The American Buddhist teacher Pema Chödrön has written a book called The Places that Scare You: A Guide to Fearlessness in Difficult Times. I haven’t read it yet, although I like her work and so I hope to one of these days; but I’m mentioning it because the title alone is, for me, provocative. Sooner or later meditation or contemplation alone will take us to the places that scare us. Indeed, life will take us to the places that scare us. We lose a job, a relationship, a valued possession, our health. Worse than our own suffering is the suffering of those we love. And when loved ones die, or leave in any other way, a huge hole can emerge in our lives that seemingly nothing will fill. The Buddha very rightly noted in the first of his Four Noble Truths that suffering happens. Birth, aging, illness, death, clinging, separation, and other aspects of life all bring us to suffering. And no one likes to suffer, and so the places that scare us (or perhaps I should say, the places that scare me) are those places where suffering will possibly or probably or most certainly will come to me.

Since both Benedictine and Celtic spirituality are all about hospitality, I suppose the obvious question here is, how do we offer hospitality to our suffering, and to the places that scare us? I’m not sure I buy into Chödrön’s subtitle: is “fearlessness” really on the menu? Granted, Jesus told us to be not afraid; he also told us to be perfect (in that context he was talking specifically about loving those who do evil). I’m currently reading The Teaching of the 12, Tony Jones’ commentary on the Didache, and he sees in that ancient manuscript this kind of Gospel-inspired commitment to loving acceptance of even those persons we are temepted to hold in judgment. The Gospel is all about busting through judgment and judgmentalism and embracing radically those even whose actions or behaviors we find scandalous. I don’t know about you, but I’m not there yet. Just like I’m not to fearlessness yet. It seems to me that before we can be fearless or perfect in our love, we have to grow into it. And moving into the places that scare us, and accepting the fact that we are very much afraid, and by the grace of God, doing it anyway, is an important first step. Again by the grace of God, the fearlessness will come, later. But if we wait for fearlessness before we go to the places that scare us, we will probably just wind up immobilized.

I’ve been thinking about all this a lot lately, not only because I’m playing with the question of “tame spirituality” vis-a-vis “wild spirituality,” but also because I’m having a hard time settling on what my next book project should be. Basically, I have three options: should I explore mysticism again, or should I turn my focus back to something more Celtic, or should I write about my transition from Paganism to Catholicism? Guess which of the three scares me the most (simply because it is the closest to my own heart)? Why, though, should my own story scare me? Because of all the pitfalls I see along the way. I’m afraid that I will share too much of my own shadow, or that I will project too much of my own shadow onto either Paganism or Catholicism. I’m afraid that, in an effort to avoid the pitfall of projection, that I will retreat from being honest in talking about my experiences both as a Pagan or as a Catholic. In other words, to write my story, I must be fearlessly honest about myself, but also about all my experience, both in Pagan or in Christian circles. Such fearless confessional writing is different from the rather journalistic task of celebrating mysticism. And I fear that I am not strong enough or good enough to rise to the challenge that such a task presents to me.

Feel the Fear and Do it Anyway, says Susan Jeffers. And I agree with her. Sit in the middle of the fear, and breathe through it. We know we are alive when we go into the places that scare us, not to prove how macho we are, but simply to practice that hospitality that can give birth to true fearlessness. But knowing all this doesn’t make it any less scary going in. There’s another book out there that I’ve never read; it’s called The Courage to Write: How Writers Transcend Fear. I don’t know about other writers, but I deal with fear as a writer by bludgeoning my way through it. “Transcending” fear is a fine art that I have yet to master.

Maybe the reason why this blog strikes at least one reader as tame is because I’ve been shying away from the stuff that scares me. I suppose now that this is on my radar screen I need to do something about it. And I will, as soon as my hands stop shaking.

Over at Tony Jones’ blog he raises this question regarding the virgin birth of Christ:

The virgin conception of Jesus has been questioned since the beginning of the church. As early as AD 177, the anti-Christian philosopher Celsus claimed that Jesus himself made up the story of the virgin conception to cover up his own illegitimacy. Others, including more liberal biblical scholars associated with the Jesus Seminar, have noted that virgin conceptions are common in the birth narratives of pharaohs, emperors, and kings, which indeed they are.

This is a question that the Emergent movement has struggled with, as we read in Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis:

What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births?

But what if, as you study the origin of the word “virgin” you discover that the word “virgin” in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word “virgin” could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being “born of a virgin” also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse?

What if that spring were seriously questioned? Could a person keep on jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian? Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live? Or does the whole thing fall apart? (VE 26-27)

The problem with emergent in my view has always been their elevation of doubt over faith, and, indeed, their alignment with the serpent in the garden when they question the veracity of God’s Word- “Hath God really Said?” Tony Jones gives his answer:

Miraculous births are an important part of the biblical narrative, most notably the birth of Isaac to the aged Sarah, and the birth of John (the Baptizer) to the aged Elizabeth. This trajectory culminates with the birth of Jesus.

Let us simply address the conception of John the Baptist by Elisabeth:

Luke 1:23-24And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house. 24And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying,

Zechariah, the old priest, was told that his wife, Elisabeth, would bear a son named John, as a direct answer to his prayers. The scripture necessarily places Zechariah in his home, and after those days Elisabeth συλλαμβάνω (sullambanō) translated conceived,(literally grasped, caught hold) and in the tense and context it simply means that Elizabeth (for example) conceived naturally with the foreknowledge and help of God. It was miraculous, but significantly different from the conception of Jesus.

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke recount that Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant with Jesus, the conception being the result of impregnation by the Holy Spirit,(emphasis mine) and the church has held this as a core component of orthodoxy since. (Some branches of the Christian church have added the beliefs that Mary was still a virgin when Jesus was born (Virgin Birth), that Mary remained a virgin her entire life (Perpetual Virginity), and that Mary herself was born without sin (Immaculate Conception), but none of these is mentioned in the Bible.)

This is the announcement of the angel towards Mary, and it differs very much from the situation with Elisabeth:

30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” 34 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” 35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called m holy—the Son of God. 36 And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God.

More correctly, the Holy Spirit overshadowed (ἐπεσκίασα; to throw a shadow upon, to envelop in shadow, to overshadow:) and did a creative work inside of Mary, so the conception of Jesus was a unique creative act. This is unique in that, as Mary said, How is it possible since I am a virgin (in the KJV ‘know not a man’) which is accurate in the greek γινώσκω which, as a Hebrew euphemism, is used of the carnal connection of male and female. In other words, virgin, as translated ‘young woman’ is improperly translated by Rob Bell. It is more appropriate in the KJV, literally, never had sexual relations. So it is not only the creeds, and the old orthodoxy that states the importance of the virgin birth, it is God’s Word itself.

In every miraculous birth in the Bible, and most significantly in the birth of Jesus, the theological point is that God’s Spirit has been involved in human affairs—actually in the biology of a woman—in order to precipitate the birth of a special, anointed, and holy person. And the virginal conception of Jesus signals that his direct progenitor is God’s Spirit, and we have since worshipped him as the incarnation of Logos (i.e., the second person of the Trinity).

Another false statement by Jones, who tries to cheapen the creative act of the Holy Spirit by reducing it to God’s involvement, like with other affairs. There is a difference between God’s involvement with Elisabeth and Sarah in the births of their old age, and the involvement of God in his sovereignty in our everyday lives and the virgin birth of Jesus. The argument that it is unimportant to the Christian faith is liberalism at best and heresy at worst. In the virgin birth of Christ, we see God directly involved in the incarnation of His Son, (John 1:14) sending Him (John 3:16) to a fallen world.

The virgin birth has its importance in Christology as well as Soteriology; I have addressed this at length in other blog posts, so I will not address it here. But Jones’ closing statement of the next to last paragraph sounds like Arianism at its root:

Suffice it to say, I think that God is capable of creating and maintaining Jesus and a sinless person without needing a lack of semen to do it.

This heresy resulted in exiling Arius; perhaps the best answer is for Biblical Christians to exile such teachers from their fellowships.

The closing statement:

So, for me, the virginity of Mary is not some forensic, mechanical doctrine that makes sinlessness possible, but is instead a testimony to the miraculous power of God’s Spirit and the anointing of Jesus that is confirmed at his baptism.

Is also questionable, perhaps a poor choice of words, but it is not about the anointing of Jesus, it is about the incarnation (John 1:14) of Jesus. It is the power of God sending His Son, born of a woman, born under the law (Galatians 4:4) so that, as fully human he could die for our sins, but also begotten (not made) of God, fully and truly God, so that he could bear the full penalty, in three days, of the wrath of God poured out on Him for our sins.

Only within this past year, I became aware of and interested in an ancient document called the Didache.  It is an ancient manual of sorts from the early church that many scholars date to 50-70 A.D.  That date makes it concurrent with the earlier gospels and the Q source, and also predating much of Paul’s influence.  In fact, though a few scholars dispute this, the Didache seems to show no knowledge whatsoever regarding the Apostle Paul and his teachings, arguably giving us a window into the narrow sliver of pre-Pauline Christianity.  This is not to dog Paul by any means, but as a central figure in the shaping of late first century Christianity, his particular hermenutics, philosophies, scholasticism, and worldview are of interest to those of us asking this question: just how much did Paul’s particular worldview alter the course of  Christianity.  I grew up in churches where sermons where derived almost without exception from Paul’s epistles, and this became more disturbing to me as I became aware of how different “reading Jesus through the lens of Paul” is from “reading Paul through the lens of Jesus.”  Though both Jesus and Paul came out of the Pharisaic sect of Judaism, Paul was much more esoteric and spiritual-minded (as opposed to a very earthy, Jewish, and political Jesus), with Greek Stoic influence and a much keener interest in marginalizing Torah in his cosmopolitan proselytization.

I became aware of the Didache via Tony Jones.  Jones is a writer I’ve followed with much interest for a few years, and he recently completed a book on the Didache, titled The Teaching of the Twelve: Believing and Practicing the Primitive Christianity of the Ancient Didache Community.  He provided an mp3 reading of the entire text, a short 17 minutes long, which I reposted below along with a word file of the full text if you are interested.

I’ll offer some more thoughts on this key early text in following posts.  It is a practical manual for Christian community, offering directions on everything from how to do Baptism (setting the silly debate over whether sprinkling or dunking was normative in the early church- it was both), Eucharist and who can partake (and I happen to disagree with the Didache here), sexual ethics, admonishments to the wealthy or ungenerous, reiterations of general teachings from Jesus, directions on when to fast or recite the Lord’s Prayer, and what to think of itinerant teachers and how to know if a teacher is a false prophet.  Didache seems to indicate the pre-Pauline churched looked on preachers with no alternative source of income as false prophets!  *cue up the irony of salaried pastors wishing for a return to early christianity*  This is a question my wife and I have been asking myself recently and just can’t seem to settle on (whether or not I feel it is ethical to derive a salary from a ministry).  That may have to wait for a later post.

Jones argues that the Didache’s message on ethics, in contrast to the perfection goal of Paul, can be summed up as this: try your best.

Didache (audio of the full text, via Tony Jones)

The Didache text

New book recommendation:  The Justice Project

Edited by Brian McLaren, Elisa Padilla, and Ashley Bunting Seeber, is a eye-opening follow-up to The Emergent Manifesto of Hope.  It continues the theme of approaching a topic, Justice, from an array of voices.  While there were notables such as Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Peggy Campolo, and Lynne Hybels, the book mostly consisted of names I’d never heard of, activists working to challenge the status quo from their niches

It was that broad range of experiences that drew me in.  A chapter by Peggy Campolo challenged me with a story of a gay-affirming church here in Arkansas, as well as challenging the typical notion of what “Biblical family values” really are.  Her son Bart explained why campaign finance reform might just be the most important political “Justice” issue out there.  One writer told of her experience in a barely post-Civil Rights black church, which looked up to MLK, Jr. they way we look up to Jesus, and this backed up nicely to stories from South Africa where white anti-Apartheid advocates feared the suspicious, “accidentally” fatal car incidents with cops.  Then a description of Just Conservatism and Just Liberalism.  Samir Selmanovic, author of the newly released It’s Really All About God: Reflections of a Muslim Atheist Jewish Christian has a provocative piece on decolonizing God’s name.

Particular sections where particularly biting.  The entire book was absolutely replete with Scripture.  An early chapter asks if capitalism can be just.  Has there ever been an economic system that paradoxically produced more good while at the same time producing such imbalance of wealth?  A definition of justice is in order, given that we have to decide whether Justice is distributive or redistributive; is Justice starting where we all are and going from there, or is it inherently redistributing and hence imbalanced against those who start off with more.  The West has traditionally ran with the former while the Tanak inarguably aims at the latter.  The question is whether or not a capitalistic system which, while creating a great deal of good, inevitably creates inequality is a redemptive system.  That takes it pretty far, maybe beyond what I am comfortable with, but it does strike me as true that there will be no room for any inequality in God’s economy.

Then cut to a discussion on immigration reform in which a Latino writer recounts a discussion with a friend.  One asks the other if he also carries his ID with him in his sock whenever he leaves the house so much as just to jog.  It’s a world I cannot imagine, where naturalized citizens of the US live in fear of illegal deportation because of the stories they heard about the unlucky neighbor who forgot his drivers license when jogging.  That neighbor is picked up, presumed illegal, detained and/or deported away from his family.  The author barely has to imply the Scriptures that call for lavish welcoming of the squatter immigrants among us.  It challenged me because I know we need serious immigration reform and laws to guide us.  But I also know that Scripture holds up this ideal for sheltering the alien that many of us consider simply too idealistic.  Maybe it is, but it is Just.

Just ecology.  Just land.  Just business.  Justice in the slums.  Justice in the suburbs.  Just parenting.  Just Trade.  Just church-planting.  Justice in religion.  Justice in racial issues. Just elections.  Just family values.  Prophetic Justice.

This is one of those books that has perspectives that anyone but the most hardened ideologue will have their heart melted by.  I’m really encouraged to see the awakening of much of the church to the Biblical primacy of Justice as integral to the Gospel.  The church’s Justice awakening has gained such a tide that there is even now a resistance to it by Christians who feel we should drop such emphasis on Justice and “get back to Jesus.” The Justice Project is one of those books that reminds me why that perspective isn’t much good news at all.  It’s got a perspective to unsettle, teach, encourage, anger, and give hope to anyone.

Twilight Of Emergent Idolatry: New Age Apostasy is a sequel to the much beloved Tween Apostate classic of Emergent Babel, Twilight Of Emergent Idols. These Apostate films are based on the Emergent Twilight book series co-authored by a female Mormon false religionist and a bunch of Emergent heretics. A bunch of morons more like it! These films are spiritual confusing for sure! Why they even teach such confusing and postmodern Emergent ideas as: people have souls, there is good and evil in the world, “love conquers all,” redemption, wholesome values, etc.  Discernmentalists do not be fooled by these apostate values since this book series was written by heretics so therefore these anti-Biblical values are opposed to our core Discernmentalist values of  only the Elect have souls, the world is totally depraved, self-righteousness and war-mongering conquer all, wrath, etc.

We Know with Absolute Certainty these Absolute Truths! Todd Friel using Eric Barger’s Bible Based Selective Uncomprohensive Cherry-Picking Reading Machine has said of the newest installment in the Emergent Twilight series that it in fact promotes the false teaching of: “How to Tell God, ‘You’re not the Lord of me. I’ll do whatever I want’.” Yes we should fear and be paranoid of fictional books and films this much as True Truthwarriors. Anyways, the newest installment in the Emergent Twilight series—Twilight Of Emergent Idolatry: New Age Apostasy stars all your favorite Emergent heretics: Rob “Universalist” Bell, Phyllis Tickle “Your Ears” and Tony “I Have No Truth” Jones among others and Dakota Fanning whom these evil Emergents corrupt and turn into a contemplative Soul-sucking vampire.

Here was sweet little Dakota when she was a Bible-believing Southern Baptist:

And here is Dakota after those Evil Emergents kidnapped her and forced her to star in their sin-promoting movies—Hounddog, Twilight Of Emergent Idolatry: New Age Apostasy and now even more heretical movies:

Here Dakota is in an Emergent coven:

And the ensuing results of the evil Emergents’ spiritual apostasy are working on Dakota:

See the difference—We Do—Absolutely! This is why we Discernmentalists must warn you parents to never take your children to movies that we don’t approve of —because your children are too dumb to realize the fine lines between fantasy and reality—and Emergents blur them constantly. This is why we must set the standard for you and tell you to boycott Twilight Of Emergent Idolatry: New Age Apostasy and the like.

Recently I signed on to be part of a “blog tour” — in which different bloggers would read and reflect on Tony Jones’ new book, The Teaching of the Twelve: Believing & Practicing the Primitive Christianity of the Ancient Didache Community. I was supposed to write about this book on December 7. Alas, the gremlins of miscommunication did their work, and I did not receive my copy of the book until Tuesday — the day after I was scheduled to offer my .02 to the trans-blogged conversation. My apologies to Tony Jones, to Paraclete Press and to anyone following the blog tour who came to this blog looking for my own unique perspective: obviously, my own sense of ethics mandates that I not write about the book until I have a chance to read it, and given that my life right now is pretty largely devoted to Christmas retail, it may be a couple of days (or so) before I get the book read. But under the rubric of “better late than never,” I will read the book, and comment on it as soon as I can, even though the blog tour itself will have officially ended.

In the meantime, if you want to see what other folks have said about this book, visit Paraclete Press’s Didache page — and scroll down to see links to all the blogs that have written about this book.

For a month at the box office John Cusack has been working to save his family from the world wide apocalypse of 2012 rightly predicted by the end of the Mayan calendar and some New Age scholars. It certainly makes for a great movie trailer with Cusack driving his RV through Yellowstone as the whole place explodes as a super volcano. A number of world religions point to 2012 not only being the epic showdown between Palin and Obama (OK no religions actually predict that)  but also the end of civilization as we know it. At least that is what Hollywood wants you to believe. Real Mayan scholars dispute much of the hoopla regarding imminent apocalyptic doom just years away, especially if people are basing this prediction on the Mayan calendar. Watching the ridiculousness of Cusack as a hero trying to save his family when literally the whole world is turning against them and trying to link this to any religion is lunacy. It is at once both amusing and encouraging to realize that people outside the church have struggled with how to treat the apocalypse as much as the church has.

Ever since Jesus ascended from the earth and promised he would return the church has tried with frequent and miserable failure to walk the line between a proper attitude of expectant preparation and active searching for signs that Christ’s return is imminent. A quick browse through popular Christian bookstores or through the program guide of a Christian broadcast station will reveal that 2000 years later we are still trying, and still failing with frequency, to walk this line.

In the first and second century, apocalyptic literature was very popular. Tony Jones in The Teaching of the Twelve, his look at the ancient Christian document the Didache, points to the expansion of the apocalyptic genre from Daniel through the inter-testimental period, on through the Qumran community and John the Apostle. In the early church this genre was still very popular, especially since the teachings of Jesus himself seemed to indicate he would be right back. You can just imagine the young church sitting around and dreaming up the terror and beauty that would accompany the return of the Lord at any moment. Of course that can also be very distracting to simply living your life.

So it is with such encouragement and blessing that we read the words of instruction given to young Christians in the Didache. This document was most likely written to instruct catechumens in their daily walk. Here in this primitive Christian community that may have existed in this first generation of the church, this tension between waiting and watching was clearly understood. And the instructions given here may be the key to actually walking this line in the way Jesus intended.

At the end of the Didache we have a short but powerful passage about our call to understand the return of Christ in our daily lives. The text reads:

“Watch over your life, that your lamps are never quenched, and that your loins are never unloosed. Be ready, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.”

The Didache goes on to further instruct the young Christians to watch out for false teachers, especially the “world deceiver” who will come and do iniquitous things that have not been done since the beginning of the world. The language sounds much like Jesus’ words to his disciples in Matthew 24-25 and Paul’s words to the Thessalonian church. There is evil at work in the world, it will bring with it destruction and suffering for the church, but your job is to be prepared for it and to remain true.

The real gem of beauty in this part of the Didache is the simple instruction to be ready. It is important for these young Christians to understand that indeed Christ will come again and at his coming there will be the resurrection of the dead and the judgment of all people and the praise of Jesus as Lord by all people. So make sure you are ready.

It would serve us well as the church to try and practice these simple words of eschatology more often in our instructions to our churches: be ready. Watch your lives, gird your loins, keep the lamps burning and be ready. There are no words of panic or predictions about how soon this will happen, there is just simple advice of what to watch for as these young Christians go about living out their faith.

At the end of the chapter, where Trucker Franks adds his two cents he says, ““These people weren’t sitting around
waiting for God to rapture them out of there,” Frank says. “They were doing everything they could to live in the faith
and make the world a better place. They weren’t concerned about when Jesus would come back.”

In the majority of books, TV shows, and sermons being offered in our current apocalyptic genre the message is seldom as simple and beautiful as Christ is coming back so be ready. You wonder what we could make room for on our bookshelves if we got rid of all of our apocalyptic writings that are filled with charts and graphs and replaced them with simple reminders to watch and be ready. In this concise and beautiful little instruction book we have indepth instruction about following the way of Christ, living as a sacramental community and worship. But here at the end when it comes to the end times the message is pretty simple and clear. “Be ready, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.” Amen.

]]> http://holinessreeducation.com/2009/12/05/didache-primer/ Sat, 05 Dec 2009 20:47:48 +0000 Greg http://holinessreeducation.com/2009/12/05/didache-primer/

Have you read the Didache yet? Tomorrow I am joining in on the Didache Blog Tour for Tony Jones’ new book. There have been some really interesting posts so far this week as people have walked through the first 6 chapters of the book. Head over to Tony’s blog for his interaction with each post and check out what they are saying.

November 30: An introduction with Tony Jones

December 1: Chapter 1 – The Most Important Book You’ve Never Heard of – with Adam Walker Cleaveland at pomomusings and Thomas Turner at everydayliturgy
Tony’s response

December 2: Chapter 3 – The Didache Community – Then and Now – with Ted Gossard at Jesus Community and Amy Moffitt at Without a Map
Tony’s response

December 3: Chapter 4 – There Are Two Ways – with Tripp Fuller at homebrewedchristianity and with Holly Rankinzaher at happydaydeadfish
Tony’s response

December 4: Chapter 5 – Sex, Money, and Other Means of Getting Along – with Chris Monroe at Paradoxology and Mike Todd at Waving or Drowning?

December 5: Chapter 6 – Living Together In Community – with Brother Maynard at Subversiveinfluence and Mike King

December 6: Chapter 7 – The End is Nigh – with Greg Arthur at Holinessreeducation.com and Mike Stavlund at Awakening

December 7: Epilogue – with Luke C. Miller and Carl McColman at The Website of Unknowing

December 8: Special Question – Is this text – The Didache – really so important? Why? Do we know that it was important to the earliest communities of Christians? with Jonathan Brink at Missio Dei

December 9: Special Question – Does the Didache teach or advise anything that substantively differs from what was decided at the earliest ecumenical church councils (such as Nicaea) with Dwight Friesen

December 10: Special Question – Why is the Didache relevant, in particular today? Is it more relevant today than it was, say 100 years ago? Why? with Bob Hyatt

Original sin is the teaching that, in some capacity, humans are guilty of sin and have no choice but to sin because of our fallen nature. Having done some thinking, the term “fallen nature” or “sin nature” gives me some problems. The reason is that “nature” is synonymous with “essence.” So if we have a sin nature then our essence is fallen as well; we have no choice but to be guilty in sin from the moment of conception to our point in death. Our very essence is sinful, an affront to God.

This could work except for one point, that point being the Incarnation. We say that Jesus was fully human. Philosophically, this means that Jesus had a human essence and a divine essence (and therein is the mystery). But this is the problem – if Jesus had a human essence, but was sinless and not guilty of sin, then how did He have a human essence? It seems we are left with two choices when we choose to use the term “sin nature.” Choice 1 is that Jesus wasn’t really human, but had humanistic characteristics, but being morally perfect and untainted by sin, He ultimately did not share a human essence with us. Choice 2 is to say that Christ was guilty of sin by having a human essence, thus making Him a sinner like us. Neither choice is Biblical and both are heretical, which is why I’m having difficulty believing that we have a “sin nature.”

Of course, there’s the problem that all humans choose to sin, but Christ did not. So what can we say?

I would put forth the theory that at the point of the fall of humanity, our wills were damaged. The will would be the ability to follow through follow through on a choice, or where to direct our actions. A weak will would allow us to make wrong choices, or at least cause us to lack the ability to go through with what we believe to be right all of the time. A weak will would allow us to deprave ourselves to the point where we desire evil and act on evil. But this does not mean Christ had a weak will; it is entirely possible that His will was perfected. Let me explain:

Tim was born with a deformed leg and therefore cannot run. Johnny was born with properly functioning legs and therefore has no problem running. We can look at Tim and realize that had there not be an external agent of change (something within his genes or development within the womb) he would have grown the ability to actualize his essence. That is to say, both Tim and Johnny have the capacity to run, but an external agent prevented Tim from actualizing his capacity.

Or we can look to Heather and Sally, born in 1900. Heather was killed by a disease at the age of 3. Sally died of old age at the age of 93. In 1901, both Heather and Sally had the capacity to become adults, it was a part of their essence. By 1904, an external agent had taken away Heather’s ability to actualize her capacity for “adultness,” but regardless both Heather and Sally shared the essence of being human. Just because one was given the ability to actualize a part of her essence while the other had an external force negating such an ability does not mean that one was human while the other was not. It simply means that both held the same essence and had the same capacities, but due to certain circumstances, one was able to actualize one’s capacity while the other was not.

Thus we come to Christ. We can say that the human will for most humans (with the exception of Christ) is damaged, thus meaning we are not properly functioning. It is within our capacity as human beings to have a fully functioning will, but we are all born deformed. Through the Incarnation, Christ was the only human ever born who has the ability to actualize His will to perfection. This would mean that human beings are fallen in the sense that their wills are broken, but we still share the essence with Christ. We have the same capacity He did in this regard, but only He was able to actualize His capacity while we are unable to do so.

Anyway, these are just some thoughts and I’m certain my argument lacks clarity. I’m simply throwing this out there for discussion to see if (1) we can really accept the traditional view of original sin and (2) if the alternative offered would be a better view.

You can access a free, modern English translation of the Didache by Tony Jones here.

In late September, a group of Christian leaders from the Evangelical Protestant, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox branches of the Church gathered in Manhattan and drafted a document now called the Manhattan Declaration. The document was released a couple weeks ago on November 20, signed by a number of Christian leaders representing all three of the branches of the Church. The Declaration is a call to Christians and non-Christians to join the signers in affirming and defending three “fundamental truths.”

1. the sanctity of human life.

2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.

3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Since it’s release in November, the Declaration’s website has invited other Christians to sign the declaration. As of my writing this, the document has been signed by more than 208,000 Christians. I’m not one of them…. yet.

When I read the Manhattan Declaration, there was much that I found commendable, but I also thought that too much went unsaid, and I remain skeptical of its effectiveness.

First, I appreciate the emphasis on unity among Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox voices. The signers from all three branches claim a common heritage. The Declaration begins:

Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering.

The Declaration then goes on to give concrete examples of this common tradition. It recalls Christians in the Roman Empire rescuing discarded babies from trash heaps and remaining in cities to tend to the sick and dying rather than fleeing, like many did. It celebrates the role monasteries played in preserving literature and art, the role of Christians like John Wesley and William Wilberforce in ending the slave trade in England, and the Christian women who headed up the suffrage movement in America. It even celebrates the Christians who participated in the Civil Rights marches of 50s and 60s (something many evangelicals are less-quick to stand in solidarity with). I think this is easily the best part of the Manhattan Declaration, as it highlights some of the greatest examples of faithfulness and commitment to justice in the Church’s history.

The Manhattan Declaration also very evidently seeks to be honest, thorough, and compassionate. Even as the document celebrates faithful Christians through the ages, it also acknowledges “the imperfections and shortcomings of Christian institutions and communities in all ages.” When speaking of issues of life, the Declaration doesn’t only address abortion and euthanasia, but also says that genocide, human trafficking, exploitation of laborers, and innocent victims of war are all symptoms of the sam problem. When speaking of homosexuality, the Declaration says,

“We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity; and we pay tribute to the men and women who strive, often with little assistance, to resist the temptation to yield to desires that they, no less than we, regard as wayward. We stand with them, even when they falter.” (emphasis my own)

In spite of its strong points, I’m still skeptical for a number of reasons.

First, when speaking of marriage, the Manhattan Declaration falls short of fully addressing the problem. The document laments the erosion of the dignity of marriage, evidenced by increasing divorce rates, increasing amounts of sexual co-habitation outside of marriage, and an increasing inability to consistently define marriage. It also confesses the Church’s failure to uphold the dignity of marriage within the Christian community. This is only half of the problem, though. Our culture, and even more so the Church, has lost a healthy view of singleness. The reason so many co-habiate or are sexually active before marriage is not only because we’ve failed to uphold the dignity of marriage, but also because we’ve failed to uphold the dignity of singleness. The word “single” or “singleness” isn’t once mentioned in the Manhattan Declaration.

The main source of my skepticism, though, is in the expectations of those who have drafted and signed the declaration. The declaration does a fine job of articulating the three ‘fundamental truths’ and the threats that are challenging them today. It’s less strong in articulating concrete next steps that we’ll take as Christians.

In his book The New Christians, Tony Jones notes that a critique of the liberal church (those Christians on the opposite side of the theological spectrum from the drafters of the Manhattan Declaration) is that they’ve gone from being “revolutionaries” to being “resolutionaries.” In other words, the liberal Christians who fought for social justice at the turn of the 20th century by the century’s end had gained the reputation of addressing justice issues by (un)simply passing resolutions at denominational meetings instead of getting their hands dirty. It seems that the conservative side of the spectrum has gone in the same direction. Paul Louis Metzger has noted this trend in his book Consuming Jesus, as has Tony Campolo in his book Can Mainline Denominations Make a Comeback?.

I hope  that the Christians signing the Manhattan Declaration will take seriously the heritage the Declaration claims for the Church of Christians through the ages tending the sick, serving the poor, and standing in solidarity with the oppressed and outcast. I pray that they’ll take seriously the problems and threats to justice that the declaration identifies, and that their response will go beyond merely signing a document. The Manhattan Declaration will only bear good fruit if it’s followed by concrete actions. May we be found faithful.

My Jesus Year

Well today is my birthday and I turn 33. I have joked with several pastor friends that I am starting my Jesus year. Jesus was about 33 in his last year of ministry, so there are big expectations for this year. Seriously though, my 20’s are so gone. They are so distant that I can’t even remember what it felt like to be 25 anymore. I must just go ahead and have a bit of a third of life crisis today. I plan on living to 99, so now I only have 66 more years to get all my work done. What can I possibly accomplish in 66 years, seriously? I still have to become a legendary classical guitarist, learn Russian and Spanish, write 5-6 books, get my PHD, and travel the globe (especially trips to London, Rome, Alaska, Hawaii, Brazil, and some barely known exotic place people are somewhat awed and mystified when I tell them I have been there kind of place like Madagascar, a remote village in the Andes or Dubai). Anyways that is a long list, so I better stop rambling and get along with it.

The Didache

The Didache may be the most interesting Christian text you have never read. This ancient document from either the late first or early second century is a Christian handbook developed for communities of new believers. It is a fascinating read and it has wonderful application to each of our lives. Why am I talking about a 1900 year old book? Well Tony Jones has written a new book/commentary on it and I have invited to be part of a blog tour that will review the various chapters of the book. Next Sat/Sunday I will put up a post with my review of one of the chapters and that post will be linked to by Paraclete Press and Tony’s blog. So if you want to join in read the Didache here at Paraclete or get your own copy. I have found it to be a spiritually stimulating read.

Reflecting on a month in Eternity

For the first for weeks of November our church worked our way through a series focusing on life after death, resurrection, heaven and hell, and the return of Christ. Looking back over the past month and the conversations I had with my congregation around it I am convinced it was one of the most important sermon series I have ever been a part of. This is not to place any undue praise at my own feet, but to recognize that immense need I found in people’s lives to better understand the true hope of our faith. I used a lot of different materials for the series, but the most comprehensive one I can recommend is Surprised by Hope by Bishop NT Wright. This is a phenomenal work.

The main discovery I had during this series is that many Christians have no idea what our hope for eternity is really built upon. They longed to better understand God’s promises for life after death but have been unable to adequately extrapolate those teachings themselves and have seldom received more than a cursory instruction on them from the churches they have been a part of. So my encouragement to each of you is to really spend some time looking at scriptures  teachings on resurrection, the new heaven and the new earth and the return of Christ. Don’t go and make time lines or pie charts or anything like that, but go and listen to the consistently hopeful voice of scripture about eternity. Too many of us are living inadequate lives today because of our inadequate understandings of eternity.

Brannon Howse using GOIP Tech and STRETCH Technology’s Hellescope discernmentalizes that Emergents are actually Atheistic Communists:

Emerging Trouble

 The pastors and authors of one of America’s fastest growing spiritual movements, the Emergent Church, sing the praises of socialism. As I’ll explain in more detail later, the Emergent Church champions the neo-Marxist call for a utopian society through spiritual evolution where good and evil merge to form a “better” third option. This idea derives from the belief system of philosophers such as Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and finds its contemporary manifestation in the “Third Way” movement of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. In the Third Way, capitalism, socialism, and communism merge to form a misanthropic combination of the three. This blending is now represented in the terms “the New World Order” and “the new enlightenment.”

 The Third Way promotes Communitarianism, a toxic blend of communism, socialism, atheism, and Cosmic Humanism. Communitarians believe in universal health care, government-subsidized housing and education, radical environmentalism, Fabian socialism, and the like.

An article on the website of the Democratic Leadership Council explains how Clinton and Blair have promoted Third Way thinking across the globe:

On Sunday, April 25, 1999, President Clinton and the DLC hosted a historic roundtable discussion, “The Third Way: Progressive Governance for the 21st Century, “with five world leaders including British PM Tony Blair, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Dutch PM Wim Kok, and Italian PM Massimo D’Alema, the First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and DLC President Al From.[4]

Starting with Bill Clinton’s Presidential campaign in 1992, Third Way thinking is reshaping progressive politics throughout the world. Inspired by the example of Clinton and the New Democrats, Tony Blair in Britain led a revitalized New Labour party back to power in 1997. The victory of Gerhard Shroeder and the Social Democrats in Germany the next year confirmed the revival of center-left parties which either control or are part of the governing coalition forming throughout the European Union. From Latin America to Australia and New Zealand, Third Way ideas also are taking hold.

Not to be hoodwinked by the window dressing of Third Way advocates, however, Vaclav Klaus, prime minister of the Czech Republic, warns against the real future it offers: “The Third Way is the fastest route to the Third World.”[5] But that seems to be where communitarians want to take us.

Grave Influence: 21 Radicals and Their Worldviews that Rule America from the Grave

This is it, the one book you need to read if you want to understand the big picture, connect all the dots, and understand current times, and future events and trends that will be unfolding. This ground-breaking book by best-selling author Brannon Howse is the result of thousands of hours of research over many years and is must reading for every teenager and adult.

Brannon reveals how the worldviews of 21 dead people are still influencing every aspect of American life and vying for the hearts and minds of adults and students. Whether we are discussing, law, science, economics, history, family, social issues, education or religion, the people and worldviews seeking to further their agenda in these disciplines are almost always connected back to four major forces. Brannon reveals the connection between occultism/pagan spirituality, the apostate church, the educational establishment and government/corporations.

Through this book you will come to understand the oppositions worldview, heroes, goals, strategies, masking terms, networks and targets. Those who share the worldviews of these 21 enemies of our constitutional republic and Biblical worldview do not want their agenda and its consequences to be revealed to the American people. Above all, they do not want us to equip and train our children and grandchildren with a Biblical worldview by which to recognize, reject, and fight against their seductive and destructive lies. This book will equip you to do just that as Brannon gives specific and pro-active responses you can take to make this the finest hour for the American church.

Here is the list of twenty-one for which Brannon has dug up worldview facts you must know and prepare to oppose:
 
Saul Alinsky, Karl Marx, John Dewey, John Maynard Keynes, Aldous Huxley, Charles Darwin, Friedrich Nietzsche, Margaret Sanger, William James, Alice Bailey, Helen Schuman, Sigmund Freud, Alfred Kinsey, Benjamin Bloom, B.F. Skinner, The Frankfurt School, Soren Kierkegaard, Julius Wellhausen, Christopher Columbus Langdell, Betty Friedan and Roger Baldwin

Topics covered include:

Corporate fascism, sustainable development, the Third Way, global governance, dialectic process, the Delphi technique, the Cloward-Piven Strategy and deliberate chaos, community organizing, Fabian socialism, the federal reserve and a fiat currency, America’s decline is Europe’s gain, cultural Marxism, government mandated youth service, legal positivism, postmodernism, soft-despotism, higher-criticism, pagan spirituality, feminism, welfare-state capitalism, the false-dominate church, the Emergent Church, the spiritual battle for America, the United Nations and occultism, unmasking the one-world religion, the deconstructionists in the culture and in the church, psychological labeling of dissenters, behavior modification, a planned economy, the assault on parental authority, the two tracks to globalism, Keynesian economics, collectivism, similarities between America and Nazi Germany, national leaders are a reflection of the people, social justice, why the culture war is lost if the church goes weak, is God judging America?, When and why does God judge a nation?, the environmentalist/globalist connection, cultural revolution/sexual revolution, the right to die becomes the duty to die, the true purpose of the law, why the State wants the children, are we all God’s children? And much, much more.

Click here to order now:
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/secure/store/product.php?ProductID=1044

We agree that Emergents are Absolutely evil. Just look at how a typical Emergent looks:

This is why ye must avoid those evil Emergent heretics: Iggy, Tripp Fuller, The Groundworks, Mike Morrell and TheoPoet.

So, I fired off two more emails…  One to Subway, and one to my new friend Mr. Jones at Quiznos.  No response from Mr. Jones yet, but we do have one from Subway.  I’ll share it all below!

OK, so email one, to Subway:

From: ERiC AiXeLsyD world.and.lunar.domination@gmail.com
To: “Bridenbaker, Mack” m.bridenbaker@sfaft.org
Cc: Paula Gomez gomez_p@subway.com; Kevin Kane kane_k@subway.com; Anna Marie Seeley seeley_a@subway.com
Sent: Mon, November 23, 2009 10:24:20 AM
Subject: Re: Subway [Customer ID: 1918316]

Hello Mr. Bridenbaker,

It’s been over a week since your email to me saying that Ms. Gomez would address my concerns and I’ve yet to see any sort of response.  I still haven’t had a reply to my initial message to Ms. Seely, or  from anyone on your team.  I’m disappointed in the lack of comment overall, my first message which was sent on Oct. 28th has still gone unanswered.

I now understand why the employees in your stores have an “I don’t care” attitude.  It trickles down from the top, and certainly must be passed on in franchise owners, hiring, & training.

I’m amazed at your total lack of concern for the decline of your once championing establishment.  I should perhaps pass on my shellfish allergen and cross-contamination concerns to some allergy awareness groups.  Perhaps allergy awareness lobbyists will warrant some attention.  Everyone I know already hates Jared and the $5 footlong commercials, so I don’t need to push the issue on that one.  The concept of cheese tessellation will obviously elude the average sandwich artist from now until the end of time, so we have no hope there.

Perhaps in copying Quiznos’ idea of toasting subs, you should also adopt their business model in using better quality ingredients and customer service policies.  I have had a continued dialog with them regarding your lack of customer service and their seemingly misleading Toasty Torpedo ads with the very tiny hands.  They proudly stand behind their ads (however creepy), their innovation, and their customer service.

Not signed.  On purpose.  Notice all the Cc’s, everyone hates that… I don’t care who you are.   I tried to poke at every issue and make empty useless claims about allergy awareness groups, and I brought up that Quiznos is the trend-setter while noting that they’re also not perfect.

And, on a friendlier note to Quiznos, I decided to reveal my intentions to an amicable Mr. Jones:

From: ERiC AiXeLsyD world.and.lunar.domination@gmail.com
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: The Quiznos Toasty TorpedoT ads?
To: “Jones, Tony” TJones2@quiznos.com

Thanks Tony,

I must confess, I do have a blog and I have been chronicling my email escapades there.  I like to play them as part consumer advocacy, part humor and all goofy.  I used to write snail mail letters, but email has made it so much easier & faster.  Some friends have encouraged me to keep writing, so I have.  I really enjoy the open & honest dialogue that we have going on, and appreciate that you stand behind the product & integrity of your company… and take the time to respond to emails such as mine.  Also, you obviously have a sense of humor, which has to be a “must” for any kind of customer interaction.  I’m sure you get goofier emails and phone calls from actual crazy people.

I’m intrigued at your suggestion that I get into consulting or franchise journalism.  Do you know how I would even go about this?  Would I need to obtain a degree in something?  I hope to grab followers to my blog just for amusement, but am unaware as to how to make it a profitable venture, ha ha ha.

Thank you once again for your time, I’m actually waiting to hear from some of your Quiznos colleagues, and Subway has still not given me a response beyond “someone will respond”… not that I’m at all surprised by that at this point.

Rock on!
-Eric

Hopefully he writes back in a positive light, and still finds all of this amusing.  Still waiting for further comment from his other colleagues, none of which have really delivered so far.

And, now, the fun part… Subway’s response (or lack thereof):

From: asksubway@subway.com
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Subject: Subway
To: world.and.lunar.domination@gmail.com

Monday, November 23, 2009

Dear Mr Aixelsyd:

First, allow me to apologize. Secondly, I would like to thank you for taking the time to contact us and share your comments.

At each SUBWAY® restaurant, it is the goal of every owner; manager and employee to produce each sandwich and salad properly made to order.

Our customers provide us with valuable input, which we use to improve our operations. Your comments were shared with the regional office in your area as well as the owner of the SUBWAY® restaurant that you have visited.  Since all restaurants are individually owned and operated it is the owner who would be the person to contact you in response to your concern.

I have gone ahead and copied our Training Department so that further lessons can be addressed with owners and their employees on proper handling.

Again, I appreciate you taking the time to contact us. SUBWAY® looks forward to your continued visits.

Sincerely,

Paula Gomez

Heh.  “First, allow me to apologize” not followed by an apology is extremely profound, and hopefully intentional.  Then, she thanks me for writing, probably through gritted teeth.

This line reeks of copy & paste:  “At each SUBWAY® restaurant, it is the goal of every owner; manager and employee to produce each sandwich and salad properly made to order.”

And, I love the long winded “it wasn’t me”/”it’s not my fault”/”it’s not my problem”:  “Your comments were shared with the regional office in your area as well as the owner of the SUBWAY® restaurant that you have visited.  Since all restaurants are individually owned and operated it is the owner who would be the person to contact you in response to your concern.”  Basically, she’s telling me that I’m being ignored by a lower level.

“I have gone ahead and copied our Training Department so that further lessons can be addressed with owners and their employees on proper handling.”  With what?  Cross-contamination?  Cleanliness?  Cheese tessellation? How to reply to customer emails?

“SUBWAY® looks forward to your continued visits” …so we can spit in your food?  Did she read my emails?  Perhaps this whole thing is just a reading comprehension issue.  I find it amusing that the e Subway spokesperson declined to comment.  Perhaps now is the time to move into old-school W(aL)D mode, and reply that Subway will not be allowed on the moon when I’m emperor.

Are there any psychologists or psychiatrists out there reading this?  I’d love to get your take (…if you can tell me without telling me what my own problems are, ha ha ha).

If you haven’t been following,you may want to check out the back-story rundown here:  If we’re keeping score, that’s Subway 1 and Quiznos 3½. That should explain the last email, and at the bottom there’s a rundown of all the ones that came before it (with links) if you’re interested.

Also… lots of people have been telling me they’re following… by word of mouth, or Facebook, or Twitter, and even via text message… but I beg you, if you’re reading… post a comment here, and others may have a comment about your comment.  I see by the stats that people are reading.  Don’t be shy.  We’re all friends here.  Except for you, people at Subway… Except for you.

 Deception Driven Church? You decide…

 Stuart L Brogden Home

Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren

Wow, amazingly… Quiznos is still on the job, and Subway is still not.

The W(aL)D inbox was empty today, save for this…

From: HelpDesk <HelpDesk@quiznos.com>
Date: Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Subject: FW: The Quiznos Toasty TorpedoT ads?
To: FO Marketing <FOmarketing@quiznos.com>
Cc: world.and.lunar.domination@gmail.com

Thank you for your response back. Greg is currently out of the office so I will forward your comments on to our marketing team for you.

Rebecca Chamberlain

Help Desk Associate

QUIZNOS^®

Subs • Soups • Salads

Our friends at Subway have still not written back… even though I was told by Mack Bridenbaker that Paula Gomez from Customer Care would address my concerns.

We also have another Quiznos email address to add to the collection.

If you need to catch up, here’s a time-line on this one:

• I write to Subway about allergens, cross-contamination, hygiene, the $5 footlong campaign and Jared:  $5 Foot Up Your Ass. [Oct. 28, 2009]
  
• Subway (Anna Seely, Customer Care) sends back a form letter that I in turn reply to: Customer ID: 1918316 [Oct. 29, 2009]
  
• I send it to Quiznos to get a comment, and they (Tony Jones, Vice President for Quiznos representing the Ohio/Indiana/Pennsylvania/Illinois region & Gregory Boudreaux, Help Desk Lead) do:  Quiznos writes back before Subway – To put this in perspective I also tried to get comments from Sheetz, Jimmy John’s, & Jersey Mike’s – w/o so much as even a form letter generic response (wtf? seriously.) …and re-sent the concerns to Subway noting that it had been a while since they’d received my mail with no reply. [Nov. 1o & 11, 2009]
  
• Response from Subway (Mack Bridenbaker, Subway Spokesperson) saying someone (Paula Gomez, Customer Care) will address my concerns:  Sort of a response from Subway [Nov. 13, 2009]
  
• Since I have a good already open dialogue, I write to Quiznos about the little hands in the Toasty Torpedo Ads:  Are those midget hands? [Nov. 17, 2009]
  
• Quiznos (Tony Jones, Vice President for Quiznos representing the Ohio/Indiana/Pennsylvania/Illinois region) writes back, amused:  Have you ever thought of getting into an independent consulting capacity… or maybe franchise news journaling? [Nov. 17, 2009]
• Today, Quiznos (Rebecca Chamberlain, Help Desk Associate) writes back, to tell me that she’s passing on my email, and that someone else from the marketing team will get back to me.  Awesome.

If we’re keeping score, that’s Subway 1 and Quiznos 3½.  (The responses saying you’ll get a response are only worth ½ in my point system, OK?)

So there you have it.  Quiznos is awesome.  Subway is not.

What is “FO Marketing” though?

At any rate, please let me know what you think of the insanity… and where I should go from here.

I posted this on Twitter moments ago, but felt it important enough to repost here. Tony Jones just owned Tony Abbott on climate change on Lateline tonight. If you can find a reply of it on TV or on the ABC website, give it a watch. If you dislike Abbott, watch it. If you dislike climate skeptics, watch it. If you like watching politicians flounder and get rolled, watch it. I loved every moment of it.

Thomas.

So, Mr. Jones writes back!  Apparently, he’s a fan.  Ha ha ha.

Writes back to what, you ask?  Well, a response to an email about the Toasty Torpedo ads… which stemmed from earlier emails about Subway’s lack of customer respect.

from Jones, Tony <tjones2@quiznos.com>
to ERiC AiXeLsyD <world.and.lunar.domination@gmail.com>
date Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:53 PM
subject RE: The Quiznos Toasty TorpedoT ads?

 

Eric,

I enjoy your observations and yes, the Torpedo ads vs. the reality can seem diverse. Of course, with the type of bread that is used in this offering, heavier than most, I have found to be very filling and I speak from experience… I love the tuna torpedo, if properly made, and have a difficult time trying to eat more than one in one sitting. I have tried to order two and ended up about 1 ½ till being way-too-full; The heaviness of the bread, even though it looks like a breadstick, serves to be quite filling; Also, yes, the various forms of our past ads have been quite innovative and sometimes just plain ‘rebellious’. Our image has historically kind of gone down that road… with ‘baby bob’, etc. In fact, we have even had past campaigns of ‘being pioneers’…which is somewhat accurate…. First to toast, first with select breads, and first with gourmet sauces…etc… the Subways, and others competitors of the world, have graciously copied some of these endeavors. Etc…

On a side note though…. You are gifted and creative with the pen… with an edgy insight into ‘areas in need of improvement’ for various businesses; Have you ever thought of getting into an independent consulting capacity… or maybe franchise news journaling? Your giftedness at using humor along with wit, and poking fun at the various misuses, and abuses by brands could end up with a great following; Franchising and branding is such a HUGE industry, I’m sure there would be an equally HUGE following for this kind of venue. Just a thought man,

Have a great week,

Tony

Ah ha! Flattery will get you everywhere, I guess. Consulting? Me? So, people will pay me to do this stuff?  I wonder that the hell franchise news journaling is?  I may have to get to Googling that, or at least asking Mr. Jones where to start.  I still don’t think I can call him “Indiana”, though.

At any rate, I look forward to any comments.  I know you’re out there reading, and I’m getting feedback via Facebook & Twitter… but you can comment here too.  It’s all good, and it helps out my WordPress stats.  Ha ha ha.  You can even get your avatar to show up here if you use Gravatar or (I think) OpenID, or if you’re already logged into your own WordPress account.

I love the fact that I can call going on an overnight backpacking trip “research.” Of course, I cannot wait for the day that I can call it “professional research.” I wish.

Overnight from 16-17 November I got to spend about 21 hours in solitude in the Superstition Wilderness. I felt fulfilled, lonely, honest, open, frustrated and deeply affected throughout the course of that silence, but it was all GOOD. I thank the LORD that I got to spend that time alone with Him amidst his creation and I thank the LORD that it helped me understand a lot more about myself and a little more about the lifestyle that I am exploring in this Recreative project.

Have you ever spent some significant time in silence and solitude? If not, consider these words from Tony Jones:

What do silence and solitude actually accomplish in us? When I informally poll my friends, I find that most of them have no silence and little solutide in their lives. They are awakened by a clock radio; eat breakfast to morning television; drive to school or work with music; talk most the day with friends, schoolmates, and coworkers; listen to music on the way home; have the TV on while they prepare dinner; eat dinner with the TV on; watch a movie or their favorite show; and fall asleep with music playing. Ours is a life filled with noise….All the noise and all the talking does not quell a major symptom of this depression [humanity's] – loneliness. Although we are surrounded by the stimuli of music, television and conversation (both personal and virtual), we often feel disconnected from other people, from God, ultimatley from ourselves….silence and solitude lead to a love of God, a love of self, and a love of others….Ultimately, we keep silence and solitude so we can listen better – so we can hear what God is saying to us and to our world….Humble silence opens the ears and causes the listener to hear that ’sound of sheer silence’ in which God so often speaks.

Thank you Tony. I found these words to be so true for me in the last day of silence and solitude that I experienced. For me, withdrawing from the iTunes, the TV shows and the chatter of busyness I was able to hear some sobering, but liberating, words from the LORD. Here is an excerpt from my prayer-journal as I contemplated the solitude of the wilderness:

For me [solitude] was a time of honesty and transparency where I could clearly see the sin within me, truly hear the condemnation and mercy of Christ and gain some perspective on how small I am and how great God is. I think it also helped me grow past the fear [of losing control]. Cause you know, light came and morning dawned and it was so beautiful. The canyon I felt trapped in yesterday became a place of freedom where God spoke and the silence was a blessing, where the LORD led me out of the darkness and into His marvelous light. With that perspective I can live life a little less fearful of losing control and a little more hopeful of what Christ has in store for Elizabeth and me.

Have you ever spent time in solitude and silence? Maybe it wasn’t in the wilderness, but what was it like? Where did you go? What did you learn? How did you grow? What did that ‘rest’ from noise re-create in you?

For me it re-created a desire in me to live a life dedicated to Christ, his Kingdom and to serve, love and cherish my wife as Christ serves, loves and cherishes me.

Amen. Let it be.

Recently, you without a doubt heard of the church in NC that was planning to burn non KJV Bibles and other superfluous writings on halloween. This morning I heard that the American Family Association was organizing a boycott of a large clothing retailer because of their non-Christian beliefs and actions.

I am not saying there is no merit to the concerns of groups that coordinate boycotts and burnings. I am asking whether boycotts and burnings are the best use of our time.

The problem I have with these protests is that the boycott and the fire get all of the attention and the reason for them gets little if any… Remember about 15 years ago when a Christian group was boycotting Disney? I do.

I remember this coming up in conversation with a friend. They said they were glad the Christians were boycotting Disney. Maybe Disney would not be so crowded for them… Wow, is this what a boycott accomplishes?

I offer a suggestion. Prior to boycotting or burning, why not schedule a series of meetings to discuss with the community why you have reason to boycott someone or to burn something? This way, you can use scripture to teach a lesson. If the plan to boycott or burn gets a bunch of attention, at least you can direct some of that attention to the meetings and the information you will provide.

Just a thought… What do you think?

boycott book burning boycott book burning Disney Gap NC church Bible burning boycott book burning boycott book burning Disney Gap NC church Bible burning boycott book burning boycott book burning Disney Gap NC church Bible burning boycott book burning boycott book burning Disney Gap NC church Bible burning boycott book burning boycott book burning Disney Gap NC church Bible burning boycott book burning boycott book burning Disney Gap NC church Bible burning boycott book burning boycott book burning Disney Gap NC church Bible

We continue our exploration into the chambers of theological thought and today we stop at the door of a doctrine that has deep ramifications into how we think about God, ourselves, redemption and a host of other things. Before we set out to consider this topic though, it is important to place the understanding of the original sin doctrine (as we know it today) in its right cradle so as to see it for what it is: an interpretation of the biblical account (albeit the most widely accepted in the western Christian Church).

Augustine of Hippo, though not the first to tackle the original sin, was the first who took the “original sin” concept (the first sin committed) and, reading Paul through a certain lens, made it to mean involuntary transmission whereby the original sin was physically transmitted from parent to child via semen. Nobody believed that before him (from the records we have). His point was so powerful that it became doctrine ever since (in the west). The only modification made (it’s worth noting) was only after a thousand years when Calvin defined further the extent of the original sin saying that it affected us totally to the extent that there is nothing good in us, hence the total depravity doctrine.

As persuasive and profound this interpretation is through out the years I saw cracks into its fortified walls. There were a number of issues that seemed to have been left out of the equation. I always thought to be unjust that I am blamed for someone else’s decision (Adam’s). Remember the old saying: we are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners? In other words we’re born with a disadvantage, thank you very much!!! What kind of choice do I have since, due to my totally depraved sinful nature, I can’t really choose to do what is good? I, for one, may not be able to do good, but wait can I honestly turn a blind eye to so much good that is being done all around me (and not by people considered to be Christians)? These and many other questions made me reconsider my belief (more like someone else’s that was handed to me and accepted at face value), made me take another look at the making of the doctrine of original sin, reassess its scriptural footing and maybe build an alternative that is more satisfying, that takes all the pieces of the puzzle and attempt to put them together in a harmonious whole.

From the very outset is important to clarify that I found the issue to almost never be about the reality/existence of “sin”, but with its meaning. Some people refer to it without using the word sin (maybe because it has been hijacked in some circles and given all sorts of connotations).

Since this doctrine seems to have been inspired by the Apostle Paul and his statements in Romans 5:12-21 (and alluded in 1 Cor 15:21-22), let’s turn to Paul first. I am surprised to see people applying to these texts what I call a “schizophrenic hermeneutics”. They seem to get what Paul says in Romans 5:19b, yet applying a totally different logic to the first part of the verse. Most people don’t read “through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous” to mean “universalism”, i.e. what Christ did automatically applies to everybody. Yet when it comes to what Adam did it is seen unmistakably so? How come? There are really only two options here. Either we accept the idea of “involuntary transfer/participation” and declare therefore that what Christ did “involuntarily” affects everybody (universalism) or we accept the idea of “voluntary transfer/participation” and declare that each individual chooses to be part of Adam’s sin and Christ’s righteousness. After all isn’t that what Paul alludes to in verse 12 where he says sin entered the world “… because all sinned”, not due to just one man’s choice? (I understand that this hinges somewhat on the meaning of the greek preposition “epi”, translated most everywhere “because”). Since Paul doesn’t seem to be talking here about some automatic transfer but something totally different (especially when seen in its entire context, which could be the focus of a different post), let’s say for now that this passage fails to give its support for the Augustinian view of original sin.

Let’s go back now to the beginning and read the creation story on its own terms. Here we are being given an anthropology (a view of the nature of human beings) to work with. Here’s my short reading of this account.

Firstly, God created us ontologically (in our essence, in our being) good.
Secondly, He created us with the capacity for choice (in theology called “free will”), which implies the possibility of bad/evil (as something opposed to good). Yes, God created the space for the existence of evil when He gave us free will. So in this sense evil, or in our discussion sin, has been built latent into our being as a possibility. Only with this option true love is made possible, as true love is a choice, right?

I personally ascribe to the notion that evil doesn’t have an existence of its own (at least from a biblical perspective), but exists only as a departure from that which is good (which ultimately is God Himself).

So here’s my understanding of David and Paul when they mention the fact that we are born in sin or born with sin in our being. As Tony Jones rightly writes, this is could be seen as “an archetypal account of the human condition”.

Refusing to embrace the Augustinian view of original sin does not mean that the existence or the seriousness of sin is belittled.

It does not also mean that just because we have the capacity to choose good from evil that we can do this apart from God’s help, as it is sometimes implied. I must say as emphatic as I can: apart from God’s help we choose ONLY evil.

• When we choose good it is NOT because God forced it on us. That would be no choice, now would it?
• Looking at the Genesis account when we choose evil (in Adam and Eve’s case and ours today), we are the ones choosing to distance ourselves from God not the other way around.

This takes us to the last point, that of human experience. History has been the record of great acts of goodness and great acts of evil. It also paints, against our desire as Christians to admit, a picture where those who claimed to be Christ’s followers have committed atrocious acts of evil and those considered “pagans” have manifested great acts of goodness. That means that regardless of our religious associations we are ALL capable of both good and bad.

History is teaching us that to separate evil from good in terms of groups of people or in terms of the other is a dangerous posture.

Nobody is totally good or totally evil (i.e. all the time). In short the human experience too, if we’re honest about it, betrays the tenets of original sin doctrine. To uphold this doctrine is to give a blind eye to the reality around us. It is to choose to see the world through certain lenses.

These are my thoughts. What do YOU think? Do you think the doctrine of original sin can benefit us and more importantly, those around us? What issues do you find with this doctrine? Do you see any merits in it? How did you first hear about it and what made you embrace it? If you don’t believe in it, why not?