bonar crump
husband - father - reader - runner - picker - grinner - lover - sinner
Friday, July 1, 2011
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Our Glorious Diversity: Why We Should Celebrate Difference
by Desmond Tutu, 1984 Nobel Peace Prize winner
via Huffinton Post
As the world's memory of apartheid receded, Desmond Tutu responded to a stream of invitations to speak around the world on the practical implications of ubuntu. An excerpt from a speech to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva in 2001 follows.
We inhabit a universe that is characterized by diversity. There is not just one planet or one star; there are galaxies of all different sorts, a plethora of animal species, different kinds of plants, and different races and ethnic groups. God shows us, even with a human body, that it is made up of different organs performing different functions and that it is precisely that diversity that makes it an organism. If it were only one organ, it would not be a human body. We are constantly being made aware of the glorious diversity that is written into the structure of the universe we inhabit, and we are helped to see that if it were otherwise, things would go awry. How could you have a soccer team if all were goalkeepers? How would it be an orchestra if all were French horns?
For Christians, who believe they are created in the image of God, it is the Godhead, diversity in unity and the three-in-oneness of God, which we and all creation reflect. It is this imago Dei too that invests each single one of us -- whatever our race, gender, education, and social or economic status -- with infinite worth, making us precious in God's sight. That worth is intrinsic to who we are, not dependent on anything external, extrinsic. Thus there can be no superior or inferior race. We are all of equal worth, born equal in dignity and born free, and for this reason deserving of respect whatever our external circumstances. We are created freely for freedom as those who are decision-making animals and so as of right entitled to respect, to be given personal space to be autonomous. We belong in a world whose very structure, whose essence, is diversity, almost bewildering in extent. It is to live in a fool's paradise to ignore this basic fact.
We live in a universe marked by diversity as the law of its being and our being. We are made to exist in a life that should be marked by cooperation, interdependence, sharing, caring, compassion and complementarity. We should celebrate our diversity; we should exult in our differences as making not for separation and alienation and hostility but for their glorious opposites. The law of our being is to live in solidarity, friendship, helpfulness, unselfishness, interdependence and complementarity as sisters and brothers in one family -- the human family, God's family. Anything else, as we have experienced, is disaster.
Racism, xenophobia and unfair discrimination have spawned slavery, when human beings have bought and sold and owned and branded fellow human beings as if they were so many beasts of burden. They have spawned the Ku Klux Klan and the lynchings of the segregated South of the United States. They have given birth to the Holocaust of Germany and the other holocausts of Armenians and in Rwanda; the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and the awfulness of apartheid; and what we have seen in Sri Lanka, in Northern Ireland, in the Middle East, in the Sudan, where there has been a spiral of reprisals leading to counter-reprisals, and these in turn to other reprisals. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Where the law of an eye for an eye obtains, in the end all will be blind. If we don't learn to live as brothers, we will die together as fools."
Religion, which should foster sisterhood and brotherhood, which should encourage tolerance, respect, compassion, peace, reconciliation, caring and sharing, has far too frequently -- perversely -- done the opposite. Religion has fueled alienation and conflict and has exacerbated intolerance and injustice and oppression. Some of the ghastliest atrocities have happened and are happening in the name of religion. It need not be so if we can learn the obvious: that no religion can hope to have a monopoly on God, on goodness and virtue and truth.
Our survival as a species will depend not on unbridled power lacking moral direction, or on eliminating those who are different and seeking only those who think and speak and behave and look like ourselves. That way is stagnation and ultimately death and disintegration. That is the way of people in times especially of transition, of instability and insecurity, when there is turmoil and social upheaval, poverty and unemployment. Then people seek refuge in fundamentalisms of all kinds. They look for scapegoats, who are provided by those who are different in appearance, in behavior, in race and in thought. People become impatient of ambivalence. Differences of opinion are not tolerated and simplistic answers are the vogue, whereas the reality is that the issues are complex.
We need so much to work for coexistence, for tolerance, and to say, "I disagree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to your opinion." It is only when we respect even our adversaries and see them not as ogres, dehumanized, demonized, but as fellow human beings deserving respect for their personhood and dignity, that we will conduct a discourse that just might prevent conflict. There is room for everyone; there is room for every culture, race, language and point of view.
via Huffinton Post
As the world's memory of apartheid receded, Desmond Tutu responded to a stream of invitations to speak around the world on the practical implications of ubuntu. An excerpt from a speech to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva in 2001 follows.
We inhabit a universe that is characterized by diversity. There is not just one planet or one star; there are galaxies of all different sorts, a plethora of animal species, different kinds of plants, and different races and ethnic groups. God shows us, even with a human body, that it is made up of different organs performing different functions and that it is precisely that diversity that makes it an organism. If it were only one organ, it would not be a human body. We are constantly being made aware of the glorious diversity that is written into the structure of the universe we inhabit, and we are helped to see that if it were otherwise, things would go awry. How could you have a soccer team if all were goalkeepers? How would it be an orchestra if all were French horns?
For Christians, who believe they are created in the image of God, it is the Godhead, diversity in unity and the three-in-oneness of God, which we and all creation reflect. It is this imago Dei too that invests each single one of us -- whatever our race, gender, education, and social or economic status -- with infinite worth, making us precious in God's sight. That worth is intrinsic to who we are, not dependent on anything external, extrinsic. Thus there can be no superior or inferior race. We are all of equal worth, born equal in dignity and born free, and for this reason deserving of respect whatever our external circumstances. We are created freely for freedom as those who are decision-making animals and so as of right entitled to respect, to be given personal space to be autonomous. We belong in a world whose very structure, whose essence, is diversity, almost bewildering in extent. It is to live in a fool's paradise to ignore this basic fact.
We live in a universe marked by diversity as the law of its being and our being. We are made to exist in a life that should be marked by cooperation, interdependence, sharing, caring, compassion and complementarity. We should celebrate our diversity; we should exult in our differences as making not for separation and alienation and hostility but for their glorious opposites. The law of our being is to live in solidarity, friendship, helpfulness, unselfishness, interdependence and complementarity as sisters and brothers in one family -- the human family, God's family. Anything else, as we have experienced, is disaster.
Racism, xenophobia and unfair discrimination have spawned slavery, when human beings have bought and sold and owned and branded fellow human beings as if they were so many beasts of burden. They have spawned the Ku Klux Klan and the lynchings of the segregated South of the United States. They have given birth to the Holocaust of Germany and the other holocausts of Armenians and in Rwanda; the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and the awfulness of apartheid; and what we have seen in Sri Lanka, in Northern Ireland, in the Middle East, in the Sudan, where there has been a spiral of reprisals leading to counter-reprisals, and these in turn to other reprisals. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Where the law of an eye for an eye obtains, in the end all will be blind. If we don't learn to live as brothers, we will die together as fools."
Religion, which should foster sisterhood and brotherhood, which should encourage tolerance, respect, compassion, peace, reconciliation, caring and sharing, has far too frequently -- perversely -- done the opposite. Religion has fueled alienation and conflict and has exacerbated intolerance and injustice and oppression. Some of the ghastliest atrocities have happened and are happening in the name of religion. It need not be so if we can learn the obvious: that no religion can hope to have a monopoly on God, on goodness and virtue and truth.
Our survival as a species will depend not on unbridled power lacking moral direction, or on eliminating those who are different and seeking only those who think and speak and behave and look like ourselves. That way is stagnation and ultimately death and disintegration. That is the way of people in times especially of transition, of instability and insecurity, when there is turmoil and social upheaval, poverty and unemployment. Then people seek refuge in fundamentalisms of all kinds. They look for scapegoats, who are provided by those who are different in appearance, in behavior, in race and in thought. People become impatient of ambivalence. Differences of opinion are not tolerated and simplistic answers are the vogue, whereas the reality is that the issues are complex.
We need so much to work for coexistence, for tolerance, and to say, "I disagree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to your opinion." It is only when we respect even our adversaries and see them not as ogres, dehumanized, demonized, but as fellow human beings deserving respect for their personhood and dignity, that we will conduct a discourse that just might prevent conflict. There is room for everyone; there is room for every culture, race, language and point of view.
My Take: Bible condemns a lot, so why focus on homosexuality?
by Johnathan Dudley
via CNN Belief Blog
Editor's Note: Jonathan Dudley is the author of Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics.
Growing up in the evangelical community, I learned the Bible’s stance on homosexuality is clear-cut. God condemns it, I was taught, and those who disagree just haven’t read their Bibles closely enough.
Having recently graduated from Yale Divinity School, I can say that my childhood community’s approach to gay rights—though well intentioned—is riddled with self-serving double standards.
I don’t doubt that the one New Testament author who wrote on the subject of male-male intercourse thought it a sin. In Romans 1, the only passage in the Bible where a reason is explicitly given for opposing same-sex relations, the Apostle Paul calls them “unnatural.”
Problem is, Paul’s only other moral argument from nature is the following: “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?” (1 Corinthians 11:14-15).
Few Christians would answer that question with a “yes.”
In short, Paul objects to two things as unnatural: one is male-male sex and the other is long hair on men and short hair on women. The community opposed to gay marriage takes one condemnation as timeless and universal and the other as culturally relative.
I also don’t doubt that those who advocate gay marriage are advocating a revision of the Christian tradition.
But the community opposed to gay marriage has itself revised the Christian tradition in a host of ways. For the first 1500 years of Christianity, for example, marriage was deemed morally inferior to celibacy. When a theologian named Jovinian challenged that hierarchy in 390 A.D. — merely by suggesting that marriage and celibacy might be equally worthwhile endeavors — he was deemed a heretic and excommunicated from the church.
How does that sit with “family values” activism today?
Yale New Testament professor Dale B. Martin has noted that today’s "pro-family" activism, despite its pretense to be representing traditional Christian values, would have been considered “heresy” for most of the church’s history.
The community opposed to gay marriage has also departed from the Christian tradition on another issue at the heart of its social agenda: abortion.
Unbeknownst to most lay Christians, the vast majority of Christian theologians and saints throughout history have not believed life begins at conception.
Although he admitted some uncertainty on the matter, the hugely influential 4th and 5th century Christian thinker Saint Augustine wrote, “it could not be said that there was a living soul in [a] body” if it is “not yet endowed with senses.”
Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic saint and a giant of mediaeval theology, argued: “before the body has organs in any way whatever, it cannot be receptive of the soul.”
American evangelicals, meanwhile, widely opposed the idea that life begins at conception until the 1970s, with some even advocating looser abortion laws based on their reading of the Bible before then.
It won’t do to oppose gay marriage because it’s not traditional while advocating other positions that are not traditional.
And then there’s the topic of divorce. Although there is only one uncontested reference to same-sex relations in the New Testament, divorce is condemned throughout, both by Jesus and Paul. To quote Jesus from the Gospel of Mark: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.”
A possible exception is made only for unfaithfulness.
The community most opposed to gay marriage usually reads these condemnations very leniently. A 2007 issue of Christianity Today, for example, featured a story on its cover about divorce that concluded that Christians should permit divorce for “adultery,” “emotional and physical neglect” and “abandonment and abuse.”
The author emphasizes how impractical it would be to apply a strict interpretation of Jesus on this matter: “It is difficult to believe the Bible can be as impractical as this interpretation implies.”
Indeed it is.
On the other hand, it’s not at all difficult for a community of Christian leaders, who are almost exclusively white, heterosexual men, to advocate interpretations that can be very impractical for a historically oppressed minority to which they do not belong – homosexuals.
Whether the topic is hair length, celibacy, when life begins, or divorce, time and again, the leaders most opposed to gay marriage have demonstrated an incredible willingness to consider nuances and complicating considerations when their own interests are at stake.
Since graduating from seminary, I no longer identify with the evangelical community of my youth. The community gave me many fond memories and sound values but it also taught me to take the very human perspectives of its leaders and attribute them to God.
So let’s stop the charade and be honest.
Opponents of gay marriage aren’t defending the Bible’s values. They’re using the Bible to defend their own.
via CNN Belief Blog
Editor's Note: Jonathan Dudley is the author of Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics.
Growing up in the evangelical community, I learned the Bible’s stance on homosexuality is clear-cut. God condemns it, I was taught, and those who disagree just haven’t read their Bibles closely enough.
Having recently graduated from Yale Divinity School, I can say that my childhood community’s approach to gay rights—though well intentioned—is riddled with self-serving double standards.
I don’t doubt that the one New Testament author who wrote on the subject of male-male intercourse thought it a sin. In Romans 1, the only passage in the Bible where a reason is explicitly given for opposing same-sex relations, the Apostle Paul calls them “unnatural.”
Problem is, Paul’s only other moral argument from nature is the following: “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?” (1 Corinthians 11:14-15).
Few Christians would answer that question with a “yes.”
In short, Paul objects to two things as unnatural: one is male-male sex and the other is long hair on men and short hair on women. The community opposed to gay marriage takes one condemnation as timeless and universal and the other as culturally relative.
I also don’t doubt that those who advocate gay marriage are advocating a revision of the Christian tradition.
But the community opposed to gay marriage has itself revised the Christian tradition in a host of ways. For the first 1500 years of Christianity, for example, marriage was deemed morally inferior to celibacy. When a theologian named Jovinian challenged that hierarchy in 390 A.D. — merely by suggesting that marriage and celibacy might be equally worthwhile endeavors — he was deemed a heretic and excommunicated from the church.
How does that sit with “family values” activism today?
Yale New Testament professor Dale B. Martin has noted that today’s "pro-family" activism, despite its pretense to be representing traditional Christian values, would have been considered “heresy” for most of the church’s history.
The community opposed to gay marriage has also departed from the Christian tradition on another issue at the heart of its social agenda: abortion.
Unbeknownst to most lay Christians, the vast majority of Christian theologians and saints throughout history have not believed life begins at conception.
Although he admitted some uncertainty on the matter, the hugely influential 4th and 5th century Christian thinker Saint Augustine wrote, “it could not be said that there was a living soul in [a] body” if it is “not yet endowed with senses.”
Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic saint and a giant of mediaeval theology, argued: “before the body has organs in any way whatever, it cannot be receptive of the soul.”
American evangelicals, meanwhile, widely opposed the idea that life begins at conception until the 1970s, with some even advocating looser abortion laws based on their reading of the Bible before then.
It won’t do to oppose gay marriage because it’s not traditional while advocating other positions that are not traditional.
And then there’s the topic of divorce. Although there is only one uncontested reference to same-sex relations in the New Testament, divorce is condemned throughout, both by Jesus and Paul. To quote Jesus from the Gospel of Mark: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.”
A possible exception is made only for unfaithfulness.
The community most opposed to gay marriage usually reads these condemnations very leniently. A 2007 issue of Christianity Today, for example, featured a story on its cover about divorce that concluded that Christians should permit divorce for “adultery,” “emotional and physical neglect” and “abandonment and abuse.”
The author emphasizes how impractical it would be to apply a strict interpretation of Jesus on this matter: “It is difficult to believe the Bible can be as impractical as this interpretation implies.”
Indeed it is.
On the other hand, it’s not at all difficult for a community of Christian leaders, who are almost exclusively white, heterosexual men, to advocate interpretations that can be very impractical for a historically oppressed minority to which they do not belong – homosexuals.
Whether the topic is hair length, celibacy, when life begins, or divorce, time and again, the leaders most opposed to gay marriage have demonstrated an incredible willingness to consider nuances and complicating considerations when their own interests are at stake.
Since graduating from seminary, I no longer identify with the evangelical community of my youth. The community gave me many fond memories and sound values but it also taught me to take the very human perspectives of its leaders and attribute them to God.
So let’s stop the charade and be honest.
Opponents of gay marriage aren’t defending the Bible’s values. They’re using the Bible to defend their own.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Christian Authenticity
by Hugh Hollowell
via Red Letter Christians
I think it was my friend Karen who turned me on to Jamie’s writing. I was hooked by the title of her blog: Jamie – The Very Worst Missionary
She lives in Costa Rica as a missionary. What I like about Jamie is she is very authentic – she talks about her very unreligious thoughts, her family fights, and her struggles, both temporal and spiritual. On twitter a while back she was talking about her urinary tract infection.
Most religious professionals act as if they never get urinary tract infections. Or, in fact, ever urinate. For instance, here is Rick Warren’s twitter feed: This feed could be a bot. There is nothing here to indicate a real person is running it. It is promotional material, recycled Bible verses and “How Great I Art” messages.
Here is John Piper’s: Same thing.You don’t get the feeling that either of these guys ever had a bad thought, ever had any problems, and ever ate a bad lunch, even. Can you imagine either of them ever talking on the internet about a fight with their spouse?
I am not criticizing these two people, specifically. They are just two very public evangelicals that a lot of people listen to. Rather, it is indicative of the larger trend: Lack of authenticity.
I get criticized from Christians for being “negative”. Non-Christians praise me for being honest and transparent.
The Buddha said, some 500 years before Christ, that life is suffering.
Christian leaders: The people who look up to you, who you claim to care about – they experience this suffering. They have lost jobs, they have sick family members, they have work related stress, and they are tired single parents.
They don’t need your recycled Bible verses and tired clichés. They surely do not need to know how great your life is.
They need hope. They need to know they are not alone. They need to know that life is hard, but it can be overcome.
We Christians profess to know something about that.
via Red Letter Christians
I think it was my friend Karen who turned me on to Jamie’s writing. I was hooked by the title of her blog: Jamie – The Very Worst Missionary
She lives in Costa Rica as a missionary. What I like about Jamie is she is very authentic – she talks about her very unreligious thoughts, her family fights, and her struggles, both temporal and spiritual. On twitter a while back she was talking about her urinary tract infection.
Most religious professionals act as if they never get urinary tract infections. Or, in fact, ever urinate. For instance, here is Rick Warren’s twitter feed: This feed could be a bot. There is nothing here to indicate a real person is running it. It is promotional material, recycled Bible verses and “How Great I Art” messages.
Here is John Piper’s: Same thing.You don’t get the feeling that either of these guys ever had a bad thought, ever had any problems, and ever ate a bad lunch, even. Can you imagine either of them ever talking on the internet about a fight with their spouse?
I am not criticizing these two people, specifically. They are just two very public evangelicals that a lot of people listen to. Rather, it is indicative of the larger trend: Lack of authenticity.
I get criticized from Christians for being “negative”. Non-Christians praise me for being honest and transparent.
The Buddha said, some 500 years before Christ, that life is suffering.
Christian leaders: The people who look up to you, who you claim to care about – they experience this suffering. They have lost jobs, they have sick family members, they have work related stress, and they are tired single parents.
They don’t need your recycled Bible verses and tired clichés. They surely do not need to know how great your life is.
They need hope. They need to know they are not alone. They need to know that life is hard, but it can be overcome.
We Christians profess to know something about that.
—-
Hugh Hollowell is an activist, a speaker and a Mennonite minister. He is the founder and director of Love Wins Ministries where he pastors a congregation made up largely of people who are homeless.
Hugh Hollowell is an activist, a speaker and a Mennonite minister. He is the founder and director of Love Wins Ministries where he pastors a congregation made up largely of people who are homeless.
Monday, June 13, 2011
The Myth of a Christian Religion
by Jeremy Myers
via Till He Comes
I recently finished reading The Myth of a Christian Religion by Gregory Boyd. Overall, his approach is similar to the one I will take in Close Your Church for Good. He reveals how the church has become seduced by various powers which have kept us from living according to Kingdom principles. After laying the groundwork for this premise, he writes about various subjects that the church must avoid in order to revolt against these powers and return to living like Jesus. For example, he calls for a revolution in the areas of judgment (chap. 4), nationalism (chap. 7), racism (chap. 10), and greed (chap 11).
It was a good book, and I really appreciated how he approached each subject with grace and tact. After presenting an area of concern, he gave suggestions, but always with gentleness and respect, knowing that the Spirit may lead you or I to respond differently.
And that brings me to my only difficulty with the book. I think that he didn’t go far enough. Greg implies that though most churches in the world are enslaved to the Powers, he and his church have found a better way. I have never visited his church, but my guess is that if I did, I would not be able to tell that it was much different from almost any other church in town. He’s made some changes which I think are a move in the right direction, but are they enough to reverse the course we are on?
It’s like a Playboy photographer who doesn’t look at Playboy magazines, or a Tobacco Company CEO who doesn’t smoke, or a BP Oil Executive who drives a hybrid. If you’re still part of an abusive, exploitive, damaging system, who cares if you make a few tweaks with your own involvement?
Maybe what we need is not a revolution, or even another reformation. What we need is a death and resurrection.
via Till He Comes
I recently finished reading The Myth of a Christian Religion by Gregory Boyd. Overall, his approach is similar to the one I will take in Close Your Church for Good. He reveals how the church has become seduced by various powers which have kept us from living according to Kingdom principles. After laying the groundwork for this premise, he writes about various subjects that the church must avoid in order to revolt against these powers and return to living like Jesus. For example, he calls for a revolution in the areas of judgment (chap. 4), nationalism (chap. 7), racism (chap. 10), and greed (chap 11).
It was a good book, and I really appreciated how he approached each subject with grace and tact. After presenting an area of concern, he gave suggestions, but always with gentleness and respect, knowing that the Spirit may lead you or I to respond differently.
And that brings me to my only difficulty with the book. I think that he didn’t go far enough. Greg implies that though most churches in the world are enslaved to the Powers, he and his church have found a better way. I have never visited his church, but my guess is that if I did, I would not be able to tell that it was much different from almost any other church in town. He’s made some changes which I think are a move in the right direction, but are they enough to reverse the course we are on?
It’s like a Playboy photographer who doesn’t look at Playboy magazines, or a Tobacco Company CEO who doesn’t smoke, or a BP Oil Executive who drives a hybrid. If you’re still part of an abusive, exploitive, damaging system, who cares if you make a few tweaks with your own involvement?
Maybe what we need is not a revolution, or even another reformation. What we need is a death and resurrection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)