Roots (Disc 1 &2)

I'm very interested in the shaping and forming of the current theologies that bounce around this blogsite. How are conclusions reached? On what basis do we cling to what we cling to? Obviously none of us claim to have it figured out, but we all would rely on fundamental beliefs to form opinions that shape our actions. The journey in getting there is what I'd like to focus on for a bit, not the theologies themselves at all.

I believe that a lot of the theologies here have roots in some sort of bad experience, and grow from a reaction to never become like something bad that has been seen/heard. Jeff (Nutshell) touched on it in his last few posts, but I don't believe that he is unique in this. The way I see it is this: We see beliefs as not 1 to 1 correlation with action, but pretty closely linked. So therefore, if the action (end result) is not what is desired, the problem can be traced to the belief system that their actions are based upon. If we can change the belief system to being one that would bring about the desired actions, then it is a more successful theology. is this correct, everybody?

I'm wondering if theology is supposed to have this goal in mind when choosing to believe it or not. If action is an outpouring of what is inside, then wouldn't truth be the standard of whether or not the theology is successful? Or is truth such a mystery to us that we should focus more on the result of our actions, and tweak our theologies to line up w/ that? If what someone believes is true, than the outpouring of that truth in their life should prove the theology successful, right?

Do we believe what we believe because we are afraid of where a different path may lead us? Please help me understand thought patterns when it comes to this issue.

Tell the truth about torture, Mr. President

Loyal SfV readers,

I am writing today to ask you to take one simple action to stop torture. Please join me in signing the "Tell the truth about torture, Mr. President" petition.

Numerous allegations of torture committed by agents of the United States government have been reported since President Bush declared the "war on terror" in 2001. It's time for the torture to end.

Please join me in demanding the truth about torture and accountability for past acts, so that torture in our names never happens again.

Follow This Link to visit the website.

Howard Zinn lecture at UCSB

On December 19, 2005, playwright and historian Howard Zinn delivered the lecture "Embracing Humanity: Truth in a Time of War" to a sold-out audience at University of California, Santa Barbara. In this lecture, Zinn explores the myth of "just war" and also speaks to America's claim to have God on its side.

If you have access to UCTV, the lecture is replaying the following times (you'll have to convert to your time zones yourselves:

1/24/2006, 1:00 PM pacific time zone
1/25/2006, 5:00 PM pacific time zone
1/25/2006, 8:00 PM pacific time zone
1/26/2006, 6:00 AM pacific time zone
1/27/2006, 3:00 AM pacific time zone
1/28/2006, 12:00 AM pacific time zone
1/29/2006, 12:00 AM pacific time zone

You can also watch the lecture with RealPlayer at the UCTV website.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

Obedience and Morality

In my last post, I said that obedience precedes morality, so Old Testament soldiers were above reproach, because they were acting in obedience to God (Gabe has offered another theory, which I find interesting, but am not yet willing to accept). By this, I am getting at what Kierkegaard (or was it Dick Van Paten) says in Fear and Trembling, under the pseudonym Johannes de Silentio.

Morality is a human construct. I agree with Ryan that it comes from God, in that we interact with his commands to develop a working morality. I realize that seems revaltive, and it is, but I don't mean to say anything goes. Today most Christians consider polygamy to be immoral, but in King David's time, that was not so, and God never seems to condemn it. Also consider what Jesus said about divorce in Matthew 5.31: ""It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 24.1, and then says that though this was once the morality by which God's people lived (so much so that it was canonized), now that is not the case.

So while we as Christians must live by a morality that is always subject to God's Word, as people of faith, we must be open to God's direct command to do something that violates that morality. Kierkegaard's example is of Abram's experience when God tells him to sacrifice his son. This violates morality and even seems to go against God's promises to Abram, but because God commands, Abram obeys and is upheld as a model of faith in Hebrews 11. Other examples occur in the lives of Jephthah, Enoch, and Peter.

To apply this to what I've said about life and death in previous posts, nothing in the New Testament supports a morality that allows for war or the death penalty. When Christians accept them, as American Christians freely do, they are appealing to a standard of morality outside of the Bible. While valid sources of authority exist outside of Scripture, the text is our standard, and in this case, war and other sorts of violence violate a morality based on the teachings of the Prince of Peace.

God is not limited to our morality. If he commands something that violates our morality, then we must obey. How to determine whether he has is a tricky subject and for another post (or multi-volume set of books).

I'm a little rusty on my Kierkegaard so if someone else can explain it better, please do so. Also, as a caveat, I am not as individualistic as Kierkegaard, which should be apparent from previous posts, so please don't build any existential strawmen. Thanks.

Mea Culpa

Sorry! Sorry! Sorry!

I thought enabling comment moderation meant that I could delete spam and ignorance (such as Dave's comments under Double Standard) from Blogger Dashboard, not that I had to approve comments. Thanks to whomever called me on it. I hate that.

The problem has been resolved and the comments posted. Now lurkers are without excuse.

I thought the comment activity had declined...

Raising a double standard

American Christians have a disturbing double standard regarding sex and violence. When issues of homosexuality and promiscuity arise, the religious right comes out in opposition, and yet a man who was governor of a state that led the nation in execution and who calls himself "a war president" is considered a godly leader.

This double standard is not limited to the political realm either; it extends to entertainment. Read some of the discussion boards over at the Internet Movie Database (IMDb). Under movies that are marketed as violent, graphic action films, you'll find parents asking about the sexual content to determine whether taking their children would be appropriate.

Whence comes this double standard? Is it biblical, or is it culturally constructed? Let's compare the two and find out.

The settling of America is generally credited to the Puritans who came over from England seeking religious freedom. Puritans were Calvinists who opposed the king of England's appointment of Armenian clergy. As strict Calvinists, they believed that salvation was purely a matter of predestination, and therefore, no one could know if they were in the kingdom or not, but obviously those who were saved would live a certain way, and the Puritans developed lists of model behavior that could determine who was in and who was out. The effects of these lists is still felt in the more legalistic Protestant traditions.

America's political identity was forged in a much more violent way. The war that granted independence from England was violent, but as it resulted in freedom (for land-owning white men, but that's another post), it is hailed as the source of the freedoms we enjoy today, which is why pacifists are often met with the preposterous "argument," "If you think violence is wrong, why don't you leave and go to Afghanistan" (as if the Taliban ruled in a peaceful way).

This double heritage seems to be the root of America's double standard rather than the Bible, which, if anything, seems to have a reversed standard. Consider David, a man after God's own heart. The battles that men such as David and Joshua fought are often the basis for Christian just-war theory (when Christians are at all concerned with justice). But look what happens when David wants to build the temple.

1 Chronicles 22.7-10
David said to Solomon: "My son, I had it in my heart to build a house for the Name of the LORD my God. But this word of the LORD came to me: 'You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight. But you will have a son who will be a man of peace and rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. His name will be Solomon, and I will grant Israel peace and quiet during his reign. He is the one who will build a house for my Name. He will be my son, and I will be his father. And I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.'

David was not allowed to build the temple because he was a man of war. The task fell to Solomon, and if David were the George W. Of his day, Solomon was the Wilt Chamberlain. He had 1000 wives and concubines, which, to a king, were usually nothing more than sexual conquests offered by nations seeking favor. Somehow, violence disqualified a king from building the house of God, yet sexual activity did not.

The American double standard is not universal to God's people; it is the result of America's strange heritage of violence and Puritanism. It is a cultural construct, which is not necessarily a problem, unless it leads to anti-Christian behavior, which in this case, I believe it does.

As Christians, we are to put others above ourselves to look out for their wellbeing above our own, even to the point of dying for those who are still our enemies. The American attitude, sadly shared by many nominal Christians, is the exact opposite; we look out for ourselves and kill our enemies. We condone behavior that results in tremendous loss of life, often of innocents, women, and children, yet we become outraged over sins that do not affect us.

I recently heard that a Christian man I greatly respect claimed that God hates homosexuals because they had so aligned themselves with sin, which God hates, that they are indistinguishable from it in God's eyes. This attitude is exactly that of the Pharisees who identified tax-collectors and prostitutes as sinners. This was not Jesus' attitude. He befriended them, and he loved them. God loves sinners, even homosexuals. But nowhere does Christ use violence against another, even when his life and the life of his loved ones was at stake. The Pharisees, meanwhile, had sold-out to Rome, one of the most violent empires in history.

The American double standard that so many Christians uphold is not only culturally formed, it is anti-biblical and is more similar to Christ's enemies than his followers.