An Afraid New World

A New York Times headline today says;

SCIENTISTS USE MONKEY CLONES TO EXTRACT STEM CELLS

Not only is this the first time such cells have been produced in any animal other than a mouse, but the method, the researchers say, should also work in humans.

“We hope the technology will be useful for other labs that are working on human eggs and human cells,” the lead researcher of the group, Shoukhrat Mitalipov at Oregon Health and Science University in Beaverton, said in a telephone interview. “I am quite sure it will work in humans.”

Not everyone is happy about this development. Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, director of education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center said:

“I certainly think that this represents a new threshold in the entire discussion,” said the Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, director of education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center. “At this point, it becomes essential to ask a question as a society: Are there ever going to be circumstances where it is morally justifiable to clone human beings?”

What do you think?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/science/15primate.html?ex=1352782800&en=64dd27c654844c3a&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

While Some Eat With Their Eyes Others Just Don’t Eat

 

So we’ve been talking about things like fair trade, social justice, moral responsibility and the conscientious s capitalist. Often we get to arguing about where we should draw the line, who should decide what is ‘enough’, what is ‘too much’ and whether this is really just talk of pie in the sky.

I’ve never been involved in overseas or inner city missions and I live in one of the richest counties in the US. I own four automobiles, including my children’s. My house has cable TV and internet and air conditioning. We have three television sets, two computers, a dishwasher, washing machine and dryer, microwave oven, electric range, DVD players, XBox and PS2, multiple stereos and Lord knows how many defunct cell phones. We eat out at least a couple times a week and like to take drives in the country. I definitely would not hold myself up as an example of someone living a life of mere sufficiency.

So how am I leaving a bigger (or smaller) footprint on this planet than others? Where can I change? Honestly, I’m not ready to give up much, if any, of the things that I just rattled off. Other than turning the water off when I shave or brush my teeth, I can’t think of too many more ways in which I can make a difference. We’ve recycled for years and we keep a close eye on the thermostat and other appliances (because of the money). Now we look for certain labels in our garments or on our boxes, bottles and cans before we buy, but if they’re not available (or too expensive) we usually purchase what’s there.

But I waste quite a bit, and I always have. And most of you folks do as well – it’s just not in ways that are very visible. Some of you know I work in the culinary business and you probably can guess that my industry is responsible for a lot of wasted food. But before you start railing against McDonald’s and Red Lobster you must remember that they are driven by profits and none of them like throwing away food. The market (us) has demanded that a large line for waste be included on most food service P&L’s. If the operation is within budget then waste is not considered excessive. But it’s still waste. Nobody likes it.

The classic visible example of industry conservation has been the disappearance of the obligatory water glass. I remember years ago when (during a drought) we began serving water by request only. You wouldn’t believe the number of people who thought this was a personal affront. After all, how much can a glass of water cost? So you try explaining that it’s not just the 10 ounces of water in the glass, it’s the water used to make the ice as well as the water used to clean the glass (probably another 10-20 ounces).

Of course on top of that there is the energy needed to make the ice and run the dish machine. More soapy water goes down the drain, requiring energy demanding treatment or perhaps running off into the aquifer. The more glassware that’s used the more breakage occurs and the more glass goes into the landfill. More energy and resources are used to make more glasses. And don’t forget – half of the folks never touched their water, so it was often for nothing.

I used to spend an occasional shift working the dish machine just to get a feel for what was coming back from the dining room. This is how I found out that nobody was eating the dill pickle spear we served with all of our sandwiches. When I decided to pull the pickle off of the plate (and take 50 cents off the price) the uproar was loud and angry. Over a pickle. You would have thought the consumption of pickles was protected in our constitution. It was obvious that some people feel an entitlement to some things they become used to. Even fermented cucumbers that they don’t eat. (I stuck to my guns though – pickles ain’t cheap.) How many sandwiches have you seen come out with a slice of tomato, lettuce and onion on the side? I’ll bet at least half of those sides get tossed in the trash. But presentation is king and we all know that people ‘eat with their eyes’. But really they eat with their mouths and their mouths rarely eat the garnish.

Have you ever seen a salad ordered, with dressing on the side (dieters love this trick) but the server presented it dressed? I don’t know how many salads I’ve had to remake because of that unforgivable mistake. But then to see the same diner now take the ramekin of dressing and dump it all over the salad anyway…..jeesh!

How about the burger that should’ve been rare to medium rare and it came out just plain old medium rare? Many people who order in this fashion don’t have the correct nomenclature down. I’ve had customers who didn’t know the difference send their burgers back two or three times. At that point I would personally cook the burger and present it myself; just so all questions of doneness would be resolved. But two perfectly good hamburgers were now in the trash (or going down the drain).

As much flack as the QSR segment gets for ‘supersized’ foods the real culprit behind huge restaurant portions is the Cheesecake Factory. They started this long lived national trend of plating up excessive quantities. Now everyone does it. Real American food, served real big under real big ferns. The funny thing is, probably the most productive and efficient cuisine is from France. French chefs became the best at what they do because they did not have access to cheap and abundant high-quality food. When you are serving cow spleen you better know how to make a good sauce

So maybe you don’t dine out, you do your cooking at home. Do you think that Superfresh is going to sell every one of those tomatoes or bananas or heads of romaine that they put out on display? What about the chicken, beef and pork that we pick through, putting those with the oldest dates to the bottom of the pile? Or the fish that must be fresh, fresh, fresh? (even though only frozen fish is truly fresh in most grocery stores or restaurants). The look of abundance is inviting and appetizing – think of each grocery department as a great big cornucopia of foods. To achieve that effect a lot more perishable food must be displayed than is prudent or necessary. The consumer market demands this look while the food markets’ dumpsters need to be emptied daily.

Many schools receive a Federal partial subsidy for free lunches they provide poorer students. In order to qualify for these subsidies each child must be served the mandated components of a nutritional meal, whether they eat it or not. So quite a lot of vegetables and fruit end up in many school’s trashcans. To demonstrate a higher level of respect for high school students it is required that they be offered a varied choice of entrees at lunch time. This means that more food is prepared than would otherwise be necessary (who knows what dish will move on a particular day and of course no one wants to run out of anything). Salad bars are being strongly encouraged, but of course salad bars and buffets are very wasteful – nothing can be saved from a self-serve line – even in restaurants or at catered events.

So, there seems to be much more to this problem of personal excess than meets the eye. And we have only touched upon three segments of one American industry. Maybe we can be more globally and locally responsible while saving some of our money as well.

http://www.p2pays.org/ref%5C06/05483.pdf

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/FoodReview/Jan1997/Jan97a.pdf

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/advice/19990402c.asp

Towards a More Liberating Imagination

In talking with a number of people about the possibility of lasting social change, I mostly encounter pessimism. People often shake their heads, shrug their shoulders and say, “Well, what can we do? Jesus does say that the poor and oppressed will always be with us.” Thankfully, there is a growing movement of Christians who are imagining a brighter future for the world.

I’ve nearly finished Brian McLaren’s new book, Everything Must Change and so far have found it to be a very good read. Later I hope to present a more complete review but for now I would like to share some quotes from the 29th chapter of the book, entitled A New Kind of Question. These are not McLaren’s thoughts but those of others who have influenced Brian’s writing.

McLaren quotes John Stott, who the fairly conservative journal Christianity Today has called the ‘Guardian of God’s Word’ saying that he has been ” preeminently a steward of God’s truth and a herald of the biblical message”. (September, 1996)

“What will posterity see as the chief Christian blind spot of the last quarter of the twentieth century? I do not know. But I suspect it will have something to do with the economic oppression of the Third World and the readiness with which Western Christians tolerate it, and even acquiesce in it. Only slowly is our Christian conscience being aroused to the gross economic inequalities between the countries of the North Atlantic and the southern world of Latin America, Africa and most parts of Asia. Total egalitarianism may not be a biblical ideal. But must we not roundly declare that luxury and extravagance are indefensible evils, while much of the world is undernourished and underprivileged?”

“Many more Christians should gain the economic and political qualifications to join in the quest for justice in the world community. And meanwhile, the development of a less affluent lifestyle, in whatever terms we may define it, is surely an obligation that Scripture lays on us in compassionate solidarity with the poor. Of course we can resist these things and even use (misuse) the Bible to defend our resistance. The horror of the situation is that our affluent culture has drugged us; we no longer feel the pain of other people’s deprivations. Yet the first step toward the recovery of our Christian integrity is to be aware that our culture blinds, deafens and dopes us. Then we shall begin to cry to God to open our eyes, unstop our ears and stab our dull consciences awake, until we see, hear and feel what through his Word he has been saying to us all the time. Then we shall take action. “

http://intervarsity.org/ism/article/1952

He also quotes Brian Walsh and Richard Middleton from their book “Truth Is Stranger Than It Used to Be”:

“It is only when we can imagine the world to be different than the way it is that we can be empowered to embody this alternative reality which is God’s kingdom and resist this present nightmare of brokenness, disorientation and confusion…..A liberated imagination is a prerequisite for facing the future…If we cannot have such a liberated imagination and cannot countenance such radical dreams then the story remains closed for us and we have no hope.”

It’s about being pro-active versus re-active, isn’t it? Not a call for more charitable giving, but a call for changing systems that create these problems. Blaming the flaws (even when they are real) in the systems of other cultures tends to take our focus off of the systemic flaws of our own culture. We need to ask ourselves the hard question of how we personally are benefiting from the suffering of others. Just asking these types of questions is a start and worth the little effort it takes. At least more worthy than throwing up our hands over the world’s despair. I am glad that people like Brian McLaren , John Stott and others are encouraging me to think about my complicity as well as offering me a vision of hope for the future.

How will future generations look back on the Christians of this age?

Thanks, But I’ll Pass on the Turkey.

Yep, we’re finally doing it. Bev and I are checking out of the Thanksgiving Day scenario. We’ve been talking about it for a couple of years but were afraid of making too many waves among our extended families. Our kids are just about grown now, both young adults, so if they want to continue with the tradition it’s up to them.

(First off, I just want to stress that this is a personal ideal of ours and we are not saying that it’s the right thing to do for everyone. So please, enjoy your Thanksgiving Holidays with family and friends.)

For some time I’ve been thinking that this holiday is the epitome of irony. I won’t take the time now to discuss the historicity of the tradition – like many great symbols it may be based upon myth, but myth is often  a good way of remembering some very valuable truths.

The Thanksgiving story that I grew up with went something like this; in their first year in North America the pilgrims almost died, basically because they were unprepared. Fortunately for them, the local “Indians” were friendly and they helped the Pilgrims survive and in the process showed them how to live off the land. Instead of starving, the pilgrims enjoyed a great harvest and in celebration of their good fortune they prepared a feast of thanksgiving for themselves and their new hosts. They were grateful to God for saving them from misery and death and, with the help of the natives, even realized an abundance of riches.

Flash forward nearly 400 years to what Thanksgiving is today. A great meal prepared lovingly by the family matriarch, tremendous quantities of food served to relatives gathered about the dining room table, Dad preparing to inflict his carving abilities upon a beautiful roasted turkey. But first, all heads bow in prayerful thanksgiving for the blessings that God has bestowed upon everyone at the table. Thanks are given for the great good fortune of being born American in a world that is sorely lacking in health, wealth and happiness.

Second and third helpings are served, followed by pumpkin pies and coffee. Grazing upon leftovers throughout the afternoon, friends and family enjoy each other’s company, often while watching the traditional football game on TV. A cozy fire is on the hearth, candles flicker on the mantel.

Cartoon by Ramirez

Here is the irony – what about those not at the table? How can they be thankful for their blessings, especially if they cannot nearly enjoy the same fruits of prosperity as we do? What about those who made this tradition possible, the Native Americans – will they also enjoy a feast giving thanks to the God of the Pilgrims? Should they even consider it? Unlike the Pilgrims, most of us sitting down to this meal,  grateful for our good fortune, have never experienced hunger or poverty. Most of us have never had to rely upon the humbling assistance of others to stay alive, as the Pilgrims had to do. And yet the descendants of those who helped our forefathers carve out a living on this continent are forced to live on the worst land our nation is willing to give back.

As important as the topic is I don’t want to focus on the abuses, past or present, suffered by Native Americans in the aftermath of colonialism.  There are many people in America and around the globe that find it impossible to provide their families with the kind of banquet that many of us  (in spite of its name) take so for granted. Millions can barely scrape together one lousy meal a day.

So, we’re backing out – we can’t do it anymore. And honestly…. it won’t be much of a “sacrifice”. The holiday season has become taxing for us (as well as many other people). It’s like some great frenetic conveyor belt, pulling us along toward goals of decreasing significance in our lives.  We feel it’s high time for the two of us to get off and start looking at where we’ve been going.

Blood Bananas

I found this article by Ryan Beiler on Sojourner’s website:

 www.blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2007/11/blood-bananas-by-ryan-rodrick.html

A recent USA Today article summarized the scandal well. This was my quote of the week for SojoMail today:

Chiquita’s money helped buy weapons and ammunition used to kill innocent victims of terrorism. Simply put, defendant Chiquita funded terrorism.

That’s the U.S. Justice Department, in court filings last month against Chiquita for paying off right-wing paramilitaries in Colombia. Here’s the rest of the story, Harpers Index-style:

• $1.7 million – amount Chiquita paid the Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, AUC), a right-wing paramilitary organziation responsible for the majority of human rights abuses in Colombia’s armed conflict
• $25 million – amount Chiquita was fined after pleading guilty of paying money to a terrorist organization
• $49.4 million - profits reaped by Chiquita from its Colombian operations between Sept. 10, 2001, when the AUC was designated a terrorist group, and January 2004, when its payments stopped. That’s a number to keep in mind when Chiquita protests that it was merely trying to protect its workers.
• 173 – Colombians allegedly murdered and in some cases tortured by right-wing militias that received payments from Chiquita, whose families are now suing the company.
• 4,000 - number of people killed in the Uraba banana-growing region during the period when Chiquita admits to paying the AUC.
• 1989 until 1997 – years during which Chiquita paid left-wing guerillas before the region in which they operated was taken over by the AUC

And if this makes you not want to eat Chiquita bananas, here’s some more bad news:

A spreading investigation in Colombia into what is being called the “para-politics” scandal may ensnare other corporate targets. Former AUC leader Salvatore Mancuso in May told the newspaper El Tiempo in Bogota that all banana producers had paid for protection, including Dole and Del Monte. Mancuso, who was jailed after turning himself in as part of an ongoing government-backed demobilization, said his group received 1 cent for every dollar of bananas exported. “All of the banana companies paid us. Every one of them,” Mancuso told the newspaper.

And one more closing thought:

“It may be true (that) you could not operate in these areas without paying the AUC. If it were al-Qaeda, that wouldn’t be a defense,” says Terry Collingsworth, an attorney with the International Labor Rights Fund, which has filed lawsuits against several corporations, including Chiquita, over their activities in Colombia.

Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the web editor for Sojourners. He traveled to Colombia in 2003.

Christian Chameleons

Tonight I will once again sally forth into the fray, exposing myself to debauchery, drunkenness, sacrilegious song and other temptations of the flesh. I just hope I have a good time.

There was a period not too long ago, just after I had my conversion experience, when I was a bit unsure as to how a Christian should behave. I think my confusion was due to where my spiritual home was at the time; a fairly conservative Methodist church (pretty hard to find these days). Confronting the challenges of Methodism’s fading Puritanism along with the ‘old time religious’ habits of my congregation, I felt like my lifestyle might be inconsistent with someone who claimed to be born again. So I faked it. I was a chimera – the owner of separate personality characteristics- some reserved for my church, some for those who knew me to be a Christian and some for those who did not know me at all.

I’ve talked about this at other times and places so I don’t want to bore anyone with the details. Suffice it to say, I was masquerading as what I thought a Christian was supposed to look like. I am embarrassed to tell of some of the silly things I did. For example; when friends from church would visit we would hide the wine, the wine glasses and the corkscrew, lest anyone get the ‘right’ idea. I began to think of myself as a clean cup with a permanently stained bowl.

You can imagine my relief when I found out that I need not become a 21^st century disciple of Carrie Nation in order to be a “good Christian”. I remember the pivotal point as an enjoyable evening spent having cocktails with another Christian couple while listening to live music at a local…(gasp!)….bar. No lightning bolts fell from the sky and it was not the slippery slope to hedonism that I’d heard about. (Or more likely what I thought I had heard.) That was a few years ago and since then I have grown in my faith and, losing some of these hang-ups, learned how to enjoy life in the process. I’ve also had more opportunity, through the casual acquaintance of people I’ve met in “secular” venues, to talk about Jesus.

A friend from work has a band, a classic rock- heavy metal type band that will be playing near my home tonight. He’s had a fairly difficult time of it lately. About a year ago he had his own ‘conversion’ experience and, like so many of us, went through some significant lifestyle changes. The partying he once enjoyed has fallen by the wayside, with the smokin’ and the drinkin’ that go along with it. He’s had some influence on the band as they no longer play music that employ lyrics of a violent or overly sexual nature and any song that even hints of insulting God has been kicked off the play list.

Yet the people of his church are telling him that he is sinful and the Bible is very clear in its condemnation of bars, bands and beer. In the process they use terms such as; sinners, fornicators, profane, drunkards, depraved, sluts and whores. I guess I should take offense, since these epithets are also directed towards people like me and my wife, since we will be in attendance this evening. But that doesn’t bother me. What does bother me is that these words, these bigoted thoughts, are being directed at anyone at all. None of the patrons at these clubs and bars are known to his congregation yet they have been conveniently labeled and filed away under the heading “unsaved”.

It is also disappointing that, when confronted with a man in their midst, who has grown closer to God through Jesus, they demand an immediate and visible change in his habits and appearances. This change needn’t be something that mimics Christ, who was also labeled as a glutton and drunkard as well as someone who consorted with prostitutes and the unclean. He need only mimic those in his congregation, becoming a born again chameleon. To avoid being preyed upon it may be necessary for him take on their colors, blending in with the ecclesiastical scenery. To his credit, he refuses to be this type of hypocrite and suffers even more scorn and derision.

I wonder how many other Christian chameleons are out there. For those of you who find yourselves in this type of scenario, weary of always having to be ‘on’, censoring your speech and playing at being holy, I heartily recommend coming in from the cold. The company is warm and the beer is cold.

Disrespicting a Gas Pump

I got gas today. I wasn’t real happy about it it, since it cost me over $2.70 a gallon. After I filled up my tank the pump began to beep, asking me in its insistent little way if I wanted to take my receipt. As usual, I deliberately ignored the machine, indulging in a little psychological payback for ‘ripping’ me off; “Forget it, pump. You can beep all you want, sucker. Take your receipt and…..” For the first time I stopped myself in mid silent-rant. What was I doing?

I suddenly became aware of all the harmless little ways I took out my anger, ways in which I never really hurt anyone. Like the time my local bank had been bought by a big national company without our knowing about it. We didn’t realize (the Lord giveth and the fine print taketh away!) that the new bank had a policy that all deposited checks were held for 5 business days. Suddenly we were being charged hundreds of dollars in overdraft fees even though we had more than enough in the bank to cover all the checks. Since they refused to accommodate us, we withdrew all of our money. Except for $1.42 cents which I left in savings just to aggravate them. They have been sending me statements on that account for over 2 years now.

And then there was a time I closed out my credit cards because of the way they kept finding reasons to raise my interest rates. I made a point of overpaying a couple of these companies by a few bucks or so. Occasionally they would send me checks for the balance but I wouldn’t cash them. It was worth it to know that I was costing them money, albeit not very much.

Even though I hadn’t really hurt anyone personally, I realized that there was a victim here. Myself. By refusing to let things go, by letting circumstances get to me, even just a little bit, I was allowing some of that worldly poison to seep into my heart. And like the leavening that we have been talking about on another thread, that poison has a way of growing, working its way through my entire being.

So from now on I will try to refrain from kicking the lawn mower. Even though it may deserve it.

Anita, the Christian Lesbian

I trackbacked to this lady’s website and found it to be well worth the visit. Homosexuality is such a divisive topic within the church, some think it may very well make or break many denominations. I think that any of us could benefit to listening to her story.  Her testimony is entitled “The Peace of God”.  It is thoughtful, respectful and displays a deep and authentic love for the Lord.  It is also well written. No matter what your position on this issue, please take the time to read her entire story.  For those of you who are are not familiar with anyone who is gay you may be surprised at what you find.

http://www.christianlesbians.com/about/anitastory.php

Enemies at the Gate: Christian Intolerance

Your Jelly Fish version of Chrissianity (sic) is well documented…great job “coverting”(sic) souls to Christ with you gummy bear Jelly bean Jesus version of the Gospel! You guys are well defined by this little piece appropriately called “Back Rubs 4 Jesus” (www.youtube.com/watch?v=mohixsVRNdc ) Ha! That suits your sweet, sweet, candy cane Chrissianity (sic) just fine! What a farce! Chocolate Soldiers every one of you!

www.officialstreetpreachers.com

This was a recent comment on an article I wrote about the largely negative consequences of extolling a gospel of hell and damnation; http://sharpiron.wordpress.com/2007/08/28/intimacy-not-intimidation/#comment-1209

There were other more reasoned responses, some of them even suggesting that my position may be exaggerated, but I think the digestion of this one particular remark is the proof of the pudding. Although this fellow’s ‘ministry’ is a little over the top and would garner little sympathy among many of us, his wording is not really that outrageous. I find it to be similar to what has been expressed by many conservative Christians.

There seems to be a lot of resistance to the idea of remembering Jesus primarily as he has been portrayed in the Gospels. Many of the arguments I hear say that the image of Jesus found in the Gospels, the patient, loving, peaceful and tolerant peasant, fond of little children and the lame as well as lepers, prostitutes and thieves, represents only one aspect of God. There is also God the punisher, the wrathful, the one who hates sin to such a degree that he cannot tolerate sinners. It is said that this picture of God can be found throughout the Old Testament as well as in John’s Revelation. I personally don’t see this vision in scriptures, but nevertheless, I don’t believe that this is the real reason why so many are fond of this stern and vengeful depiction of God.

I think this attraction stems from an ingrained need for people to identify with a group and the accompanying urge to keep those who do not conform outside of the tribe. A sense of insecurity pervades many churches, a fear that the flock will be corrupted by the sin of others. In practice this makes it easier for us to ignore some of the deeper meanings of Jesus’ teachings; those about unconditional forgiveness, love, mercy and tolerance. We often find it easier to accept Levitical exhortations against homosexuality rather than Jesus’ command not to judge others. (Matt 7: 1-2) [For more thoughts on why we have this tendency towards conformity check out this thread on 'Suddenly Christian' ; http://johnshore.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/why-must-others-be-like-us/]

We pay lip service to our slogans welcoming everyone to our churches, becoming gate keepers instead. When we forget that our churches are made up of nothing but sinners we find ourselves taking pleasure in our own salvation, even cultivating a sense of pride in our privileged position with God. We learn to notice those characteristics of the ‘saved’ versus the ‘unsaved’ and find ourselves, perhaps unconsciously, avoiding those who do not meet what we believe are God’s standards. We forget that God loves the sinner, the pagan, just as much as he loves each of us within the church. If he can find value in our lives, working through us and with us, what makes us think that he is not doing the same with them?

Though told to go out into the world and feed the hungry, clothe the naked and visit the imprisoned, we tend to restrict these activities to our fellow church members. Perhaps just the idea of membership is the problem. Our churches take on the character of Coast Guard rescue vessels, our pastors at the helm while the rest of us serve as crew. We gallantly ply the treacherous seas of this world, searching for souls that need saving and hauling them on board. Not a bad analogy, perhaps, until the ‘saved’ realize that unless they agree with the captain’s theology or the crew’s uniform standards he may find himself tossed into the drink once again. It is easy to find yourself shunning the sinner when your theology tells you that God considers them fuel for the fires of hell.

How did we get to this point where we have “captains’ manning the helms and steering us into waters that appear to be Biblical yet turn out to be dangerously shallow? Why do those of us who claim to have met the risen Jesus feel the need for the guidance of generation upon generation of authoritarian pastors, vicars, priests and bishops? Could it be that a man-made hierarchy within the church contributes to the “common sense” that there is also another hierarchy; that of the churched versus the un-churched, the saved versus the un-saved?

In the second century, Irenaeus, Bishop of Gaul and student of Polycarp became alarmed at the lack of cohesiveness within the early church’s theology. He took it upon himself to identify those teachings that were false (heresies) and had a tremendous amount of influence over what became today’s canon as well as much of today’s church doctrines and dogmas. Although not everything he taught has been included in common church doctrine, much of it was first enunciated by him, including the idea that scripture was divinely inspired. Some of what we find most controversial to this day is grounded in his personal theology. http://www.lessonsonline.info/IRENAEUS%20OF%20LYONS.htm

One of the greatest challenges that he faced was how to go about establishing the authority that he (and other church leaders) needed to mandate what was truth and what was not. With this in mind he was able to find biblical and historical justification for “apostolic succession”; the idea, for example, that John the Apostle (allegedly) taught Polycarp who taught Irenaeus and so on and so forth. Once his authority was established those that disagreed with him were labeled as heretics and expelled from the congregation. No dissent, no compromise, no question was tolerated. Unfortunately, this is the model that the church chose to adopt. Elaine Pagels, in Beyond Belief notes that, like our clergy of today ” Irenaeus promises that he will explain for them what the scripture really means and insists that only what he teaches is true”. This stands in stark contrast to the type of discourse that can be found in most synagogues, where the rabbi and congregants remember how Abraham and Moses would question God, even getting him to change his mind on occasion.

Jesus challenged the religious authorities of his time; with their policies of excluding those who did not meet their standards of righteousness. He did not seem to be interested in establishing a new religion in his name but instead on shaking things up for the religious status quo. When asked, he tells people to follow his way, to be like him. He says that all of the law hangs on the commandment to love God and love each other. He tells us to love our enemies. He says that those who feel hate for anyone at all are at great risk. He says that the world will know that we are his followers by our love. He says all these things and then he hangs out with hookers and thieves. He tells one thief that he will take him to paradise, no strings attached. He embraced and healed lepers, who were thought to be guilty of terrible sexual sins.

This new religion, Christianity, soon became something that was rarely identifiable with the example of Christ. When weak they were persecuted by the Romans and displayed the strength one finds with God’s grace and mercy. Upon becoming strong, the church took on the role of persecutor and those dissidents that suffered at their hands now took on the role of Christ crucified, dying for what they held to be the truth. Today there are those who seek God but because their sin is seen so differently from many others they now stand outside the gate. If Jesus would invite them in, who are we to keep them out? Perhaps more importantly, what human has the authority to demand such inhospitality?

Why Can’t Christians Sing Some Other Songs?

On an earlier thread BuddyO suggested that I set up a page like “Some Good Books” but this time we could list our favorite songs. Soon after making an attempt, I gave up. The task seemed impossible. I initially tried to limit the list to my top ten favorite songs. Then my top 20. I soon realized that 100 would be too small of a number and even then I would likely forget one or two. My tastes run the gamut from Buddy Guy to Beethoven, Pat Metheny to Neil Young, Sinatra to Sabbath.

Looking over my list I noticed that there weren’t any Christian praise or worship songs. At that moment some popped into mind; “Amazing Grace”, “It is Well with My Soul”, “Ave Maria” and maybe one or two more. Other than maybe “He Reigns” by the Newsboys I couldn’t think of any modern praise songs that I might put on my list of 100 (or more) all time great songs.

This past weekend I got involved in a discussion over the appropriateness of using secular music in worship services. In particular some people were concerned about Bono and U2 becoming so popular among many outwardly spoken Christians. They seemed to think that this style of music is lacking in the proper decorum and respect and perhaps is even Satanic. And these aren’t old folks talking.

I was reminded of a debate I had with some friends in my old church over whether or not it was acceptable to invite secular performers to play at our outdoor fundraising events. My argument was that, if the Christian artists weren’t attracting people, what was the point of throwing good money after bad. In fact, if the secular performers could draw some of the ‘unsaved’ to our church, where they might just be exposed to the Gospel, wouldn’t that be a ‘good’ thing? Why weren’t the “Christian” artists drawing an audience? I have a few theories;

<!1 They were singing to the converted. To everyone else the message was lost.

<!2 They weren’t very original. Seems like they all use the same play list of about two dozen songs.

<!3 Their music, relatively speaking, isn’t all that good. (At least that which isn’t found on the approved master play list). Much of it is as safe as elevator music. Lyrical pablum.

On the other hand there are a number of secular songs out there that are very spiritual, if not even outright religious in nature. And they’re pretty good on top of it. Does someone need to be labeled a “Christian Artist”, devoting all their music to overt praise and worship songs, to be considered spiritually acceptable? Or is it possible that there may be some very talented people, who in their own fashion, are relating to God musically? Duke Ellington once said that every piece he composed was a prayer sent to heaven. Perhaps we could liven up some of our services by playing some of this ‘other’ music.

Whenever I say your name, whenever I call to mind your face
I’m already praying
Whatever bread’s in my mouth, whatever the sweetest wine that I taste
Wherever I lay me down, wherever I rest my weary head to sleep
Whenever I hurt and cry, whenever I’m forced to lie awake and have to weep
Whenever I’m on the floor
Whatever it was that I believed before
Whenever I say your name, whenever I say it loud, I’m already praying

Whenever I say your name,
No matter how long it takes,
One day we’ll be together

Whenever I say your name,
let there be no mistake
that day will last forever

-Sting