possible for Christians to genuinely seek Truth and come to different conclusions in their reading of Scripture?

For me, the answer is yes. While some may find this uncomfortable, I find it beautiful. First off, if the answer is yes, it gives me all the more reason to be humble about things I’m learning and studying (Something I often fail to do). I have to be open to the Spirit leading me and teaching me through others. This creates the opportunity for dialogue or conversation and allows me to work out thoughts and improve my understanding. Secondly, it recognizes that unity does not equal uniformity. A uniform church thinks alike. A unified church sets aside opinions to recognize their common need for grace.

For most (all?) of our class the answer was yes as well, so we followed up with the question Why? Here are several answers, although I’m sure more could be listed:

1. Cultural differences – 2,000 years has caused many situations to change.

2. Age/Generation Gap – We notice profound changes even between generations

3. Translations – Different translations can impact our interpretation

4. Hermeneutic – A theory or method of interpretation can color the way you approach a text. Your method should display some consistency when examining different passages.

5. Regional issue – For instance, in the past tobacco use might be preached against in some areas of the U.S. but churches with members that were tobacco farmers were unlikely to interpret Scripture that way.

6. Personal experience – an event in your life could bring special meaning to a particular passage of Scripture others might not equally appreciate.

To be continued...

Who would have thought...

Mon, 11 Sep 2006 12:50:33 GMT

that Al Franken (an atheist, I think) would be able to describe the problem with many (not all) American Conservative's view of Jesus? When I think of "entitlement" and how that is thrown around, I don't think of those who are struggling to get by. I think of those who feel God has entitled them to be rich/wealthy in this life because of their goodness. And if only other people would be good as well, God would pour out riches on them. There is no place for sacrifice in them or their gospel; there is no cross.

We could all stand to get outside of America and gain a broader perspective on the world. Or maybe we should listen to an atheist...

UPDATE: I have been informed that Al Franken is not an atheist. Some of my initial reading about him gave me the wrong impression. My apologies.

Saturday, August 26, 2006

Sat, 26 Aug 2006 01:04:46 GMT

I'm officially addicted to Prison Break...

Friday, August 04, 2006

Fri, 04 Aug 2006 00:12:00 GMT

Check out this recent article in the NY Times. I think Rev. Boyd makes some fair points about the problems facing Evangelical (defined by myself as someone who takes the Bible seriously, believes in the importance of a changed life, and desires to share this calling with others who do not believe) Christians in America today.

Disowning Conservative Politics, Evangelical Pastor Rattles Flock

Scot McKnight, author of the Jesus Creed, and an avid blogger recently said this about the Christian and politics:

Here’s my thesis: Republicans believe 'what is good for me is good for the nation' and Democrats believe 'what is good for the nation is good for me.' Christians think 'how can I and how can we, as a community of faith, incarnate and diffuse the gospel in the world in which we live?'

I would only add that this is what Christians should think.