Session Notes

Ok, first of all, I’m not going to live link to this guy — but here’s the source:

whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/how-to-get-rid-of-religion/

It’s definitely worth a read — mostly because of how strikingly similar it is to the awarenesses Jesus had about what is so ugly about religion…

In the end, I think more studies like this will ultimately explain much of the variation of religious belief among the world’s nations. And it tells us something important as activist atheists or secularists. We can’t get rid of religion simply by pointing out that it’s false, disenfranchises women, fosters guilt, and so on. Yes, those are important things to do, and do make converts, but in the end religion will be with us until we create more just, more egalitarian, and more caring societies.

He lists a whole set of stats about how religion is strongly associated with utterly messed up societies and advocates the creation of what is pretty much the opposite of neo-conservative utopia as a means of ending religion. In doing so, starts to sound almost identical to this guy: Bruxy Cavey — the pastor of one of the largest Churches in Canada and a man who is also bent on the end of religion.

I had to think: How much do true believers not share with the atheist community?

We all want to:
- End superstition.
- Cancel fear, shame and guilt.
- Erase injustice.
- End war.
- Stop the abuse of women and children.
- Equalize inequality for women etc. and stop exploitation.
- Stamp out homelessness and hunger.

And, yes, get rid of religion.

The only real difference: Atheism wants to replace religion with a faith in secularism and it’s systems of corporate ideological control while followers of Christ want to replace such with a faith in the power of the love of Christ flowing through the lives of those filled with His Spirit.

Falkvinge on Infopolicy

If you want leadership in a swarm, you stand up and say “I’m going to do X, because I think it will accomplish Y. Anybody who wants to join me in doing X is more than welcome.” Anybody in the swarm can stand up and say this, and everybody is encouraged to. This quickly creates an informal but tremendously strong leadership structure where people seek out roles that maximize their impact in furthering the swarm’s goals — all happening organically without any central planning and organization charts.

At the bottom line, what sets a swarm apart from traditional organizations is its blinding speed of operation, its next-to-nothing operating costs, and its large number of very devoted volunteers. Traditional corporations and democratic institutions appear to work at glacial speeds from the inside of a swarm. That’s also why a swarm can change the world: it runs in circles around traditional organizations, in terms of quality and quantity of work, as well as in resource efficiency.

Scratch that. I know I’ve seen this plan before. It’s about 2000yrs old.

It’s how Jesus trained His disciples to take over the world.

Pity we barely lasted out another lifetime before we sold out to the system we were in the process of defeating…

A number of years ago, an interesting little scuffle occurred between the author (William Paul Young) of a new sensation called, “The Shack,” and the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary: Al Moher:

Al [Moher , president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.] tried to get the book banned but was unsuccessful because the theologians of his denomination (the Southern Baptist Convention) ‘could find nothing unorthodox in The Shack that would warrant it being removed or banned,’” Young reported last Wednesday.

As the heat turned up on Moher, he started issuing a whole series of not-even-remotely-believable retractions first claiming that he had not given the order (Ya gotta watch out for those renegade book store clerks) and then claiming they had only been pulled for administrative review (Like, maybe by his outraged theology department?) but the damage was already done. He was hardly alone though.

What was interesting is not just that he tried (These guys are great fans of everything-banning) or that he failed (Young has a theology degree) but how much of their anger and cries of succumbing to false doctrine focused on the female characters — particularly the female character/embodiment of the Holy Spirit: Sarayu.

The spirit that Jesus has is a she! This Female Holy Spirit is also portrayed as an “it”, a force that indwells (not inspires) the inanimate objects. But the Holy Spirit is neither an it or a “she,” but “He” (John 16:13) throughout the Bible. And the bible goes to great lengths to present this consistently.

Too late. The “holy spirit” as an Asian woman is just weird, and of course, also a blasphemy. I suppose the author, who seems unable to waste a good stereotype, chose an Asian woman because of the “exoticness” “quietness” and “mysteriousness” that is so stereotypically attributed to Asian women. To his mind it must seem a perfect match.

She also likes to garden, i don’t know if this is anything to note or not, but Chinese and Japanese culture do have some place for gardens. Not ALL Chinese and Japanese, but in proper places. Japanese gardens are real, but this character is just “Asian” and is of course fond of gardening. I suppose i should be thankful she didn’t know and teach Mack kung fu, of course this book was already too “Matrix-y” for my taste anyways.

The Holy Spirit in the Bible is usually kind of non-corporeal in any sense, when a physical description was necessary, He was described as “LIKE a dove”. Or He came as tongues of fire. Or one can be filled by Him. How an Asian woman portrays any of these attributes is beyond me.

So it seems that Young’s Sarayu, is not the Holy Spirit as portrayed in the Bible, but rather a Hindu goddess! What does this tell us about Young’s theology, or lack thereof? It certainly explains the “all different faiths get to God” viewpoint Young espouses.

When you see this sort of irrational heat directed at something so innocuous, and surprisingly little directed towards other areas (such as how Christ is portrayed), there has to be something else causing the hostility. Something those with this anger are unwilling to admit to — strange it’s mostly directed at the two female leads…

Ironically, his portrayal of the Holy Spirit as a beautiful, complicated woman of questions, conversation, compassion, creativity, mystery, intangibility and empowerment who is always in motion and with whom one could spend a huge amount of time and have it pass in an instant is really quite brilliantly consistent with Scripture’s resolutely dual use of the term, “Helpmate,” for women and God the Holy Spirit.

Or, in other words, the multi level complexity of feminine-pleasure based desirability and captivation is the earthly expression of the part of the image of God known as the Holy Spirit and women, potentially, are the strongest human demonstration of the role of such.

She is defined by Papa on p. 110 as follows: “She is Creativity; she is Action; she is the Breathing of Life; she is much more. She is my Spirit.”

And again, on p. 204 when Sarayu speaks about herself, “I am…  I am a verb.  I am that I am.  I will be who I will be.  I am a verb!  I am alive, dynamic, ever active, and moving.  I am a being verb… my very essence is a verb.”

“As she stepped back, Mack found himself involuntarily squinting in her direction, as if doing so would allow his eyes to see her better. But strangely, he still had a difficult time focusing on her; she seemed almost to shimmer in the light and her hair blew in all directions even though there was hardly a breeze. It was almost easier to see her out of the corner of his eye than it was to look at her directly.” (The Shack, pg.84)

Everything about her is portrayed as captivating, relationally in motion and the intimate embodiment of fascination and fulfillment on every level. In so many ways it’s a brilliantly accurate portrayal of both the Feminine and the Spirit of God and it is no wonder the mystics of old repeatedly describe their engagement with the Spirit of God in terms of pleasure that cover every aspect of such — including sexual.

One of the key elements of the creation story is also the most ignored: Why woman was created. She wasn’t created because the garden had become messy and needed a maid. She wasn’t created to wash the socks Adam was not wearing. God never said, “I just can’t figure out any other way for this guy to reproduce.” No, it was about intimacy for Adam WAS ALONE even WITH the presence of God.

In other words, she was created for pleasure. She was created to embody the physical, emotional, mental, spiritual and sexual ability to engage, draw, seduce, inspire and give and receive the full intensity of relational pleasure.

In stark contrast, our society has minimized the pleasure a woman can bring down to only her ability to be a set of holes to screw — then, to add insult to mortal injury, borderline normalized taking such by force to desecrate it (as a demonstration of power over it) while blaming the woman for the man’s action as though her desirability (for her ability to bring pleasure) is so dirty she becomes responsible for a man’s actions towards her. (And she better track down her hijab or dress to unimpress — or worse — whatever it takes to get back to her real job of hiding…)

“Frightening,” does not even begin to cover that horror.

Then our good Christian society, in some misguided attempt to counter such, teaches women that, “Sex is beautiful, wonderful, special and you should only do it with the one you love.” In effect, telling women that your sexual desirability is essentially something you barter to buy love — and marriage.

(Most of Evangelicalism would gasp in horror should anyone even just tell a little girl that sex is for pleasure and, if it’s not pleasurable (Eg, pressured, shameful, guilty, controlling, rage based, dirty, exploitive, barter based or insecure) then don’t do it — that might make her want to have sex and that could turn her into a, “Slut.” Forget about then calling to life her ability to seduce towards any other kind of relational pleasure on the rest of the levels…)

But, pleasure, relationally speaking, is a 100% two way street. Scripture consistently uses the term, “Knew,” as a descriptor for marital intimacy. (Knowing how to manipulate a person’s genitals is such a small achievement the term would have been silly if that is all it defined.) The knowing had to include the seduction towards physical, emotional, mental, spiritual and sexual exploration and those equal, though often opposite, roles and movements are inherently pleasurable for both. The invitation to encounter, explore and, “Know,” assumes that in, “Knowing and being Known,” is found the pleasure for both.

And, until a young girl comes to see her self as created to bring and experience physical, emotional, mental, spiritual and sexual pleasure in relationship and regards herself as being in possession of all of the power to give shape and form to the relational engagement so that it is defined by such, she will forever remain locked into Staci Eldredge’s definition of some strangely vapid, “Emotional Whore,” selling, what looks to her, as a meagre little pot of short lived sexuality while she still has it to try and buy some sort of a long term opportunity to suck a little relational life out of a guy. (Well, that and seeing herself as the cook/nanny/maid service…)

But, what if we as a community of believers actually set out to inspire in our little girls a sense of utter wonderment about their calling to bring to relationship the same physical, emotional, mental, spiritual and sexual pleasure, engagement, power, enticement, direction and healing the Spirit of God is constantly portrayed as active in?

It takes that inspired sense of awe and wonder about her own majestic value for a little girl to be able to stop and say to herself, “I am the gift in and of myself simply in being, “Known,” even if I do nothing to serve you.” If a woman sees herself as small, valueless and powerless, the default state will be for her to see herself as nothing more then a cheap sex toy and she will relate as such for that is the only thing she will be told is of value by our society.

Seduction and pleasure simply must cease being dirty words. Seduction is what a woman does when she, in full responsiveness, invites the exploration/knowing of the beauty, complexity, questions, conversations, compassion, creativity, mystery, intangibility and empowerment and perpetual motion of herself and receives the initiatory movement of her partner towards such. The power to seduce is founded upon the knowledge of value offered and the skill to bring forth relational life, pleasure and beauty from being engaged in such.

Yes, it’s incredibly powerful and utterly uncontrollable (though always good) in the hands of one with a transformed heart. And, yes, it IS profoundly dangerous — to those who desire to control women…

All I had to do is Google, “Biblical role of women in marriage,” and this gem was the top hit…

Bible.ca

Introduction and summary: Submissive homemaker

1. Manager of the home, under the oversight of her husband. (The wife is the manager of the home, but the husband is the manager of the wife.)
2. Primary role revolves around the daily care of children, meal preparation and keeping the house clean and in order.
3. She is free to take on additional roles and responsibilities by getting a job. Such a job is optional, whereas for the husband, it is mandatory. Her optional choice to take on a job does not suddenly obligate the husband to take on part of the wife’s role of child care or keeping house.

III. “HELPER” Genesis 2:18 . A. Yes, Man Needs Help, “It is not good that man should be alone”.
1. Purpose of woman’s creation? Bible reveals; is to help husband. Helper role lost, even ridiculed in modern marriages. Cf. Commercials.
2. Instead, women urged to actualize themselves, fulfill their own goals.
Not the Biblical picture. One is helper-One is helpee. Cf. Christ & Church.
3. In proper role, an unbeatable team. Out of role, inevitable problems. Just look at how well modern view has “solved” marriage problems???
B. Wives, resolve to pour life into living for him AS church lives for Christ, in spite of the fact that “modern” philosophy ridicules. God’s way works.

Welcome to the wonderful world of inspired exegetical thought and well substantiated hermeneutical method. I wish I could say this was an anomaly — but the next 5 were pretty much identical. But, hey, I could be ok with it. I could avoid wishing I had never used the name, “Christian,” or been associated with the Church if this were written by a batch of well intentioned church members with no theological training — except about 1/2 of them were proudly authored BY Reverends.

I’m sorry but a simple fact has to be stated: No Reverend ever gets out of graduate school without the ability to at least use software tools or books to properly work with the original languages and to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the above is NOT what Scripture has to say about women. Or that it’s not even close.

So, before we get to what the original languages actually say — let’s start with the guy first:

For husbands: Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.

What did Christ do? He gave all of Himself — then gave His life too…

The comparison of husband to Christ and the paralleling of the life of Christ to the call on husbands is so repetitious and blatantly stated that it’s unlikely to be much of a source of controversy. Even the most fundamentalist are quite willing to accept an earthly Trinity of God, Husband and Wife. Few, if any of them have any issue with the idea that the husband is called to be like Christ and most of us have heard far too many sermons to that effect — sermons that come to a dead stop right there.

So if the man has a parallel and model in Christ, who then is the parallel/model to the woman?

On the basis of two comments in Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3, some teachers would try to make an open and shut case that the woman is the parallel to the Church and, thus, should do whatever the man tells her to do. Problem is, it’s an out of context cherry picking of a tiny set of verses tied only to one author in the New Testament only that are about behaviours rather then identity anyway. Nowhere do we read, “Women love your husbands as the Church loved Christ.” (Seriously, look at our history, that would be a terrible deal for husbands…) And, also, it leaves that earthly trinity a little vacant…

So, let’s actually look at those original languages:

In the first chapters of Genesis it says that God created woman as a “helpmate,” (which some interpreters insist means that a woman should be subservient.) Yet the exact Hebrew word for “helpmate” or, “help meet,” is only used three ways in the Bible: for woman, once, in a metaphorical sense, for an ally of equal or greater military power sent as aid by God and for God Himself as it describes God’s relationship with Israel — none exactly a use that suggests subservience or inferiority.

“And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet (Meet actually = original term) for him.” (Genesis 2:18 – “…From where comes my help? My help comes from the Lord…”.) The older English term “meet”, meant “appropriate” or “corresponding to”.

The Hebrew for the first half (Help) is אזר ‘ezer (Strong’s 5828), as in ‘eben-ezer, ‘stone of help’ or Ezra ‘help’. It is a masculine noun, but used here of a woman. The possible root behind ‘ezer could have been either ‘-z-r “to rescue, save” (Ugaritic) and/or ‘g-z-r meaning “to be strong”. Just a quick glance at ‘ezer’s roughly 20 uses shows a repeated context and parallel terms for might or power — never of servitude or slavery. Because of this, commentators have suggested a new translation: “I will make a power/strength corresponding to/equal to man.” Unquestionably, this is about a relationship of equals. The last part of v.18 reads literally as “I will make him for him a helper as in front (kenegdô) of him.”

The substantive, of the word kenegdô is neged. It means, “That which is conspicuous, in full view of, in front of.” When we dig further into the related noun, nagid, we find it means a ‘ruler’ or ‘prince’, and the related verb, nagad, means to, “Declare, tell, expound, reveal, announce.”

The depiction of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament with those qualities is rather consistent to say the least…

In a relatively modern (New Testament) reference to such, Jesus calls the Holy Spirit our helper (parakletos) (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; and 16:7, and 1 John 2:1). In a continuance of the OT parallelism, Paraclete is also a typological expression of the role of a wife and describes one who is called to one’s side. It also describes a power called to aid or rescue. (The New Testament word usually used to describe woman is helper.)

When we look at the Genesis story, we find that for Adam, “No suitable helper was found.” In other words, he was lonely, unfulfilled and in need of relational pleasure and intimacy. God’s solution was to, literally, “Take woman from the side of man.” He split Adam into two pieces and the one piece was now called to the side of the other — and still has the same place of esteem and calling in the New Testament. (The Hebrew words tsela, tsalah; Aramaic ala designate the side or the flank – which translators then assume was the rib. They are only found in this strange and unique usage here.)

What is a woman the earthy reflection of and what model does she have? Paraclete. Yes, she, especially in marriage, is called to be the earthly personification of God the Holy Spirit. Women = God the Holy Spirit may not be literally stated but there is a constantly repeated parallelism held between the two with the same qualities ascribed to both that flows from Old Testament to New Testament without any sort of interruption. It simply can not be replaced on the basis of two metaphorical verses.

(When teachers try, they have to be doing so from some other agenda — usually one that actually ascribes responsibility for the fall to the woman and, thus, sees her as forever deserving of being less.)

The irony of the story of Genesis is that they were most definitely equal and one in EVERY way — even the fall. Adam had heard, directly from God, what not to eat. Eve had only heard such from Adam. Yes, Adam stood silent — while Eve, in her desire to be good, was deceived. Given Eve’s role as an earthly princess of declaration, exposition, revelation and announcement who would be along side of or even be ahead of Adam himself, his failure to speak profoundly facilitated her deception — but then, knowing better, he followed/was drawn by her feminine power into such. And, she has been blamed for seducing him ever since — when she was actually created for precisely that role…

What we ignore in such is that all of that chaos was fully put to right in Christ. Yet, so many still act like our sin was removed, but the woman’s power to speak, draw and seduce is still defiled. (And, actually, we’re not so sure about the sin either and pretty definite on, “Sit down, shut up and cover up…”)

Next, we really need to have a good look at what a full restoration of feminine power would look like — especially in the face of the joint efforts of society and Christianity at stripping it away.

Note: Start reading at part #1 if you expect this to make any sense at all…

Blog Spot

God said it and I believe it and that settles it for me
God said it and I believe it and that settles it for me
Though some may doubt that His word is true
I’ve chosen to believe it, now how about you?
God said it and I believe it
And that settles it for me

If we are going to ever approach understanding what Scripture is actually presenting about women, then the starting point is trying to understand how to understand Scripture. The trouble is, so few ever bother to try…

The above would be far better rewritten as follows:

The Holy Spirit inspired it
Some monk in 1611 paraphrased based on his theological perspective at the time
I blindly take the current English words and try to act like I get it
Then I close my mind and refuse any further information about it.

One of the most striking things I found in the language studies class in seminary was how much even all of our current translations are really paraphrases or interpretations. The translators work from their own presuppositions, their cultural beliefs and the theological view their blinders tell them is the only meaning as they attempt to translate a dead language no one is even any longer capable of speaking. If that were the only issue, this would still be a problem. Unfortunately, any sort of literature is a combination of far more then just words. It is loaded with metaphor, allusion, narrative, and simile that increase the complexity by an order of magnitude.

Then, to add insult to injury, we have cultural issues — such as the Hebrew tendency to regard metaphor as more literal then direct statement. (Metaphor is also effectively used as direct statement even in our world today — but, when translators are involved and they just do not get that it is such, so much can VERY easily be lost…) The very minimum understanding of Scripture has to start from how we even get a meaning of the words we claim to be translating.

When translating a dead language, all we have is parallel usage of words. Let’s just start with an incredibly simple, easy and anthropologically consistent set of terms to understand how difficult it is to effectively use parallel words to grasp meaning.

Let’s say someone ten thousand years from now would dig up our culture and try to understand our dead language’s terms for sex. First they would make a list from terms used to describe the act:

Ravish.
Make love to.
Have sex with.
Do.
Bump uglies.
F^^k.

Of course, that leaves them with nothing. So, then they need to define context for each of the words. First, they would start to look at who said the words and note that, ‘F^^k’ is never used by people of noble birth in ceremonial speech while ‘Ravish’ is and conclude that, ‘F^^k’ must be gutter language and beneath them to use.

Then they would look at immediately surrounding words and see that ‘Make love to…” is never followed by ‘that slut,’ while the term, ‘F^^k’ could easily be followed by such and conclude that the terms describe more or less contemptuous, aggressive or exploitative types of sex as, “That slut,’ is obviously a harsh pejorative.

But, then they would be forced to deal with an erotic story written by a women who, seemingly in the context of deeply intimate relationship, would pant or cry out for her partner to, ‘F^^k me baby,’ and have to wonder if the term can be used different ways. So, then they would have to add up the times this usage occurs and decide if it is anomalous or not.

Entire schools of scholarship could spring up as to whether these women had accepted and eroticised their lot in life as rape victims or if the word had two meanings. (For that matter, they could even find feminists right now who would buy into the former school of thought…) Or, perhaps she was actually mocking/parodying him by calling him a, ‘Baby?’

Certain schools of thought would then get control of the translation/publication process (like the Roman Catholic Church did for centuries) and their views on the meanings (Member of a rape aggrandizing culture) and usages of words (Eroticised her victimization) as well as the symbolism (Contemptuous and violent sex is normalized) worthy of coloring the core messages would become so accepted that later translators would have to fight very hard to have their work accepted if it deviated from such too much (She craved forceful sex from a man who loved her).

Metaphor is then even further removed from the core figuring on what words mean and generally considered to be taboo by those who pride themselves on purity of translation (Which is really just interpretation anyway — but with blinders on) and be relegated to sermons and treated as speculation.

Meanwhile, if you went on the web and read that erotic erotic story, as a member of this culture, you would know in seconds whether, ‘F^^k me baby,’ was about exploitative sex or loving passionate sex because you understand the context.

And, this is the EASY example. Sex is a simple historically consistent physical act that, as long as the translator was human, would be easily understood. The difficulty involved in translating it is nearly insignificant when compared to the task of understanding the place of an entire gender in a culture. Even just 2000yrs later, we have to work at that one — and hard.

If we are to start on the task of understanding what Scripture is actually up to, then we at least are going to have to find a way to get beyond our simplistic understandings of the words used to the ideas actually being communicated. Then, we are going to have to fit that understanding into a larger picture of those ideas through history and dig further to the meanings of those ideas within a cultural system that is totally alien to our own.

The above task is staggering in and of itself — and made even more monumental by the reality that the years of translatory paraphrase have not always come from an unbiased attempt at pure scholarship. Sometimes, the work literally reeks of bias…

(See the monk that divided first Peter 2 and 3 right in the middle of an argument for the heightened status of women so his beliefs about their place could be upheld or his predecessor who translated a Greek word that only implied rank in a military context into the word, “Submission,” instead of something more along the lines of, “Pour all of yourself out.”)

If 52% of the human race, made in the image of God, is being taught by the translation of the Word of God that they occupy a place of shame and insignificance while needing their toxic influence to be contained in the name of modesty and their own good, then perhaps it’s time to take a look at the integrity of the translators because that simply doesn’t make sense…

Huffington Post

VATICAN CITY (RNS) The Vatican’s culture ministry warned on Thursday (Jan. 31) that the Catholic Church risks losing future generations if it doesn’t learn how to understand young people, their language and their culture.

The youth world, he said, has changed “radically,” but the church “is still offering what it has been offering for the past 500 years.”

“We keep on giving the same answers but the way questions are posed is now totally different.”

Not that it is in any way limited to the Holy C but, let’s take a look at what it and the Church in general HAS been offering for the last 500yrs:

(1). A list of ever expanding rules (Especially focused on sex and gender) — though we died to the law with Christ.

(2). A culture of shame for violating said rules — though there is no more condemnation.

(3). A message of guilt based isolation from God — though He said nothing will pluck us from His hand.

(4). Fear from the constant threat of punishment — though all the wrath of God was poured out on Christ — yes ALL.

(5). A caricature of a god who looks like a cranky Pope, demands you perform and sulks like your house cat when you do something naughty — though Christ died ONCE AND FOR ALL.

Yes, the world has changed radically. People can now read their Bible for themselves. Cutting edge scholarship tools are freely available on the web — where people can also easily access archives of stupid tactics of shame, fear and guilt someone thought would work to control them and the cartoons that match. People are not willing to accept anything but the reality of relationship with the Living God.

It’s good some in the Vatican are finally asking the question — may they also find the courage to fix core rather then just call in the air-brushing team…

SermonCentral

Confession to trusted friends and to God is healthy. It’s normal and natural to talk about your struggles with people who care about you. The indispensable truth to grasp, however, is that confession does not initiate cleansing in your life. We’ve already been cleansed “once for all” through the onetime blood sacrifice that needs no repeating.

Let’s be honest about our struggles, but let’s also be clear about what the cross accomplished.

Protestants may claim they’re more biblical than their Catholic peers, since the epistles contain no grounds for confessing sins to a priest in order to be forgiven. Some Protestants may even laugh at the idea of a confession booth or the ritual of going to Mass in order to obtain forgiveness. But these same Protestants may ritualistically apply 1 John 1:9 as their spiritual bar of soap. Is one view of forgiveness really any better than the other?

The Catholic goes to a priest, and the Protestant thinks he does better by appealing directly to God. But any system that doesn’t factor in once-for-all forgiveness is intrinsically flawed.

The first page of it is actually here:

I don’t always like Andrew Farley. He does get grace and freedom — but in such a tainted Evangelical way he mostly annoys me. However, this is so well written and so clear it’s completely worth posting — at least until the fourth from last sentence where, once again, he royally blows it. (But just ignore that.)

I spent so many sessions today dealing with the same theme: The shattered hearts of people still labouring under the lie that forgiveness is partial. The idea that, though we have been forgiven in some sort of heavenly legal sense, we still require a daily forgiveness in a parental sense as though we are children constantly causing offense to our Father. Thus, they remain trapped in a sin/confess cycle that leaves them constantly drowning in guilt and shame — to say nothing of fear. Then they drown their spouses and children in it too — thus raising up sin-focused families unable to hear the voice of their Father or follow It.

It’s simply got to quit. If the Gospel does not have, “Once and for all,” forgiveness to offer, then Christianity is, without a doubt, the most evil and damaging philosophy to ever be foisted upon humanity for the perfection of the God it reflects is a yoke we simply can not bear and the, “Relationship,” it offers is the cruelest bait-and-switch imaginable.

The stunning reality of grace is simply this: The next time you drag your basket of law violations into the presence of God as an explanation for why you have been avoiding Him for so long, don’t be too surprised if you hear the puzzled voice of God reply, “What sins???”

Stuff Fundies Like

I dreamed a dream that things were right and all the world was peace
I dreamed that shepherds loved their flocks for more than just their fleece
I dreamed that universities taught knowledge without fear
I dreamed of pleasant evenings spent with those who hold us dear
I dreamed of churches full of smiles in which were found no guile
I dreamed of sermons full of hope; no guilting down the aisle
I dreamed that each was serpent-wise yet harmless as a dove
I dreamed that judgment was all gone and left was only love
Then sadly…I awoke.

Few ever stop to comprehend the degree of courage it takes to continue to dream that dream…

Even fewer do so and fight for it…

The daily beast

The way in which the next generation has been exposed to Christianity this past decade has been toxic to the faith. Christianism isn’t just corrosive of our political order; it is deeply destructive to Christianity itself. Go to any college campus and ask the uncommitted their views of Christianity. What I hear is intolerance, anger, anti-gay prejudice, sexual obsession, and hatred of Islam. How many people Rick Santorum has scared off Christianity for life is beyond reckoning. And the bile directed at gay people has been deeply damaging in getting across to people what Jesus’ message really was: which is, in many cases, almost the opposite of that of his current most prominent representatives in the media.

Some articles are so stunningly clear thinking and incisive they virtually demand nothing but a repost. It’s short, sweet and brilliant and, even if you don’t read the article, at least read these two paragraphs:

Most “nones” have not opted out of religion as such, but have opted out of affiliation with organized religion. Among Christians (the great majority of all survey respondents) there are different reasons for this disaffection. The two authors are very probably correct that, broadly speaking, those who are turned off by Evangelicals and conservative Catholics do so because they don’t like the repressive sexual morality of those churches (the sexual abuse crisis in the Roman Catholic Church has not helped).

But the “nones” have also exited from mainline Protestantism, which has been much more accommodating to the liberationist ethic. Here, I think, there has been frustration with what my friend and colleague Thomas Luckmann long ago called “secularization from within”—the stripping away of the transcendent dimensions of the Gospel, and its reduction to conventional good deeds, popular psychotherapy and (mostly left-of-center) political agendas. Put differently: My hypothesis implies that some “nones” are put off by churches that preach a repressive morality, some others by churches whose message is mainly secular.

In short: Christendom has finally figured out there is a problem and people are leaving. We didn’t ask what the problem was, we didn’t even think it through. The conservatives just judged everyone even more forcefully (Because that is what they always did) and the liberals just watered down the message of the Gospel even more (Because that is what they always did).

Stunning if you think about it. The logical response to the utter failure of a system is, apparently, to work the system harder.

Neither even bothered to check in with the radical revolutionary that was (And still is) the Jesus that threatened every system He ever met…

CNN Belief Blog.

The article in Relevant magazine, entitled “(Almost) Everyone’s Doing It,” cited several studies examining the sexual activity of single Christians. One of the biggest surprises was a December 2009 study, conducted by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, which included information on sexual activity.

While the study’s primary report did not explore religion, some additional analysis focusing on sexual activity and religious identification yielded this result: 80 percent of unmarried evangelical young adults (18 to 29) said that they have had sex – slightly less than 88 percent of unmarried adults, according to the teen pregnancy prevention organization.

Ok, contrary to the wide eyed wonder all over this one, none of this is exactly news. Actually it’s so well known as to be banal — and the stats are even worse in the more fundamentalist Evangelical states. But, few of said Evangelicals have the guts to ask the following question — much less two of them in one article:

Yet the article also asks a question that rarely comes up in discussions about abstinence movement. Relevant notes that in biblical times, people married earlier. The average age for marriage has been increasing in the U.S for the last 40 years.

Today, it’s not unusual to meet a Christian who is single at 30 – or 40 or 50, for that matter. So what do you tell them? Keep waiting?

Too bad none of them had the guts to answer it though…