The Headbanger Theologian

Moving on up!

I have moved. Please update your bookmarks.

Servant leaders?

I haven't written anything yet about the 15 British soldiers that have been captured by Iran. However, an interesting article that I came across after reading this post changed my mind.

It's right that the government and media should be concerned about the treatment the 15 captured marines and sailors are receiving in Iran. Faye Turney's letters bear the marks of coercion, while parading the prisoners in front of TV cameras was demeaning. But the outrage expressed by ministers and leader writers is curious given the recent record of the "coalition of the willing" on the way it deals with prisoners.

Turney may have been "forced to wear the hijab", as the Daily Mail noted with fury, but so far as we know she has not been forced into an orange jumpsuit. Her comrades have not been shackled, blindfolded, forced into excruciating physical contortions for long periods, or denied liquids and food. As far as we know they have not had the Bible spat on, torn up or urinated on in front of their faces. They have not had electrodes attached to their genitals or been set on by attack dogs.

Full Story

While I suppose it is humiliating for these soldiers to be paraded on TV like that, it does kind of guarantee that they aren't being harmed. Think about, will the Iranian government do any harm to people it plans to show on world-wide TV? If I was in their situation, I would take a little humiliation over any amount of torture. Call me crazy.

Speaking of humiliation. What do you think it would take for this whole crisis to come to an end? According to Iran, all they want is an apology from Britain for entering their waters. Now I don't know if the British were actually in Iranian waters or not. I have read conflicting reports on this matter and frankly I don't really care that much. Let's assume, however, that they were not in Iranian waters.

If all that it would take is a simple apology to get these people freed, why not do it? Who cares if you have nothing to really apologize for and who cares if it is humiliating for you. I would say a little humiliation is worth saving 15 lives, wouldn't you? I would apologize all day if it meant saving one life. I'd be sorry for everything from the high price of gasoline to the low quality of free Internet porn. Who cares? Let's get these folks home.

Now, I know what you are thinking. What if they don't let them go? As bad as that would be, it is still worth the risk. Wouldn't the world suddenly be galvanized against Iran? Wouldn't Iran lose sympathy from just about everyone including their allies? And again, the chances of Iran harming these sailors and marines would be greatly decreased. Plus, if you are a politician like Tony Blair, you could reap the rewards of suddenly being in a very difficult situation. The British Governments Spin-Meister's could really paint a glowing portrait of their Prime Minister then, couldn't they?

The sad reality is that a little humiliation is not worth saving 15 lives. Ironic, isn't it? Considering the time of year it is. Tony Blair and George Bush are both professing Christians. This being Passion Week, the celebration of the greatest example of servant leadership the world has seen, it seems a fitting time for Tony Blair to take one for the team. Unfortunately, servant leadership is the last thing we have seen when it comes to the Iraq War.

Rather than prizing the lives of his soldiers, George Bush concocted dubious reasons to send them into harms way. Rather than using his position as a US ally to call President Bush on this folly, Tony Blair went along with it. Sending his own soldiers into a war zone for no good reason. I pray that this folly won't be extended to the point that 15 lives are lost for an apology left wanting.

Who is this Jesus guy anyway?

I watched Jesus Camp tonight. I’m trying to figure out who Becky Fischer is more in love with – Jesus or Joseph Goebbels. After watching her hateful indoctrination of such young, impressionable minds I would have to go with the latter.

Where is the message of Christ in this film, at her camp, or in her ministry? Where are the edicts of Christ? Where are compassion, peace, and forgiveness? For if Christ was anything, he was the embodiment of those three virtues.

During the film a group of children, some perhaps no older than 4 or 5, are asked if they are prepared to die for Jesus, their faith, and belief in a nation governed by individuals of a similar disposition. I had to stop the film at that point There is no need to die for Jesus because that is precisely what he did for those who believe in him. He died to forgive them their sins and to ensure that his message would not be forgotten or corrupted. That the tenets of love, compassion, and peace, above all things, are of paramount importance.

From

I've been reading Matt Good's blog on and off for a while. He is quite open about his life and beliefs in his posts. I have never read him profess belief in Jesus in any post. Because of this I am making the (possibly wrong) assumption that he is not a Christian.

Running with that assumption, I find it fascinating that those who have no particular affiliation or identification with Jesus get Him so much better than those of us who do. He watched a movie about a camp whose mission, at least in theory, is about bringing people into relationship with Jesus. As Matt found, however, Jesus' message wasn't mentioned once.

This just further reinforces my theory that Christianity isn't about Jesus and His message anymore. It has become about believing in a certain lifestyle and political ideology. What a pity.

Living with Islamists

This article is a must read.

When honoring the dead, a silent du'a is said. And it is said communally, such that when I sat down next to the chief minister, raised my hands, and softly said du'a kare, "let us do prayer," the whole tent in an instant responded by raising their hands with me in a wave of joint supplication—the politicians, the family, the elders with their canes—and praying in absolute silence for the soul of the departed. The moment of silence lingered, all eyes on us, until, in the traditional style, I passed my hands over my face and closed with a quiet Ameen.

In so many ways, my worldview differed from that of the people in the tent. Yet a communal prayer for a lost family member is a profoundly human moment. The image of that moment has stuck with me, because it is a picture of two things I found to be true of northwest Pakistan.

First, the vast majority of people I met were gracious to a fault, hospitable, and quick to condemn violence in the name of religion. They were, at the same time, largely uninterested in trying to delineate the boundaries of religion in public life. "Islam," I was often told, "is about all of life." Coming from an American culture in which religion is often considered unwelcome in the public square, this was a real change. For better and for worse, religion in Pakistan is more than the language of private devotion; it is still the most potent language of public life as well.

Second, in spite of feeling far from home, time and time again I found that I felt surprisingly comfortable in Pakistan, precisely because it was a deeply religious society. Despite the points of shared history and shared values, at the end of the day, I believe something quite different than the Muslims I met and lived with and prayed among. But I still came away admiring their devotion and appreciating a society in which religious conversation and values are honored.

I celebrated Easter in Peshawar as an outsider, as someone who had internalized only a small part of what it is to be a minority—the fundamental insecurity of being few among many. But for me, at least, even that fractional experience was enough to breathe new meaning into the words of the liturgy: Dying, he destroyed our death. Rising, he restored our life. Lord Jesus, come in glory.

What dissonance to be saying "Jesus is risen!" in the still-dark streets of an ancient Muslim city while surrounded by men with batons and Kalashnikovs. Part of me felt a measure of awe that a state—an Islamic republic, no less—would go to such lengths to protect a declaration that has no standing in its received revelation. Another part of me felt a despairing sadness that police were necessary and that Easter needed to be managed as a security event. Amid all this, in spite of the dissonance of it all, I kept coming back to a lingering sense that this experience must be truer to that of the early Christians than the grand, note-perfect pageants I had come to know as "Easter Sunday."

We also need to find ways to broaden the way we practice Christian witness in this post-9/11 world. When IGE invited Durrani to Washington, we came under criticism for hosting "bloodthirsty bigots." The criticism stung, but as my experience in Pakistan unfolded, what stung even more was finding that I had been sold a bleak picture of the Muslim world so at odds with my experience of the Pakistani people. What also stung was encountering hundreds of Pakistanis who had never before honestly interacted with someone from my country or of my faith.

I have come to think that this kind of interpretive witness is one calling of a true global citizen, and certainly of a Christian who takes seriously the way of Jesus. It is a witness that doesn't ignore the realities of politics and the brutalities of modern terrorism, but responds with something more than power and pragmatism. It is a witness that looks for ways to engage those who have divergent visions of faith and society and advocates for fundamental religious freedoms. More than anything, it is a witness that stitches together humility and conviction in the messiness of the real world—and does so in a way that points quietly, but inevitably, to the faith we profess.

Full story

I finally get it

As senator turned actor Fred Thompson considers a presidential run, his Christian credentials are being questioned by Dr. James Dobson, a major voice among Christian conservative voters.

"We were pleased to learn from his spokesperson that Sen. Thompson professes to be a believer," said Nima Reza, a Dobson spokeswoman. "Thompson hasn't clearly communicated his religious faith, and many evangelical Christians might find this a barrier to supporting him."

Full story

I never understood how George W. managed to become President of the United States. The rather dubious 2000 election outcome aside, I had no clue why a country made up of basically intelligent people would pick this guy not once but twice. Sure maybe George is basically a nice guy, but his incompetence is so glaring it practically blinds you if you look directly into it. Then I read the article quoted above.

It is because he is a Christian. His past accomplishments, intelligence, or content of character don't matter. As long as he cops to believing in Jesus, and most importantly, gets an endorsement from Pope James the First of Focus on the Family he is in. What a sad state of affairs this is. You probably won't be surprised by this if you have read this blog for awhile, but I blame the church.

Churches don't encourage their congregation to be free thinkers. What churches expect is that you will agree to what is written in their statement of belief or some other similar document, their particular interpretation of the Bible, and in some cases, their political affiliations. And it is a trickle down thing.

It starts with the James Dobson's of the world. They have their ideas and understanding of the Bible and they expect everyone to agree with it or else they are basically not a Christian. Pastors buy into it and in turn expect the same thing from their congregations. The congregation members expect the other congregation members to think the same things they do. On and on it goes. Before you know it, George Bush is "divinely" chosen to lead the country.

I'm scared. It scares the crap out of me that you could have the most qualified person in the world, a person (notice I didn't say man) of great intellect, conscience, and character who would lose out on the presidency because they are not a Christian. Who is to say that a Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Buddhist, or even atheist wouldn't do an amazing job of running the country? If the most important qualification that a person needs to be the president is to be a Christian and go to church once a week, well it suddenly isn't hard to see why the world is in the mess it is in right now.

I hope that with time more Christians will discover the emptiness of that lifestyle. In the meantime, I guess we have to just hope that the next person Dobson picks is a person of conscience and integrity. Someone who will look at the State of the world and seek to use their power to bring the world into a better place.

A guy can dream can't he?

United Abomination?

MEGADETH mainman Dave Mustaine recently spoke to Revolver magazine about the band's upcoming CD, "United Abominations". The album title is a play on "United Nations" (the self-described "global associations of governments") and the album cover features the United Nations building being destroyed.

"The whole premise of the U.N. was to prevent war," he railed, "but they're totally ineffective. What just happened with Israel and Lebanon, and why did it take that long to stop? Look what happend with Saddam Husein — 17 resolutions, and he just kept spitting in their face. And now the "blue helmets" are raping women and little girls in these African countries? Come on! How long is the public going to be blind to this?

favors the interpetation of the Book of Revelations that views the founding of the "I know I'm not making any friends at the U.N. with this album," Mustaine continued with a harsh laugh. But, frankly, he's not worried. Like many born-again Christians, MustaineUnited Nations — and its eventual demise — as part of the prophesied events that will inevitably lead to the Second Coming. "I got saved a few years ago, and I believe the Bible says that the U.N. is going to fail. In order for the predictions in the Book of Revelations to take place, it's gotta fail. I don't ever expect to go there, except to look where the building used to be, you know? I hope that someones going to pull the chain, and that's where the butthole of the United States is, and it just disappears!"

Via

If Jesus only knew then what He knows now

Bear with me for a second. I am going to indulge in a little blasphemy here.

Do you ever wonder if Jesus looks back on events and wishes he handled them differently?

Jesus didn't know how everything will play out. I know that is a tough thing to comprehend, but He admits as much Himself when asked by His followers about when the end of days would come.

"But the exact day and hour? No one knows that, not even heaven's angels, not even the Son. Only the Father knows" (Matthew 24:36 The Message)

I guess what I am wondering is if Jesus wishes He had been been more clear or gave more instructions when He had the chance? For a specific example, look at when He appeared to the Apostle Paul. I wonder if He looks back and says, "ooooh I should have added a bit more. Something like 'hey Paul, do us both a favor and lighten up on the whole misogyny thing and the homophobia OK?' "

Another one that sticks out for me is the passage where Jesus said that He didn't come to "bring peace... but a sword." I have heard people use that verse as a justification for war. However, I am convinced that the way that verse is translated in The Message Bible gets much closer to Jesus' original intent. Jesus is indeed the Prince of Peace, however, walking with Him isn't always easy.

Do these questions suggest some kind of fallibility on the part of Jesus? Is He not perfect? I'm not sure. I mean, I believe that He is without sin, but it is true that He didn't know some things. I don't think that one precludes the other. He is perfect in that he never sinned, but He also lacked foreknowledge about some events.

If He did have that foreknowledge or had the chance to say things differently given a second chance, how much different would Christianity look today? We probably would have had women clergy from the beginning and the big hot button issue of today, homosexuality, would be a moot point.

There is, of course, another side to this whole idea. What if Jesus was deliberately cryptic? What if He intended to not be totally clear because scripture is something to be wrestled with, not just ingested like Pablum? When you look at the Hebrew Bible (commonly called the Old Testament) there are many passages that are less than clear. If one is to read them at face value, one could easily come to the conclusion that God is blood-thirsty and vengeful (Oh wait, that may have already happened... once or twice). Maybe the whole point of scripture isn't just what it says, but what it is saying.

Hopefully this blog post won't set me up for a smiting. If you hear about me getting struck by lightning, you know why. However, if there is some truth to what I have written here, what implications does it have for us as followers of Jesus?

What the Hell?

HELL is a place where sinners really do burn in an everlasting fire, and not just a religious symbol designed to galvanise the faithful, Pope Benedict XVI has said.

Addressing a parish gathering in a northern suburb of Rome, the Pope said that in the modern world many people, including some believers, had forgotten that if they failed to "admit blame and promise to sin no more", they risked "eternal damnation - the inferno".

Hell "really exists and is eternal, even if nobody talks about it much any more".

He recalled that Jesus had forgiven the "woman taken in adultery" and prevented her from being stoned to death, observing: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

God had given men and women free will to choose whether "spontaneously to accept salvation...the Christian faith is not imposed on anyone, it is a gift, an offer to mankind".

He had wanted to reinforce the new Catholic catechism, which holds that hell is a "state of eternal separation from God", to be understood "symbolically rather than physically".

Full story

Hang onto your seats folks, we're getting juicy today.

Since the good Pope was reinforcing the Catholic Catechism, I thought I would search it myself to see what it says is necessary for salvation. After entering the search string "necessary salvation" I came up with some interesting results.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church not only is faith required for salvation. So is baptism,  the sacraments, and service and witness to the faith. This realization begs the question what kind of baptism achieves salvation, sprinkling or full immersion? Jesus was baptized by being immersed in the Jordon River but the Catholic Church prefers to sprinkle the foreheads of infants. Was Jesus wrong?

What about the sacraments? Are the sacraments of the Orthodox Church good enough to get me into Heaven? What if I have completed only some of the sacraments? Will only part of me get into Heaven? I would hate to spend the afterlife missing an arm or a leg. Or worse yet, as some disembodied head. Good luck getting St. Peter to talk to you when you are just a head floating around Heaven. He'll be off in the corner talking with St. Paul wondering what is up with the new guy.

I actually have to admit that I agree with Pope Benedict on one point. I believe Hell is a real place. I have read scholarship that explains Gehenna (the word that has been translated into Hell in our English translations) as a garbage dump outside the city of Jerusalem (which it was) and not a destination after death. However, I have also read other scholarship that explains Jesus' use of the word Gehenna as an illustration that his audience could understand.

Regardless, I believe that there is a literal place that we will, for the purpose of this discussion, call Hell. It is a place of eternal separation from God. A place of darkness and torment. Basically, it sucks. Sucks worse than a Barry Manilow concert.

Worse yet, we are all deserving of an eternity spent there. We have all messed up, we are all sinners. According to the Bible, these things that we have done make us deserving of an eternity spent in Hell. However, God is merciful. God took the burden of our sins and suffered and died the death of a criminal for them. So far what I am saying is pretty stock stuff. Nothing too wild here. It is the kind of thing you will hear in most any church on any given Sunday.

As I pointed out before, the Catholic Church believes that there are certain things we must do to "earn" our salvation. The Bible on the other hand, says something quite different.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16 NIV).

Or as my favorite translation, The Message Bible reads:

This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn't go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again. Anyone who trusts in him is acquitted; anyone who refuses to trust him has long since been under the death sentence without knowing it. And why? Because of that person's failure to believe in the one-of-a-kind Son of God when introduced to him (John 3:16-18 The Message).

I believe all that. I know it is a big cliche. In my church going life I have seen John 3:16 scrawled on napkins, posters, plates, signs at football games, ... well you get the point. It is everywhere. Just like the cross. And just like the cross, I believe that familiarity with this verse breeds a lack of awe. We aren't blown away by the simple beauty of what it says. Instead we try to add onto it. Sometimes for nefarious reasons, like exerting power over people. Other times because if life in this mortal coil has taught us one thing, it is that if something seems to good to be true than it probably is.

There is nothing we can do to earn salvation. No amount of hoop jumping, good deeds, or evangelizing will get us to Heaven. It is a free gift given at the pleasure of the Almighty. Anything else is wrong and in my opinion, borders on heresy.

Here is the real sticky part. I also believe that the free gift of salvation could be even better than that. I think it is possible that there will be people who never professed faith in Christ in Heaven. Now I know, for the guy who was throwing around the "H" word in the previous paragraph this is some pretty serious heresy.

Leslie Newbiggin wrote in his seminal work The Gospel in a Pluralist Society

It has become customary to classify views on the relation of Christianity to the world religions as either pluralist, exclusivist, or inclusivist…[My] position is exclusivist in the sense that it affirms the unique truth of the revelation in Jesus Christ, but it is not exclusivist in the sense of denying the possibility of the salvation of the non-Christian. It is inclusivist in the sense that it refuses to limit the saving grace of God to the members of the Christian church, but it rejects inclusivism which regards the non-Christian religions as vehicles of salvation. It is pluralist in the sense of acknowledging the gracious work of God in the lives of all human beings, but it rejects a pluralism which denies the uniqueness and decisiveness of what God has done in Jesus Christ (Pages 182-183)

This quote sums up my position much more succinctly than I could. Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world, God only knows who will get to partake in that salvation.

There is so much more that I would like to write here but I hesitate to do so. I know that a long blog post can quickly become boring and unread. This is far too important a topic to fully explore in a few paragraphs. Suffice it to say that we are all a slobbering mess. None of us is any more deserving of salvation than anyone else. Thankfully God is a merciful God and we humans should never attempt to put limits on just how great that mercy can be.

A borrowed custom

One day people were standing around talking about the Temple, remarking how beautiful it was, the splendor of its stonework and memorial gifts. Jesus said, "All this you're admiring so much—the time is coming when every stone in that building will end up in a heap of rubble (Luke 21:5-6 The Message).

The Anglican Communion is facing what is being referred to as a schism over the Episcopal Church in the United State's acceptance of homosexuals. I know a lot of people are very concerned about this happening. They love their church and their denomination. However, I have a deep respect for those who are unwilling to back down from this accepting stance. Isn't the work of God more important than buildings?

It is kind of strange when you think of it. The fact that us gentile Christians decided to emulate the Jewish custom of a weekly temple meeting. I guess that we didn't know any other way and for many this has been the ideal religious experience. It is obvious that countless lives have been changed by this borrowed custom.

In my generation, however, it seems that a shift is happening. At least among the people that I come into contact with. So many are not at all interested in attending a weekly temple meeting. They are interested in God and getting to know God better, they just don't want the negativity they see that seems inherent within the church.

I wonder if here is where a new reformation is happening. The first reformation was a split with the institutional church of it's time. This split gave rise to new institutions with their own problems. We seem destined to make the same mistakes over and over again. This new reformation could see people entering into a relationship with God outside of the confines of a church. In the passage I quoted above Jesus seems to be saying that buildings are meaningless. We don't need buildings to get closer to God, we just need to turn to God. God is right there waiting.

Some of you who are reading this are probably regular church attendees. You may be enriched by your participation in your church. There isn't anything wrong with that in and of itself. I just can't help but wonder if more churches split and more denominational power and wealth are lost, Christianity could move to a healthier place. If it became normal for people to express their Christian faith in all sorts of ways, not just with attendance at a weekly service. If certain talking heads weren't seen to be speaking as a De facto pope for all of Christianity, maybe Christians would stop being segmented into little groups. Maybe Christians could be seen as coming from all walks of life and all kinds of different ideologies. Maybe this would cause more people to want to see what Christianity is really all about.

I guess what I am saying is, maybe doing away with this borrowed custom could be the best thing that happened to Christianity, since, well, Jesus.

Poor me - EDITED

Yesterday the water main outside our house broke. This means that we have been without running water for almost 24 hours. To make things even worse, Tiff and I are in the midst of the flu. I was feeling so bad this morning that I didn't go to work.

After the kids toddled off to school I went back to bed. Laying there feeling sorry for myself and the horrible turn my life had taken, I thought of all the people around the world who don't ever have access to running water. The worse thing that this situation means for us is that we can't have morning showers or run the dishwasher. It's not life or death. We have three dozen bottles of water so we won't run short of water to drink. And even if we did drink it all, I could just drive to a grocery store and buy more.

Fortunately, we don't even have to do that. Yesterday within a couple of hours of the water main break, the city came and set up a water tank outside our house. While we may not have running water, this tank ensures that we have access to safe, clean water. The sad reality is that 1.1 billion people around the world do not enjoy the same access we do.

What is ultimately a minor inconvenience to us is a way of life for far too many around the world. That seems a little bit fucked up considering the money that our western governments piss away on useless things (like renovations to the facade of the Governor General's house) and bad things (like ill conceived and fraudulently concocted wars. Do I even need to link to a story on that?). I am practically hysterical over not being able to jump in the shower when I want to. I can't imagine what not being able to have water to drink at all would be like.

Before you rush out and plan a telethon for me, consider how blessed you and I really are. We have homes, food in the fridge, and governments in place who take steps to help us out when we have problems like a water main break. If I lost my job tomorrow there is a social safety net in place to help me pay the bills. Basically, my worst day is a damn sight better than a lot of people's best day. Hell, the mere fact that I have a bank account means that I am wealthier than the majority of people on this planet.

As we in the West enjoy a culture of consumption, people are dying for a lack of basic necessities for  life. I know we don't want to hear this when we would rather wallow in our self-pity. It is, however, the reality. Hopefully, that won't always be the case.

EDIT:

Immediately after uploading this post I came across the following video via. Need I say any more about how hard it is for some to get drinking water and how callous our disregard for their suffering is?