“I don’t think you’re a Christian. At least youre not a Christian to me. How can you claim to be earnest to the truth if you ‘embrace’ muslims and hindus and the like.” (J in Colorado)
“I understand where you’re coming from with that mindset. Remember, I grew up in a very fundamentalist home where we were taught that only one path was acceptable. Fortunately, through sheer happenstance, I was just lucky enough to have been on that path.
I simply don’t find it necessary to claim allegiance to one spiritual path over another. I suppose that I consider myself a Christian for two reasons: 1) That is the faith that I was brought up with, so it is the path that I am most familiar with; and 2) After thoroughly studying the teachings of Jesus, I truly see God revealed through his ideology. When one removes the layers of influence from the early Christian movement that has impacted Biblical scripture, and Jesus’ philosophy is truly examined, we move beyond the “believe in me” Jesus and are free to passionately embrace his teachings of love and compassion.
Man loves to create distinctions and division. A “we’re in and you’re out” mentality is common place within the framework of conventional wisdom. Jesus derails traditional thought. Within his philosophy, all man-made barriers are removed and we can simply focus on loving each other—not within a contextual framework of one religion versus another, or agreement on ‘my path’ versus ‘your path’, but rather in relationship where we merely find a brother or sister to connect with and love. Hindus? Muslims? Christians? I don’t care what kind of label you attach, the bottom line is: beyond the brand is a brother or sister to love…to engage in a relationship of kindness, caring and compassion.
I hope that clarifies my mindset.
Thanks,
True”
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
Question of the Week: McChance's Comments and Compassion
Question of the Week: “How does one live this “compassion” message toward that idiot McChance who his talk about gay suicides being a good thing?”—Rory
RESPONSE:
“Good question. That is a tough one, indeed. There are certainly times when compassion is a most difficult undertaking. I think about McChance’s words, or the comments made by the Hawaiian Governor (Lingle), or the Iowa Congressman, Steve King, and it’s disturbing. If words were weapons these people would certainly have blood on their hands. It’s especially alarming that these horrific attitudes hail from people in leadership positions. Unfortunately, their display often works hard to showcase their own ignorance to the great detriment of the constituents they should be protecting.
As for living compassionately toward these people, they make compassion a tough response. It’s certainly understandable that someone who feels attacked by these words would want to lash back out of anger and frustration. After all, all gay people really want is to be treated with the dignity and respect that anyone naturally deserves. Gay people are not harming anyone at all by pursuing relationships that are felt to be best suited for them. To have such malicious words pointed toward a group that is simply trying to live life, is understandably disheartening.
With that said, how does one live a compassion-driven message toward people of that mentality?
I think the first step is removing ego from the equation so as to approach the situation with as clear of a mindset as is possible. Second, it’s important to realize the motivation behind the behavior. Knowing a ‘why’ behind a ‘what’ is vital to understanding even the most heinous actions. In Mr. McChance’s case, he’s probably the product of a bigoted ignorance that has been handed down from generation to generation. Unfortunately, such ignorance is a common part of the human condition and has always plagued mankind. Such knowledge truly discredits the source.
Listening to his rants is like listening to a six-year old’s temper tantrum when he’s refused the keys to the family car. A child may see his parents drive and think that he’s more than capable, but he clearly is not. Mr. McChance may have read a few verses while witnessing and embracing a ton of bigotry in his life, but he’s certainly not capable of deciding who God will love.
Actually, he’s worked hard to discredit himself, so let him. He’s done a great job. The bigoted attitudes that he promoted put such ignorance and stupidity in the nation’s spotlight. Keep in mind, I’m not saying that his views should be swept under the rug. They should be decisively denounced at every turn. What I am saying is, that it’s easy to look at that child with a pitiable compassion while he’s throwing a temper tantrum over wanting something that is outrageously beyond him. The same is true with McChance. Don’t give him the keys. Just feel sorry for him. Pity his kids for having a dad who will instill hatred and only love them under a pre-defined list of conditions. It truly is sad.
So, yeah—it’s challenging to look at McChance and others with compassion. Hopefully, he will eventually learn about the true nature of God revealed through Jesus and many other spiritual leaders. Instead of a bigoted heart and a legalistic religious perspective, he, himself may find great fruits in a compassionate mindset.
Thanks for the question, Rory.
True
RESPONSE:
“Good question. That is a tough one, indeed. There are certainly times when compassion is a most difficult undertaking. I think about McChance’s words, or the comments made by the Hawaiian Governor (Lingle), or the Iowa Congressman, Steve King, and it’s disturbing. If words were weapons these people would certainly have blood on their hands. It’s especially alarming that these horrific attitudes hail from people in leadership positions. Unfortunately, their display often works hard to showcase their own ignorance to the great detriment of the constituents they should be protecting.
As for living compassionately toward these people, they make compassion a tough response. It’s certainly understandable that someone who feels attacked by these words would want to lash back out of anger and frustration. After all, all gay people really want is to be treated with the dignity and respect that anyone naturally deserves. Gay people are not harming anyone at all by pursuing relationships that are felt to be best suited for them. To have such malicious words pointed toward a group that is simply trying to live life, is understandably disheartening.
With that said, how does one live a compassion-driven message toward people of that mentality?
I think the first step is removing ego from the equation so as to approach the situation with as clear of a mindset as is possible. Second, it’s important to realize the motivation behind the behavior. Knowing a ‘why’ behind a ‘what’ is vital to understanding even the most heinous actions. In Mr. McChance’s case, he’s probably the product of a bigoted ignorance that has been handed down from generation to generation. Unfortunately, such ignorance is a common part of the human condition and has always plagued mankind. Such knowledge truly discredits the source.
Listening to his rants is like listening to a six-year old’s temper tantrum when he’s refused the keys to the family car. A child may see his parents drive and think that he’s more than capable, but he clearly is not. Mr. McChance may have read a few verses while witnessing and embracing a ton of bigotry in his life, but he’s certainly not capable of deciding who God will love.
Actually, he’s worked hard to discredit himself, so let him. He’s done a great job. The bigoted attitudes that he promoted put such ignorance and stupidity in the nation’s spotlight. Keep in mind, I’m not saying that his views should be swept under the rug. They should be decisively denounced at every turn. What I am saying is, that it’s easy to look at that child with a pitiable compassion while he’s throwing a temper tantrum over wanting something that is outrageously beyond him. The same is true with McChance. Don’t give him the keys. Just feel sorry for him. Pity his kids for having a dad who will instill hatred and only love them under a pre-defined list of conditions. It truly is sad.
So, yeah—it’s challenging to look at McChance and others with compassion. Hopefully, he will eventually learn about the true nature of God revealed through Jesus and many other spiritual leaders. Instead of a bigoted heart and a legalistic religious perspective, he, himself may find great fruits in a compassionate mindset.
Thanks for the question, Rory.
True
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Question of the Week: Islamaphobia
The Compassion Revolution receives several e-mails a week that pose various questions about various religious and social issues. We wanted to start posting those questions on the website and our Facebook page.
RESPONSE:
"This wasn’t really a “Question of the Week” necessarily, but with all of the Islamaphobia circulating of late, I wanted to comment. Too often, we seem to be hell-bent on acting upon ignorance in our otherwise great nation. The Islamaphobia is merely a product of that ignorance. With the attacks of 9/11, Islam came front and center to many Americans for the first time. As a Christian nation, from a majority standpoint, most Americans (myself included at that point) did not have a working knowledge of the faith. September 11th created a rude preface. Unfortunately, that introduction was made by extremist factions of the faith and did not and does not represent a true reflection of the religion overall. Yes, the extremist version of Islam is ripe with violence, but the faith, overall, is one grounded in peace, not fear. It has strong components of compassion and love, which in many ways, mirrors Christianity. In short, there is no reason to fear Islam. It is the more extremist factions that deserve fear and should be extinguished. Just as extremist forms of Christianity do not truly reflect Jesus’ compassion-driven message, nor do the extreme versions mirror true Islam. Bottom line: If you care enough to develop a phobia, then care enough to learn what you are afraid of—Islam, in its purest form is nothing to fear, nor is it cause to develop a prejudice against a brother or sister. Thanks, True"
RESPONSE:
"This wasn’t really a “Question of the Week” necessarily, but with all of the Islamaphobia circulating of late, I wanted to comment. Too often, we seem to be hell-bent on acting upon ignorance in our otherwise great nation. The Islamaphobia is merely a product of that ignorance. With the attacks of 9/11, Islam came front and center to many Americans for the first time. As a Christian nation, from a majority standpoint, most Americans (myself included at that point) did not have a working knowledge of the faith. September 11th created a rude preface. Unfortunately, that introduction was made by extremist factions of the faith and did not and does not represent a true reflection of the religion overall. Yes, the extremist version of Islam is ripe with violence, but the faith, overall, is one grounded in peace, not fear. It has strong components of compassion and love, which in many ways, mirrors Christianity. In short, there is no reason to fear Islam. It is the more extremist factions that deserve fear and should be extinguished. Just as extremist forms of Christianity do not truly reflect Jesus’ compassion-driven message, nor do the extreme versions mirror true Islam. Bottom line: If you care enough to develop a phobia, then care enough to learn what you are afraid of—Islam, in its purest form is nothing to fear, nor is it cause to develop a prejudice against a brother or sister. Thanks, True"
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Website updated with Revolution/Chapter Four--The Birth and Childhood of Jesus
The Compassion Revolution makes its book entitled, Revolution--The Life of Jesus available to internet patrons through its website at: http://www.thecompassionrevolution.net/ . This month marks the posting of the Fourth Chapter in the book, The Birth and Childhood of Jesus. Each chapter describes the life of Jesus from a historical persepctive and examines the traditions which emerged from the early Christian movement. This is done to provide a balanced look at Jesus' life and teachings. Revolution is available free online. Revolution II--The Parables is available through either Amazon.com or Barnes and Noble.
The Birth & Childhood of Jesus of Nazareth
_______________________
Genuinely Jesus—
Very little is known about the birth and childhood of Jesus of Nazareth. The earliest written canonical gospel (Mark) does not mention the event, nor do the Gospels of John and Thomas. Further, none of the numerous writings of Paul allude to Jesus’ birth. What is revealed through these omissions is telling: Jesus’ birth (the ‘how’ and ‘where’) was not important to the early stages of the Christian movement. Rather, it seems that the stories emerged later in the tradition to solidify the movement’s perspective of Jesus.
In regard to what has been written, we look to only two gospel accounts: Matthew and Luke, both of which were written in the late first century (80-90 CE). Those two accounts have similarities and differences. Therefore, it is difficult to paint an accurate picture of Jesus’ birth and early years.
The events detailed in Matthew and Luke seem to be recounted with a purpose which matches the underlying theme presented by each author for their gospels. For example, in Matthew, we see a theme of Kingship emerge, which is most likely established to prove Jesus’ Messiah status to others, including his Jewish audience. Matthew traces Jesus’ lineage back through Jewish Kings, which is greatly in-sync with his message of the glory and royal pedigree of Jesus. Further, in Matthew Jesus is visited by three magi, who presented gifts of holy royalty.
Meanwhile, Luke (3:23-38) traces Jesus lineage back to Adam, through the social prophets starting after David. Luke’s writing emphasizes Jesus’ message of love and compassion to be extended to all. He sets that tone early with the announcement of Jesus’ birth made to a group of shepherds, a group considered to be marginal socially within first century Jewish culture. All of this is very much in-sync with the embracing social messages omnipresent in Luke’s writing.
Aside from these stories, and the brief tale of Jesus’ trip to the Temple at the age of 12, little else is known about his actual childhood. It is doubtful that even these tales bear the mark of historical accuracy. One thing is certain: To have such tales recounted, Jesus’ impact on the culture of his time and centuries thereafter, is tremendous.
Following the Christian Tradition: Away in a Manger
“Away in a manger, no crib for his bed.” The story has been recounted infinitesimally in Sunday Schools, pulpits and Christmas Pageants. It is a tremendous story stemming from the Christian tradition that carries profound and metaphoric meaning. While uncertain of the tale’s historical accuracy, the following is taken from Luke and Matthew…
Luke 1:26-38
It was probably a day like many others. It would become a day like no other. Mary, a woman living in Nazareth of the Galilee area, would soon receive a visitor. Mary was betrothed to Joseph, from the family of David. In our modern-day society, being betrothed was somewhere between engagement and marriage. It was a serious commitment. In fact, infidelity during this period could possibly result in death for the unfaithful party. This was of particular concern when a special visitor delivered a very extraordinary message.
That special guest was an angel named Gabriel. Gabriel is mentioned four times in the Bible. During each reference, he is delivering great news. In Daniel 8:16 and 9:21, Gabriel brings to light a dream for Daniel. The latter reference is the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks (the prophecy that foretold the time in which the Messiah would appear). In Luke 1:11-20, Gabriel spoke to Zacharias, telling him of the birth of John the Baptist, who was foretold as the one who would pave the way for the Messiah. (read entire chapter)
The Birth & Childhood of Jesus of Nazareth
_______________________
Genuinely Jesus—
Very little is known about the birth and childhood of Jesus of Nazareth. The earliest written canonical gospel (Mark) does not mention the event, nor do the Gospels of John and Thomas. Further, none of the numerous writings of Paul allude to Jesus’ birth. What is revealed through these omissions is telling: Jesus’ birth (the ‘how’ and ‘where’) was not important to the early stages of the Christian movement. Rather, it seems that the stories emerged later in the tradition to solidify the movement’s perspective of Jesus.
In regard to what has been written, we look to only two gospel accounts: Matthew and Luke, both of which were written in the late first century (80-90 CE). Those two accounts have similarities and differences. Therefore, it is difficult to paint an accurate picture of Jesus’ birth and early years.
The events detailed in Matthew and Luke seem to be recounted with a purpose which matches the underlying theme presented by each author for their gospels. For example, in Matthew, we see a theme of Kingship emerge, which is most likely established to prove Jesus’ Messiah status to others, including his Jewish audience. Matthew traces Jesus’ lineage back through Jewish Kings, which is greatly in-sync with his message of the glory and royal pedigree of Jesus. Further, in Matthew Jesus is visited by three magi, who presented gifts of holy royalty.
Meanwhile, Luke (3:23-38) traces Jesus lineage back to Adam, through the social prophets starting after David. Luke’s writing emphasizes Jesus’ message of love and compassion to be extended to all. He sets that tone early with the announcement of Jesus’ birth made to a group of shepherds, a group considered to be marginal socially within first century Jewish culture. All of this is very much in-sync with the embracing social messages omnipresent in Luke’s writing.
Aside from these stories, and the brief tale of Jesus’ trip to the Temple at the age of 12, little else is known about his actual childhood. It is doubtful that even these tales bear the mark of historical accuracy. One thing is certain: To have such tales recounted, Jesus’ impact on the culture of his time and centuries thereafter, is tremendous.
Following the Christian Tradition: Away in a Manger
“Away in a manger, no crib for his bed.” The story has been recounted infinitesimally in Sunday Schools, pulpits and Christmas Pageants. It is a tremendous story stemming from the Christian tradition that carries profound and metaphoric meaning. While uncertain of the tale’s historical accuracy, the following is taken from Luke and Matthew…
Luke 1:26-38
It was probably a day like many others. It would become a day like no other. Mary, a woman living in Nazareth of the Galilee area, would soon receive a visitor. Mary was betrothed to Joseph, from the family of David. In our modern-day society, being betrothed was somewhere between engagement and marriage. It was a serious commitment. In fact, infidelity during this period could possibly result in death for the unfaithful party. This was of particular concern when a special visitor delivered a very extraordinary message.
That special guest was an angel named Gabriel. Gabriel is mentioned four times in the Bible. During each reference, he is delivering great news. In Daniel 8:16 and 9:21, Gabriel brings to light a dream for Daniel. The latter reference is the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks (the prophecy that foretold the time in which the Messiah would appear). In Luke 1:11-20, Gabriel spoke to Zacharias, telling him of the birth of John the Baptist, who was foretold as the one who would pave the way for the Messiah. (read entire chapter)
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Question of the Week: Terry Jones and burning the Koran
Question of the Week: (9/12/10)
QUESTION--
Would you weigh in on Terry Jones’ actions and his intention to burn the Koran?
RESPONSE--
"Well, anyone who is familiar with the Compassion Revolution can probably guess how I would weigh in on Mr. Jone's actions. First, however, let me state that Freedom of Speech is a right that bares great importance and value to me. Let me also state that with that right, comes great responsibility. In regards to Mr. Jones' actions, I am less concerned about his right to speak freely when his thoughts and actions are so utterly irresponsible and display such little regard and respect for the rights of others. By threatening to burn the holy book of Islam, he is symbolically trampling on those rights. I would encourage him to simply love others, regardless of their chosen path of spiritual expression and show some respect for the right to freely express it--something that Americans do, indeed, carry.
I wish him the best and hope that these events will point him to a path of acceptance, respect and love for all of his brothers and sisters.
Thanks, True"
QUESTION--
Would you weigh in on Terry Jones’ actions and his intention to burn the Koran?
RESPONSE--
"Well, anyone who is familiar with the Compassion Revolution can probably guess how I would weigh in on Mr. Jone's actions. First, however, let me state that Freedom of Speech is a right that bares great importance and value to me. Let me also state that with that right, comes great responsibility. In regards to Mr. Jones' actions, I am less concerned about his right to speak freely when his thoughts and actions are so utterly irresponsible and display such little regard and respect for the rights of others. By threatening to burn the holy book of Islam, he is symbolically trampling on those rights. I would encourage him to simply love others, regardless of their chosen path of spiritual expression and show some respect for the right to freely express it--something that Americans do, indeed, carry.
I wish him the best and hope that these events will point him to a path of acceptance, respect and love for all of his brothers and sisters.
Thanks, True"
Question of the Week: Focus on the Family and Anti-Bullying
Question of the Week...(9/19/10)
The Compassion Revolution receives several e-mails a week that pose various questions about various religious and social issues. We wanted to start posting those questions on the website and our Facebook page.
QUESTION--
“Recently, Focus on the Family denounced anti-bullying programs because they are promoting the Gay Agenda. Your thoughts?”
REPONSE--
“Two words: Sad and Disturbing. I researched the Focus on the Family site and watched various videos on YouTube on their stance. Their expectation is simple: Leave the issues plaguing victims of bullying out of the school to prevent ‘politicizing’ the issue. Interesting thought, but it's impossible in application.
Two points need to be made:
First, the fear of Focus on the Family is that if schools openly put a stop to someone bullying a kid because he/she is gay, that is the equivalent of saying it's okay to be gay. However, Focus on the Family is quite delusional if they believe an anti-bullying program can exist at all without openly addressing the issues for which one might be bullied. After all, how can these problems be addressed if school officials can’t mention the actual issues. Is a simple, “Stop it!” going to wake up a bully and leave him/her with a renewed attitude of: “Gee…I really shouldn’t be picking on my classmate!” Of course not. An effective anti-bullying program must address the heart of the problem, which means open dialogue surrounding the issues that are triggering the bully’s behavior. Addressing those various topics ultimately serves to address and eventually (hopefully) modify the behavior.
Second, unfortunately, the message that Focus on the Family’s stance sends to their constituents is that it’s okay to bully a kid if he’s gay. Assuredly, they would not admit this affect, but the message is crystal clear. As a result, if there’s a feminine 12-year old boy being beaten up daily, well, so what! Their message seems to be “Hey, that kind of bullying is okay…he deserves it, he’s gay.” Mind you, that is not what they would claim is their stance, but that is the message that their followers will pick up on.
Once again, a “Christian” group faces the reality that their thoughts and deeds are anything but Christ-like. It seems in this case, that Focus on the Family is the true bully on the playground.
Thanks, True"
Is there an question that you would like to pose to the Compassion Revolution? Just e-mail us at: info@thecompassionrevolution.net
The Compassion Revolution receives several e-mails a week that pose various questions about various religious and social issues. We wanted to start posting those questions on the website and our Facebook page.
QUESTION--
“Recently, Focus on the Family denounced anti-bullying programs because they are promoting the Gay Agenda. Your thoughts?”
REPONSE--
“Two words: Sad and Disturbing. I researched the Focus on the Family site and watched various videos on YouTube on their stance. Their expectation is simple: Leave the issues plaguing victims of bullying out of the school to prevent ‘politicizing’ the issue. Interesting thought, but it's impossible in application.
Two points need to be made:
First, the fear of Focus on the Family is that if schools openly put a stop to someone bullying a kid because he/she is gay, that is the equivalent of saying it's okay to be gay. However, Focus on the Family is quite delusional if they believe an anti-bullying program can exist at all without openly addressing the issues for which one might be bullied. After all, how can these problems be addressed if school officials can’t mention the actual issues. Is a simple, “Stop it!” going to wake up a bully and leave him/her with a renewed attitude of: “Gee…I really shouldn’t be picking on my classmate!” Of course not. An effective anti-bullying program must address the heart of the problem, which means open dialogue surrounding the issues that are triggering the bully’s behavior. Addressing those various topics ultimately serves to address and eventually (hopefully) modify the behavior.
Second, unfortunately, the message that Focus on the Family’s stance sends to their constituents is that it’s okay to bully a kid if he’s gay. Assuredly, they would not admit this affect, but the message is crystal clear. As a result, if there’s a feminine 12-year old boy being beaten up daily, well, so what! Their message seems to be “Hey, that kind of bullying is okay…he deserves it, he’s gay.” Mind you, that is not what they would claim is their stance, but that is the message that their followers will pick up on.
Once again, a “Christian” group faces the reality that their thoughts and deeds are anything but Christ-like. It seems in this case, that Focus on the Family is the true bully on the playground.
Thanks, True"
Is there an question that you would like to pose to the Compassion Revolution? Just e-mail us at: info@thecompassionrevolution.net
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Question of the Week: Literality of Scripture and Biblical Law
This week's queston:
"Your book talks of Christians lack of love and compassion and you are right. There is no way we could match God in that area. If you believe that the Bible is the word of God, you have to accept the Old and New Testaments. The Bible makes the clain of inspiration. That is either true or it isn't. Of course it needs to be believed literally. If it isn't then we are all just wasting our time. If its inspired then we must accept it all or we are mocking God. IITim. 3:16-17 says all scripture is inspired. Read Jude 3 and Jn:17:17.
Each Christian has a responsibility to Christ and His Church. Acts 2:42, Acts 20:27-31, Heb. 10:24-25. WE have to walk by faith and we are accountable to God. Jn. 12:44-50, Romans 1:16-18, IIThess. 1:6-9, IIJn. 9.
We do have to live by the law. Do you expect us to do away with law? Christ died to establish the Church in order to save us from our sins. So the law is a must. How else do we know what sin is?
I hope you take time to read the above scriptures. I want you to go to Heaven.” (from Brenda in Indianapolis, Indiana)
RESPONSE:
"First, your comments and thoughts are greatly appreciated. Thank you for taking the time to contact me. Our difference in opinion stems from our interpretation of the Bible—and further, what the Bible is and is not. To me, the Bible contains both profound spiritual wisdom and blatant blasphemy. I believe it is up to us to use our God-given abilities of discernment to tell the difference. For instance, I do not believe for one second that God commanded Samuel to slaughter an entire village of women and children (I Sam. 15:3). Rather, I believe Samuel was a bloodthirsty man who used God as a smoke-screen to justify his violent agenda. The same thing happens today as well. People use God/Holy Bible quite often as a smoke-screen to promote their own agendas…whether it’s hatred of gay people or someone with a tattoo for that matter! For example, I had one person tell me it was sinful to have a tattoo and quickly pointed to a verse in Leviticus—of course, the same verse speaks against “piercings of the flesh”, of which she had both ears pierced! Now, I have no desire to get a tattoo but—but I have less of a desire to judge someone who does. To me, it's personal expression--not my forte, mind you, but live and let live. After all, my job is simply to love unconditionally and live with a drive for compassion. THAT is what the “law” was founded on. THAT was what mattered to Jesus.
To comprehend scripture, we need to grasp culture, custom, context and language. The Christian educational process has seriously fallen short in this area. We do more proof-texting than anything. Actually, when you closely examine scripture you can see the impact the Biblical writers, and further scribes and copyists, involved in the early Christian movement made with their own agendas and eventually the direction the Jesus movement went. Their “believe in Jesus message” is a wonderful reflection and, I suppose true from a certain perspective, but it eventually evolved into more legalism.
Jesus wasn’t denouncing one form of legalism (the purity system of cleansing rituals, sin sacrifice, Sabbath observance, etc.) just to establish a new system of legality (“believe in me…be baptized and follow a bunch of new rules). Rather, he was saying, “The Kingdom of God is right here and beyond here…we just need to move beyond conventional thinking and start loving one another to see it!” Honestly, I don’t believe Jesus was trying to start a church at all. I think he would look at how the church has evolved, stemming from his works, and say, “You people still don’t get it!”
Finally, I don’t necessarily agree with the line of: “Jesus died for our sins to establish a church, etc.”—I think that is true in the sense that Jesus died to bridge the gap between an exiled people and their God. I believe that to be his true intention rather than putting salve on an individual’s guilty conscience. Honestly, I don’t believe an omnipotent God needs a system to “save” a human soul. To me, that notion resembles humanistic thoughts that have merely merged with the lofty expectations of conventional wisdom.
In all honesty, I believe that everyone has a unique spiritual path. I embrace the teachings of various faiths without getting caught up in the labels attached to each. As such, I learn much from Hindus, Muslims, Jews, even fundamentalist Christians!
As for a literal interpretation of scripture…
Well, one of my biggest issues with such a belief is that Jesus and other first century Jews did not adhere literally to the Torah (first five books of what we call the Old Testament). That much is evident based on how violations of the Sabbath were dealt with in first century Jewish culture. Those violations were not punished by death as commanded concretely by God in those writings, but with a sin offering. That speaks volumes to me in terms of literality. Again, thanks for your question and thoughts. Hopefully, this provides some clarity! Have a great week!"
"Your book talks of Christians lack of love and compassion and you are right. There is no way we could match God in that area. If you believe that the Bible is the word of God, you have to accept the Old and New Testaments. The Bible makes the clain of inspiration. That is either true or it isn't. Of course it needs to be believed literally. If it isn't then we are all just wasting our time. If its inspired then we must accept it all or we are mocking God. IITim. 3:16-17 says all scripture is inspired. Read Jude 3 and Jn:17:17.
Each Christian has a responsibility to Christ and His Church. Acts 2:42, Acts 20:27-31, Heb. 10:24-25. WE have to walk by faith and we are accountable to God. Jn. 12:44-50, Romans 1:16-18, IIThess. 1:6-9, IIJn. 9.
We do have to live by the law. Do you expect us to do away with law? Christ died to establish the Church in order to save us from our sins. So the law is a must. How else do we know what sin is?
I hope you take time to read the above scriptures. I want you to go to Heaven.” (from Brenda in Indianapolis, Indiana)
RESPONSE:
"First, your comments and thoughts are greatly appreciated. Thank you for taking the time to contact me. Our difference in opinion stems from our interpretation of the Bible—and further, what the Bible is and is not. To me, the Bible contains both profound spiritual wisdom and blatant blasphemy. I believe it is up to us to use our God-given abilities of discernment to tell the difference. For instance, I do not believe for one second that God commanded Samuel to slaughter an entire village of women and children (I Sam. 15:3). Rather, I believe Samuel was a bloodthirsty man who used God as a smoke-screen to justify his violent agenda. The same thing happens today as well. People use God/Holy Bible quite often as a smoke-screen to promote their own agendas…whether it’s hatred of gay people or someone with a tattoo for that matter! For example, I had one person tell me it was sinful to have a tattoo and quickly pointed to a verse in Leviticus—of course, the same verse speaks against “piercings of the flesh”, of which she had both ears pierced! Now, I have no desire to get a tattoo but—but I have less of a desire to judge someone who does. To me, it's personal expression--not my forte, mind you, but live and let live. After all, my job is simply to love unconditionally and live with a drive for compassion. THAT is what the “law” was founded on. THAT was what mattered to Jesus.
To comprehend scripture, we need to grasp culture, custom, context and language. The Christian educational process has seriously fallen short in this area. We do more proof-texting than anything. Actually, when you closely examine scripture you can see the impact the Biblical writers, and further scribes and copyists, involved in the early Christian movement made with their own agendas and eventually the direction the Jesus movement went. Their “believe in Jesus message” is a wonderful reflection and, I suppose true from a certain perspective, but it eventually evolved into more legalism.
Jesus wasn’t denouncing one form of legalism (the purity system of cleansing rituals, sin sacrifice, Sabbath observance, etc.) just to establish a new system of legality (“believe in me…be baptized and follow a bunch of new rules). Rather, he was saying, “The Kingdom of God is right here and beyond here…we just need to move beyond conventional thinking and start loving one another to see it!” Honestly, I don’t believe Jesus was trying to start a church at all. I think he would look at how the church has evolved, stemming from his works, and say, “You people still don’t get it!”
Finally, I don’t necessarily agree with the line of: “Jesus died for our sins to establish a church, etc.”—I think that is true in the sense that Jesus died to bridge the gap between an exiled people and their God. I believe that to be his true intention rather than putting salve on an individual’s guilty conscience. Honestly, I don’t believe an omnipotent God needs a system to “save” a human soul. To me, that notion resembles humanistic thoughts that have merely merged with the lofty expectations of conventional wisdom.
In all honesty, I believe that everyone has a unique spiritual path. I embrace the teachings of various faiths without getting caught up in the labels attached to each. As such, I learn much from Hindus, Muslims, Jews, even fundamentalist Christians!
As for a literal interpretation of scripture…
Well, one of my biggest issues with such a belief is that Jesus and other first century Jews did not adhere literally to the Torah (first five books of what we call the Old Testament). That much is evident based on how violations of the Sabbath were dealt with in first century Jewish culture. Those violations were not punished by death as commanded concretely by God in those writings, but with a sin offering. That speaks volumes to me in terms of literality. Again, thanks for your question and thoughts. Hopefully, this provides some clarity! Have a great week!"
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Question of the Week: August 23, 2009
First...SO SORRY...for getting behind on answering questions. So much going on combined with little help have made getting everything accomplished a big challenge. This week's question comes from Alex in Raleigh, North Carolina.
"Do you believe in the virgin birth of Jesus?"
In a word, "No." Honestly, I have not thoroughly studied the birth stories surrounding Jesus. This is quite simply due to the fact that Jesus' birth is not a focal point for me. It represents in no way, shape or form the crux of my faith. If someone told me that they had definitive proof that Jesus was born of celestial semen in a virgin birth, my response would be a surprised, "Okay." If someone told me that they could definitively proof that Jesus was not born of a virgin, again, my response would be, "Okay."
My connection to Jesus is really found through his teachings and the wisdom he offers a hurting world, a world that truly needs to connect with its Father in the spirit of love and compassion. I don't see the 'fundamentalist Christian' version of Jesus when I reflect on him. The fundamentalist version demands a 'belief' in Jesus as God in order to satisfy a divine requirement. That very idea, I believe to be very much foreign to the real Jesus. I believe Jesus was introducing us to the Kingdom of God as a here and now, happening reality that is right here and beyond here. As such, he touted relationship to the Father (God, spiritual entity, etc. however, one terms God) which would create lives consumed and driven by compassion. Lives that would create a very different world in first century Palestine or 21st century America for that matter.
I really think that Jesus would look at much of Christianity today and say, "...wow, you people still don't get it!" He would look at the millions spent trying to halt a gay marriage bill and just say, "This is how you display love for your brothers and sisters? Let all rejoice in their love and put that money to better use...feeding, clothing, helping those truly in need."
So, forgive me if my "birth" knowledge of Jesus is lacking. Those are wonderful stories found in Matthew and Luke, but most likely just that--with certain elements of truth and certain elements of narrative symbolism. I hope I've helped somewhat.
True
"Do you believe in the virgin birth of Jesus?"
In a word, "No." Honestly, I have not thoroughly studied the birth stories surrounding Jesus. This is quite simply due to the fact that Jesus' birth is not a focal point for me. It represents in no way, shape or form the crux of my faith. If someone told me that they had definitive proof that Jesus was born of celestial semen in a virgin birth, my response would be a surprised, "Okay." If someone told me that they could definitively proof that Jesus was not born of a virgin, again, my response would be, "Okay."
My connection to Jesus is really found through his teachings and the wisdom he offers a hurting world, a world that truly needs to connect with its Father in the spirit of love and compassion. I don't see the 'fundamentalist Christian' version of Jesus when I reflect on him. The fundamentalist version demands a 'belief' in Jesus as God in order to satisfy a divine requirement. That very idea, I believe to be very much foreign to the real Jesus. I believe Jesus was introducing us to the Kingdom of God as a here and now, happening reality that is right here and beyond here. As such, he touted relationship to the Father (God, spiritual entity, etc. however, one terms God) which would create lives consumed and driven by compassion. Lives that would create a very different world in first century Palestine or 21st century America for that matter.
I really think that Jesus would look at much of Christianity today and say, "...wow, you people still don't get it!" He would look at the millions spent trying to halt a gay marriage bill and just say, "This is how you display love for your brothers and sisters? Let all rejoice in their love and put that money to better use...feeding, clothing, helping those truly in need."
So, forgive me if my "birth" knowledge of Jesus is lacking. Those are wonderful stories found in Matthew and Luke, but most likely just that--with certain elements of truth and certain elements of narrative symbolism. I hope I've helped somewhat.
True
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Question of the Week...August 9th, 2010
The Compassion Revolution receives several e-mails a week that pose various questions about various religious and social issues. We wanted to start posting those questions on the website, blog and Facebook page. The first is this: “There is one path to God. Jesus says so himself. How can you expect me to ‘embrace’ the beliefs of Muslims who kill for lives and Hindus that worship idols? “ (from Gina in Savannah, Georgia)
RESPONSE—“Good and challenging question. First, I would challenge that Jesus truly believed in one path to relationship with the Sacred. Those statements are attributed to him in John, which is most certainly a writing that emerged from the beliefs of the early Christian movement. I don’t believe that Jesus actually said that he was the exclusive “way” to God. Those were ideas from the early Christian evangelists who saw ‘sameness’ in Jesus with God. In other words, I don’t believe that Jesus was creating a legalistic path to experiencing God--his path and ONLY his path. I believe those words in John are a reflection of the movement’s feelings toward Jesus. Inspiring thoughts, certainly, but not ideas that should be taken legalistically and used to denounce another's right to experience God along another path.
Second, put simply, I would not expect, nor would I want, anyone to embrace any belief system that did not coincide with their own experience with God. I do, however, hope that others will respect another’s right to experience a relationship with their God in a way that is effective for them. Murder is a universally deplorable response delivered by man…not God. I don't believe for a moment that God views the attacks of 9/11 from extremist Muslim sects, as acceptable acts of devotion. Nor do I believe that God ordered Samuel to slaughter an entire village of men, women and children as I Samuel 15:3 states. Violence is not an act of a generative spiritual entity. Harmony is in-sync with a Creator. Such a harmony allows me to embrace others even though I disagree with them. I can embrace an orthodox Christian, even though I don’t believe in the literality of Scripture. The same is true with various aspects of other faiths. After all, if I had to agree on all topics with everyone I encounter, I probably would not even find a friend in the mirror!
Jesus, first and foremost, promoted relationship to the Sacred. With that, he knew that lives driven by compassion would emerge—as it did for him. Lives driven by compassion seek a harmony in the world that brings inward peace and promotes outward peace as well. So Gina, you don’t need to bow down to someone else’s idol. I do, however, hope that you’ll express an acceptance of the right of a brother or sister to experience spirituality in their own way. Best wishes, True.”
Is there an question that you would like to pose to the Compassion Revolution? Just e-mail us at or follow this link: info@thecompassionrevolution.net
RESPONSE—“Good and challenging question. First, I would challenge that Jesus truly believed in one path to relationship with the Sacred. Those statements are attributed to him in John, which is most certainly a writing that emerged from the beliefs of the early Christian movement. I don’t believe that Jesus actually said that he was the exclusive “way” to God. Those were ideas from the early Christian evangelists who saw ‘sameness’ in Jesus with God. In other words, I don’t believe that Jesus was creating a legalistic path to experiencing God--his path and ONLY his path. I believe those words in John are a reflection of the movement’s feelings toward Jesus. Inspiring thoughts, certainly, but not ideas that should be taken legalistically and used to denounce another's right to experience God along another path.
Second, put simply, I would not expect, nor would I want, anyone to embrace any belief system that did not coincide with their own experience with God. I do, however, hope that others will respect another’s right to experience a relationship with their God in a way that is effective for them. Murder is a universally deplorable response delivered by man…not God. I don't believe for a moment that God views the attacks of 9/11 from extremist Muslim sects, as acceptable acts of devotion. Nor do I believe that God ordered Samuel to slaughter an entire village of men, women and children as I Samuel 15:3 states. Violence is not an act of a generative spiritual entity. Harmony is in-sync with a Creator. Such a harmony allows me to embrace others even though I disagree with them. I can embrace an orthodox Christian, even though I don’t believe in the literality of Scripture. The same is true with various aspects of other faiths. After all, if I had to agree on all topics with everyone I encounter, I probably would not even find a friend in the mirror!
Jesus, first and foremost, promoted relationship to the Sacred. With that, he knew that lives driven by compassion would emerge—as it did for him. Lives driven by compassion seek a harmony in the world that brings inward peace and promotes outward peace as well. So Gina, you don’t need to bow down to someone else’s idol. I do, however, hope that you’ll express an acceptance of the right of a brother or sister to experience spirituality in their own way. Best wishes, True.”
Is there an question that you would like to pose to the Compassion Revolution? Just e-mail us at or follow this link: info@thecompassionrevolution.net
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Website updated to include part one of Chapter Three of Revolution
Chapter Three…The Gospels & New Testament
_______________________
The Bill of Rights. You are probably familiar with this document as the ten amendments, which are a prelude to the United States Constitution. The Bill of Rights officially came into effect in 1791 and detail the immunities of individual citizens. Question: Would this document appear the same today if the earliest record had appeared in the 1960’s? If the original document had been lost and only preserved through copy after copy after copy, by various copyists, would we see the same verbiage 175 years or so later? *3-1 Would its contents have gone unchanged after the various influences of the multiple social and political movements that have swept through the United States throughout nearly two centuries? Would civil rights, women’s voting rights or any number of other issues impacted that document as it passed from copyist to copyist? The answer is obvious.
The same is true with a much more massive collection of literature: the various writings and letters that comprise the Gospels and New Testament. In the gap of time between Jesus’ death, after which these writings began, to the text we read today, much has transpired. In those early years, both professional and laymen scribes produced numerous copies of scripture. Changes from the earliest copies are evident compared to the text available now. Actually, thousands of changes have been detected when comparing current and later text to the earliest copies on record. *3-2 Unintended copying mistakes happened frequently and can easily be attributed to human inaccuracy. Those are many and are usually of little concern. However, intentional theological changes were also made to reflect the push of one religious movement or to negate the ideas of another.
At no time in history, has Christianity had one voice. Various religious movements have readily shared their views and impacted the faith. Groups such as the Adoptionists and the Docetists provide just two examples of religious movements that influenced textual change. These changes were made by orthodox copyists to counter ideas supported by those movements.
The Adoptionist group, from the second/third century, adhered to the idea that Jesus was fully flesh and blood—having been ‘adopted’ by God. This movement countered orthodox ideology and prompted mainstream copyists to make theological alterations in text which provided an anti-adoptionistic reading in certain passages (Mark 1:11; Luke 2:33 and 3:23 to name a few). *3-3
Consider Mark 1:11. In this verse, Jesus emerges from his baptism and is greeted by the voice of God. Later texts, including today’s King James Version of Mark 1:11 read: “And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” However, earlier texts provided other readings. Bart D. Ehrman showcases this in his book, Misquoting Jesus. In his discussion of Mark 1:11, we find quite a different version compared to texts found previously. Ehrman states:
“In one early Greek manuscript and several Latin ones, however, the voice says
something strikingly different: ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.’ Today
I have begotten you! Doesn’t that suggest that his day of baptism is the day on
which Jesus has become the Son of God? Couldn’t this text be used by an
adoptionist Christian to make the point that Jesus became the Son of God at this
time? Later, the text was altered to read, “And there came a voice from heaven,
saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” *3-4
Therefore, it seems that this alteration was made by orthodox copyists to address any argument potentially posed by the Adoptionists who might seek verification of their belief system through scripture.
Luke 22 provides a similar example in regard to the Docetist movement. The textual changes from Luke (22:17-19, which is a scene from the Lord’s Supper) countered the beliefs of the Docetists, who believed that Jesus was fully divine and in no part flesh-and-blood.*3-5 According to the oldest Greek manuscripts those three verses read as follows: “And taking a cup, giving thanks, he said, ‘Take this and divide it among yourselves for I say to you that I will not drink from the fruit of the vine from now on, until the kingdom of God comes.’ And taking bread, giving thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body. But behold, the hand of the one who betrays me is with me at the table.’” *3-6
Missing from this text are the words found in most modern translations, “which has been given for you; do this in remembrance of me’; as well as “this cup is the new covenant in my blood which is shed for you.” These thoughts were most likely later additions made by orthodox copyists seeking to affirm the flesh and blood humanity of Jesus. To those orthodox Christians, it was Jesus’ human sacrifice that brought salvation, ideas that greatly differed from the Docetist’s belief.
Ehrman also details that this addition also brings to light another point regarding textual change: Luke’s theological belief regarding the meaning of Jesus’ death. The emphasis of the textual alterations in Luke 22 showcase that the crucifixion is salvific and done for humanity’s benefit. In other words, it was Jesus’ death that brings salvation for all of mankind. However, that does not seem to be Luke’s own conclusion. Actually, this textual addition is the only mention made by Luke in his two books (Luke and Acts) regarding Jesus’ death being significant in regard to sin atonement. Rather, as Ehrman points out, to Luke, Jesus’ death certainly has great meaning, but not necessarily as atonement from personal sin. *3-7 Nowhere else in either of Luke’s writings does he speak of personal salvation being found through the death of Jesus. Luke (in Acts) views the crucifixion as humanity’s wake-up call. It is Jesus’ death that helps an individual recognize their own shortcomings before their Maker, prompting a call for repentance. It is this recognition and ensuing repentance then, that brings salvation; which is a very different notion from the fundamentalist teaching of my youth.
These are merely two examples that help us better understand the evolution of scripture and the great impact that man and various religious movements have had on Biblical text. With these examples in mind, and considering that they are but two of many instances of textual change, it is hard to have a legitimate discussion promoting the inerrancy of scripture, a belief known as “verbal plenary inspiration”; and one that I previously clung to for nearly three decades. After all, it is the very words that comprise the text that are said to be infallible. Since we really don’t know what those original words stated, the claim of infallibility is next to impossible. While this is what we have seen with the development of scripture, many of the more fundamentalist sects within the religious community today still cling to the idea that such scripture is inerrant and to be taken literally at every turn. Such is an interesting notion considering the evidence detailed against that idea.
Such a belief certainly brings one question to mind: if scripture is inerrant, why then, do those who hold to that opinion have such disagreements regarding the meaning of that scripture? Why are there so many different interpretations of the same scripture? In other words, if these texts are so ‘cut-and-dried’…‘black and white’, shouldn’t there be one voice speaking for the community instead of a garbled many? Yet even those who uphold verbal plenary inspiration do not agree on interpretation. For example, if you and I agree on the meaning of the two numbers one and three, then how could we look at the equation of (1 + 3 = ?) and disagree on the final answer? Nevertheless, much disagreement emerges surrounding the texts of the Holy Bible.
For the purposes of this writing, scripture will be examined with one eye on historical responsibility and another on the Christian tradition. Each will be duly noted. It is important to separate lore, which emerged from the evolving faith, from accounts considered to be more historically credible. The goal is, quite simply, get to the heart of the message. Distinguishing the genuine voice of Jesus from the influences of the various religious movements, including the mainstream, is essentially the focus of The Five Gospels. The book is produced by the Jesus Seminar, a group comprised of Biblical Scholars who gather to discuss the authenticity of the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels of Thomas, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. This is done in order to examine these texts under a more authentic and insightful lens.
The Five Gospels: Thomas…Mark…Matthew…Luke and John
The earliest copies available of the canonical Gospels, as well as other books in the New Testament, date back to the late second century. However, they were originally written much earlier. The Gospel of Thomas, considered by most scholars to be the earliest Gospel written, is thought to have originated around 50 CE. That would date its origin back to around twenty years after the crucifixion. Thomas was not discovered until 1945, and was part of the Nag Hammadi discovery in Egypt. *3-8 Of the four gospels of the New Testament, John is the most recent, thought to have been written shortly after 90 CE. Whereas, Mark is thought to be the oldest, scribed around 70 CE. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written around 80-90 CE.
Both Matthew and Luke draw much information from Mark. According to The Five Gospels, Matthew replicates ninety percent of Mark’s writing, while Luke reproduces fifty percent. Where Matthew and Luke disagree, in terms of sequence, both support the order presented by Mark. In common segments, verbal agreement occurs about half the time. Further, in text that does not ‘match-up’, Matthew and Mark often disagree against Luke; Luke and Mark often disagree against Matthew, but Matthew and Luke rarely disagree against Mark. For these reasons, it is thought that Matthew and Luke drew much from Mark in writing their versions. *3-9
The synoptic gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke provide a start-to-finish summary of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Whereas, the Gospel of Thomas is a sayings gospel. In other words, it does not attempt to tell the life story of Jesus, but rather imparts his various radical wisdom teachings. Meanwhile, John’s version is thought by most scholars to be a faith-based description, an account used by those in the early Christian movement to be their beacon of hope and light while under the strain of religious change, and at times, persecution. In other words, many of the events detailed in John are not typically believed to be a matter of historical fact. They present an idea of what Jesus’ earthly walk and message represented to those involved in the early Christian movement. While I am confident that many of the events detailed in John’s Gospel actually did occur in some manner, I am equally certain that many of those happenings are faith-based accounts that did not take place as depicted, or occur at all. This does not render those thoughts useless. Nor does it discredit those thoughts from the early Christians who developed them. On the contrary, it provides an even stronger connection to Jesus. After all, if your trusted friend tells you what a great guy I am, those ideas would have much stronger credibility than if I told you that I was a great guy. The same is true here. The fact the Jesus did not go around first century Palestine actually saying, “Believe in me…I am the way!” makes far more sense to me. The thought that those ideas emerged from the early Christian movement do make sense. The notion that they held Jesus’ ideas with such high esteem that they equated them with the Father and that believing in those thoughts would bring about a sense of salvation—that is a very calming and championing ideology. Unfortunately, many in the religious community have taken those thoughts literally for centuries. As a result, they have hardened with the calloused shell of legalism. Christianity has often used those words to create some type of monopolistic hold on God. After all, the message that can be taken from such a literal and legalistic reading of John is that there is only one path to be followed—the Christian path. In other words, all others paths are false. With a new understanding of John and how the book formed, it becomes far easier to embrace the religious paths of those who experience God through various Faiths.
In addition, many scholars feel that the synoptic gospels have been layered to provide the early Christian cause with a strategic platform for growth as the movement formed and advanced. For example, some Christian scholars would argue that the account of Jesus’ birth is not necessarily factual as detailed in Matthew and Luke, but rather a story created to affirm the needs that each author’s gospel addresses. In light of this, Marcus Borg, himself a member of the Jesus Seminar, states that by tracing Jesus’ lineage back to the kings of Israel and with his story of the wise men seeking the one born “King of the Jews,” Matthew is emphasizing Jesus’ kingship to his Jewish audience. Meanwhile, Luke follows Jesus’ genealogy back to the prophets and with his account of the shepherds, it is a story that emphasizes Jesus’ role as a radical social prophet. *3-10 Luke’s intended audience was the Gentiles. Borg also states that these stories do not necessarily have to be believed historically to benefit from their symbolic affirmations. I agree. Factual or not is essentially irrelevant because the information bears great meaning regardless. A specific story need not to have truly taken place exactly as it is told in order for it to display great relevance to an audience.
(To be continued...)
_______________________
The Bill of Rights. You are probably familiar with this document as the ten amendments, which are a prelude to the United States Constitution. The Bill of Rights officially came into effect in 1791 and detail the immunities of individual citizens. Question: Would this document appear the same today if the earliest record had appeared in the 1960’s? If the original document had been lost and only preserved through copy after copy after copy, by various copyists, would we see the same verbiage 175 years or so later? *3-1 Would its contents have gone unchanged after the various influences of the multiple social and political movements that have swept through the United States throughout nearly two centuries? Would civil rights, women’s voting rights or any number of other issues impacted that document as it passed from copyist to copyist? The answer is obvious.
The same is true with a much more massive collection of literature: the various writings and letters that comprise the Gospels and New Testament. In the gap of time between Jesus’ death, after which these writings began, to the text we read today, much has transpired. In those early years, both professional and laymen scribes produced numerous copies of scripture. Changes from the earliest copies are evident compared to the text available now. Actually, thousands of changes have been detected when comparing current and later text to the earliest copies on record. *3-2 Unintended copying mistakes happened frequently and can easily be attributed to human inaccuracy. Those are many and are usually of little concern. However, intentional theological changes were also made to reflect the push of one religious movement or to negate the ideas of another.
At no time in history, has Christianity had one voice. Various religious movements have readily shared their views and impacted the faith. Groups such as the Adoptionists and the Docetists provide just two examples of religious movements that influenced textual change. These changes were made by orthodox copyists to counter ideas supported by those movements.
The Adoptionist group, from the second/third century, adhered to the idea that Jesus was fully flesh and blood—having been ‘adopted’ by God. This movement countered orthodox ideology and prompted mainstream copyists to make theological alterations in text which provided an anti-adoptionistic reading in certain passages (Mark 1:11; Luke 2:33 and 3:23 to name a few). *3-3
Consider Mark 1:11. In this verse, Jesus emerges from his baptism and is greeted by the voice of God. Later texts, including today’s King James Version of Mark 1:11 read: “And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” However, earlier texts provided other readings. Bart D. Ehrman showcases this in his book, Misquoting Jesus. In his discussion of Mark 1:11, we find quite a different version compared to texts found previously. Ehrman states:
“In one early Greek manuscript and several Latin ones, however, the voice says
something strikingly different: ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.’ Today
I have begotten you! Doesn’t that suggest that his day of baptism is the day on
which Jesus has become the Son of God? Couldn’t this text be used by an
adoptionist Christian to make the point that Jesus became the Son of God at this
time? Later, the text was altered to read, “And there came a voice from heaven,
saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” *3-4
Therefore, it seems that this alteration was made by orthodox copyists to address any argument potentially posed by the Adoptionists who might seek verification of their belief system through scripture.
Luke 22 provides a similar example in regard to the Docetist movement. The textual changes from Luke (22:17-19, which is a scene from the Lord’s Supper) countered the beliefs of the Docetists, who believed that Jesus was fully divine and in no part flesh-and-blood.*3-5 According to the oldest Greek manuscripts those three verses read as follows: “And taking a cup, giving thanks, he said, ‘Take this and divide it among yourselves for I say to you that I will not drink from the fruit of the vine from now on, until the kingdom of God comes.’ And taking bread, giving thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body. But behold, the hand of the one who betrays me is with me at the table.’” *3-6
Missing from this text are the words found in most modern translations, “which has been given for you; do this in remembrance of me’; as well as “this cup is the new covenant in my blood which is shed for you.” These thoughts were most likely later additions made by orthodox copyists seeking to affirm the flesh and blood humanity of Jesus. To those orthodox Christians, it was Jesus’ human sacrifice that brought salvation, ideas that greatly differed from the Docetist’s belief.
Ehrman also details that this addition also brings to light another point regarding textual change: Luke’s theological belief regarding the meaning of Jesus’ death. The emphasis of the textual alterations in Luke 22 showcase that the crucifixion is salvific and done for humanity’s benefit. In other words, it was Jesus’ death that brings salvation for all of mankind. However, that does not seem to be Luke’s own conclusion. Actually, this textual addition is the only mention made by Luke in his two books (Luke and Acts) regarding Jesus’ death being significant in regard to sin atonement. Rather, as Ehrman points out, to Luke, Jesus’ death certainly has great meaning, but not necessarily as atonement from personal sin. *3-7 Nowhere else in either of Luke’s writings does he speak of personal salvation being found through the death of Jesus. Luke (in Acts) views the crucifixion as humanity’s wake-up call. It is Jesus’ death that helps an individual recognize their own shortcomings before their Maker, prompting a call for repentance. It is this recognition and ensuing repentance then, that brings salvation; which is a very different notion from the fundamentalist teaching of my youth.
These are merely two examples that help us better understand the evolution of scripture and the great impact that man and various religious movements have had on Biblical text. With these examples in mind, and considering that they are but two of many instances of textual change, it is hard to have a legitimate discussion promoting the inerrancy of scripture, a belief known as “verbal plenary inspiration”; and one that I previously clung to for nearly three decades. After all, it is the very words that comprise the text that are said to be infallible. Since we really don’t know what those original words stated, the claim of infallibility is next to impossible. While this is what we have seen with the development of scripture, many of the more fundamentalist sects within the religious community today still cling to the idea that such scripture is inerrant and to be taken literally at every turn. Such is an interesting notion considering the evidence detailed against that idea.
Such a belief certainly brings one question to mind: if scripture is inerrant, why then, do those who hold to that opinion have such disagreements regarding the meaning of that scripture? Why are there so many different interpretations of the same scripture? In other words, if these texts are so ‘cut-and-dried’…‘black and white’, shouldn’t there be one voice speaking for the community instead of a garbled many? Yet even those who uphold verbal plenary inspiration do not agree on interpretation. For example, if you and I agree on the meaning of the two numbers one and three, then how could we look at the equation of (1 + 3 = ?) and disagree on the final answer? Nevertheless, much disagreement emerges surrounding the texts of the Holy Bible.
For the purposes of this writing, scripture will be examined with one eye on historical responsibility and another on the Christian tradition. Each will be duly noted. It is important to separate lore, which emerged from the evolving faith, from accounts considered to be more historically credible. The goal is, quite simply, get to the heart of the message. Distinguishing the genuine voice of Jesus from the influences of the various religious movements, including the mainstream, is essentially the focus of The Five Gospels. The book is produced by the Jesus Seminar, a group comprised of Biblical Scholars who gather to discuss the authenticity of the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels of Thomas, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. This is done in order to examine these texts under a more authentic and insightful lens.
The Five Gospels: Thomas…Mark…Matthew…Luke and John
The earliest copies available of the canonical Gospels, as well as other books in the New Testament, date back to the late second century. However, they were originally written much earlier. The Gospel of Thomas, considered by most scholars to be the earliest Gospel written, is thought to have originated around 50 CE. That would date its origin back to around twenty years after the crucifixion. Thomas was not discovered until 1945, and was part of the Nag Hammadi discovery in Egypt. *3-8 Of the four gospels of the New Testament, John is the most recent, thought to have been written shortly after 90 CE. Whereas, Mark is thought to be the oldest, scribed around 70 CE. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written around 80-90 CE.
Both Matthew and Luke draw much information from Mark. According to The Five Gospels, Matthew replicates ninety percent of Mark’s writing, while Luke reproduces fifty percent. Where Matthew and Luke disagree, in terms of sequence, both support the order presented by Mark. In common segments, verbal agreement occurs about half the time. Further, in text that does not ‘match-up’, Matthew and Mark often disagree against Luke; Luke and Mark often disagree against Matthew, but Matthew and Luke rarely disagree against Mark. For these reasons, it is thought that Matthew and Luke drew much from Mark in writing their versions. *3-9
The synoptic gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke provide a start-to-finish summary of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Whereas, the Gospel of Thomas is a sayings gospel. In other words, it does not attempt to tell the life story of Jesus, but rather imparts his various radical wisdom teachings. Meanwhile, John’s version is thought by most scholars to be a faith-based description, an account used by those in the early Christian movement to be their beacon of hope and light while under the strain of religious change, and at times, persecution. In other words, many of the events detailed in John are not typically believed to be a matter of historical fact. They present an idea of what Jesus’ earthly walk and message represented to those involved in the early Christian movement. While I am confident that many of the events detailed in John’s Gospel actually did occur in some manner, I am equally certain that many of those happenings are faith-based accounts that did not take place as depicted, or occur at all. This does not render those thoughts useless. Nor does it discredit those thoughts from the early Christians who developed them. On the contrary, it provides an even stronger connection to Jesus. After all, if your trusted friend tells you what a great guy I am, those ideas would have much stronger credibility than if I told you that I was a great guy. The same is true here. The fact the Jesus did not go around first century Palestine actually saying, “Believe in me…I am the way!” makes far more sense to me. The thought that those ideas emerged from the early Christian movement do make sense. The notion that they held Jesus’ ideas with such high esteem that they equated them with the Father and that believing in those thoughts would bring about a sense of salvation—that is a very calming and championing ideology. Unfortunately, many in the religious community have taken those thoughts literally for centuries. As a result, they have hardened with the calloused shell of legalism. Christianity has often used those words to create some type of monopolistic hold on God. After all, the message that can be taken from such a literal and legalistic reading of John is that there is only one path to be followed—the Christian path. In other words, all others paths are false. With a new understanding of John and how the book formed, it becomes far easier to embrace the religious paths of those who experience God through various Faiths.
In addition, many scholars feel that the synoptic gospels have been layered to provide the early Christian cause with a strategic platform for growth as the movement formed and advanced. For example, some Christian scholars would argue that the account of Jesus’ birth is not necessarily factual as detailed in Matthew and Luke, but rather a story created to affirm the needs that each author’s gospel addresses. In light of this, Marcus Borg, himself a member of the Jesus Seminar, states that by tracing Jesus’ lineage back to the kings of Israel and with his story of the wise men seeking the one born “King of the Jews,” Matthew is emphasizing Jesus’ kingship to his Jewish audience. Meanwhile, Luke follows Jesus’ genealogy back to the prophets and with his account of the shepherds, it is a story that emphasizes Jesus’ role as a radical social prophet. *3-10 Luke’s intended audience was the Gentiles. Borg also states that these stories do not necessarily have to be believed historically to benefit from their symbolic affirmations. I agree. Factual or not is essentially irrelevant because the information bears great meaning regardless. A specific story need not to have truly taken place exactly as it is told in order for it to display great relevance to an audience.
(To be continued...)
Monday, May 10, 2010
Revolution II The Parables
Hey all--just a reminder to pick up a copy of my book. It's a sequel to Revolution and its focus is on the radical wisdom teachings of Jesus compared to the Conventional Wisdom that we see in the world around us. Actually, it's being read well in India and doing okay in the good ole USA as well. Thanks to all who have picked up a copy. It's also availabe through Barnes and Noble (online). I would love to get any and all feedback on it. So...be sure you message me when you get a chance with your thoughts.
Thanks to all...
True
Thanks to all...
True
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Media Release: Part 3 of 3 Religion and You Survey--Interpreting Scripture
Yesterday (5/4/10), we released part three of a three part analysis on this year's Religion and You Survey. The third part focused on how Americans intepreted scripture. I grew up in a very fundamentalist family who enforced a very literal interpretation of the Holy Bible. Such an interpretation seemed to generate intense legalism that ultimately countered the message of Love and Compassion that rings true with the message of the religion's cornerstone. It was that intepretation that really troubled me as I entered my late teens and into adulthood. Therefore, this part of the survey was of particular interest to me.
Not long ago (10 years perhaps) more than 60 percent of Americans believed in a literal interpretation. That number has shrunk significantly in that amount of time. According to a 2005 Gallup Poll, 34 percent of Americans believed in a literal interpretation. Our poll of 3,112 respondents revealed that 30 percent held to such an interpretation. Check out the Media Release at: www.thecompassionrevolution.net/media.htm . Just check out the May release.
I've also included information regarding a book entitled, Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman. He is a graduate of Moody Bible Institute and scholar of textual origins. He takes a very enlightening look into the impact that human hands have had on scripture, including the various religious movements that played a role in the evolution of scripture. It's interesting insight and worth a read.
Not long ago (10 years perhaps) more than 60 percent of Americans believed in a literal interpretation. That number has shrunk significantly in that amount of time. According to a 2005 Gallup Poll, 34 percent of Americans believed in a literal interpretation. Our poll of 3,112 respondents revealed that 30 percent held to such an interpretation. Check out the Media Release at: www.thecompassionrevolution.net/media.htm . Just check out the May release.
I've also included information regarding a book entitled, Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman. He is a graduate of Moody Bible Institute and scholar of textual origins. He takes a very enlightening look into the impact that human hands have had on scripture, including the various religious movements that played a role in the evolution of scripture. It's interesting insight and worth a read.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
I've given up...again...
Years ago, I gave up on the idea of being a "fan". At one point, I followed teams, players, actors and other entertainers with great interest...actually, a little bit too much so. A loss by my Yanks or Vols meant few hours of sleep and much disappointment and anxiety. Sure, part of it was a competitive nature and part of it was ego. There was something about seeing "my" team win that seemed to feed ego and subsequently fuel conventional wisdom. Since conventional wisdom is ultimately about measuring up--comparing one to another in an effort to come out "on top", my team's success meant a boost to my ego. That, and hours of sleeplessness, made me realize that maybe being a fan of something or someone, wasn't really in this Human Being's best interest. In other words, the Human side of me which naturally gravitates toward conventional wisdom (because of its social prominence) was overshadowing the Being side that truly didn't give a damn about those things and saw them for what they were: trivial measures.
The Being took over and I left behind much of that competitive spirit connected to being a "fan". Giving up that attachment felt great. Liberating. Freeing. Sure I still went to the football and basketball games. I probably even went to more movies than ever before, and quite frankly, I was having a blast. I began to just enjoy what "is" without being so focused on what it was saying about me.
Then, I slipped. I became a fan once again. I started caring. There were plenty of examples: I reluctantly got behind Lane Kiffin--yes, there was something there that didn't jive with me, but I became a fan. I got behind the basketball Vols...as I always do. The native Hoosier in me even took an interest in Gordon Hayward and Butler's run to the Final Four (which I picked in my bracket by the way: insert pat on back here...see the ego isn't dead yet!). I had bought wholeheartedly, once again, into being a fan.
Sunday morning I realized that my 'fanship' had prompted me to walk hand-in-hand with conventional wisdom again. Further, I was caring...about things that I couldn't possibly control. Things that really could only feed ego, which is a huge component of the conventional. So, when I woke up Sunday morning and was going through some news of the week, there was one tidbit that helped wake me up to this. Gordon Hayward had announced earlier in the week that he was going pro; and it ticked me off.
The logical side of me, said, "Sure...if you're projected late first round and can project next year into a lottery or top five pick--you stay. If you can't (which he probably can't)--you go. There. After all, when all of the Final Four hype around this guy settles, he'll be a role player at best in the NBA...better to capitalize on the hype and sell clubs on the potential upside, right? Sign a seven or eight figure deal and be set, right?"
Okay...it all made sense. Did I feel better? No. I was still ticked. Remember, I had become a fan of this kid. Ordinarily, I don't have a problem with a college guy going pro. If he can secure financial stability for his family in one stroke of the pen, great for him. I took no issue at all with Eric Berry jumping ship. Why did I have such a problem with Hayward? One word: Hypocrisy. Berry was jumping a sinking ship. Number 14 on the 2010 Vols football roster might mean six wins. Ooooh! Did you feel the earth move? No reason to hang around to witness a .500 record and a lame bowl appearance.
Hayward on the other hand is a different story. Butler could have done something special next year. His return would have meant a Top 5 preseason ranking and potentially another run at a Final Four and a national championship. Hayward's obligation to his team did not end with the turning of the seasonal calendar. All this crap about 'team' and the 'guy next to you' was ultimately just bullshit because, ultimately, it was really about him--not his team. Him. His need for the big bucks. It wasn't about his teammate. It was about him and his need for fame and cash. His true colors emerged. The Butler Way quickly merged with the Way Often Traveled. Hayward dashed out of this little boyscout camp he had been promoting in exchange for the Playboy Mansion the second Hugh called. Damn, the little hypocrit! I was ticked. How could he be out there selling this puritanistic, euphoric 'Butler Way' only to leave for the greed of the NBA a mere few whistles later?
Then it hit me. I had become a fan. I cared about him. Just like I had been upset at the way Kiffin treated Vol fans when bolting for the coast. Or, when Tyler Smith et al, was charged with weapon/drug possession on New Year's Day. Instead of enjoying the moment...the 'is' of life...I had, once again, fallen into the ego-driven world of fanship. I had, once again fallen prey to conventional wisdom and it's never ending drive of measuring up to the world around us. After all, we're always communicating by those we're a fan of, right? Yankee and Cub fans make a distinctly different statement about themselves by just being a fan of their respective teams. And suddenly, being a fan of this Gordon guy didn't mean anything special because he was just like everyone else.
Why did I slip? Why did I return to 'fandom'. I don't know. Conventional wisdom is pretty alluring, as it was for Hayward. It has plenty of lures to trap you. The ego inflating whispers come from the mouth of conventional wisdom all the time. It begs you to invest in caring about how you measure up to your neighbor or brother. You have to be richer, drive a nicer car, have a nicer home, a bigger tv. If you don't...well, then you're nothing...yada-yada-yada.
Give me a break! Conventional wisdom has always led to two things: suffering and division. Now, I'm back on track. I've given up...again...on being a fan. Yes, I'll still enjoy sports, movies and music. I'll enjoy them like I love rollercoasters! Knowing full well, that the ride is controlled by someone else. Knowing that there are plenty of peaks and valleys...some at a high rate of speed...but also knowing that stepping on a rollercoaster is just a 3-minute joyride. After all, who would want to live on a rollercoaster! So, Go Yankees. Go Vols and good luck Hayward. I'm not the fan I once was, but rather an interested party just along for the ride and enjoying whatever is.
Thanks for reading...
True
The Being took over and I left behind much of that competitive spirit connected to being a "fan". Giving up that attachment felt great. Liberating. Freeing. Sure I still went to the football and basketball games. I probably even went to more movies than ever before, and quite frankly, I was having a blast. I began to just enjoy what "is" without being so focused on what it was saying about me.
Then, I slipped. I became a fan once again. I started caring. There were plenty of examples: I reluctantly got behind Lane Kiffin--yes, there was something there that didn't jive with me, but I became a fan. I got behind the basketball Vols...as I always do. The native Hoosier in me even took an interest in Gordon Hayward and Butler's run to the Final Four (which I picked in my bracket by the way: insert pat on back here...see the ego isn't dead yet!). I had bought wholeheartedly, once again, into being a fan.
Sunday morning I realized that my 'fanship' had prompted me to walk hand-in-hand with conventional wisdom again. Further, I was caring...about things that I couldn't possibly control. Things that really could only feed ego, which is a huge component of the conventional. So, when I woke up Sunday morning and was going through some news of the week, there was one tidbit that helped wake me up to this. Gordon Hayward had announced earlier in the week that he was going pro; and it ticked me off.
The logical side of me, said, "Sure...if you're projected late first round and can project next year into a lottery or top five pick--you stay. If you can't (which he probably can't)--you go. There. After all, when all of the Final Four hype around this guy settles, he'll be a role player at best in the NBA...better to capitalize on the hype and sell clubs on the potential upside, right? Sign a seven or eight figure deal and be set, right?"
Okay...it all made sense. Did I feel better? No. I was still ticked. Remember, I had become a fan of this kid. Ordinarily, I don't have a problem with a college guy going pro. If he can secure financial stability for his family in one stroke of the pen, great for him. I took no issue at all with Eric Berry jumping ship. Why did I have such a problem with Hayward? One word: Hypocrisy. Berry was jumping a sinking ship. Number 14 on the 2010 Vols football roster might mean six wins. Ooooh! Did you feel the earth move? No reason to hang around to witness a .500 record and a lame bowl appearance.
Hayward on the other hand is a different story. Butler could have done something special next year. His return would have meant a Top 5 preseason ranking and potentially another run at a Final Four and a national championship. Hayward's obligation to his team did not end with the turning of the seasonal calendar. All this crap about 'team' and the 'guy next to you' was ultimately just bullshit because, ultimately, it was really about him--not his team. Him. His need for the big bucks. It wasn't about his teammate. It was about him and his need for fame and cash. His true colors emerged. The Butler Way quickly merged with the Way Often Traveled. Hayward dashed out of this little boyscout camp he had been promoting in exchange for the Playboy Mansion the second Hugh called. Damn, the little hypocrit! I was ticked. How could he be out there selling this puritanistic, euphoric 'Butler Way' only to leave for the greed of the NBA a mere few whistles later?
Then it hit me. I had become a fan. I cared about him. Just like I had been upset at the way Kiffin treated Vol fans when bolting for the coast. Or, when Tyler Smith et al, was charged with weapon/drug possession on New Year's Day. Instead of enjoying the moment...the 'is' of life...I had, once again, fallen into the ego-driven world of fanship. I had, once again fallen prey to conventional wisdom and it's never ending drive of measuring up to the world around us. After all, we're always communicating by those we're a fan of, right? Yankee and Cub fans make a distinctly different statement about themselves by just being a fan of their respective teams. And suddenly, being a fan of this Gordon guy didn't mean anything special because he was just like everyone else.
Why did I slip? Why did I return to 'fandom'. I don't know. Conventional wisdom is pretty alluring, as it was for Hayward. It has plenty of lures to trap you. The ego inflating whispers come from the mouth of conventional wisdom all the time. It begs you to invest in caring about how you measure up to your neighbor or brother. You have to be richer, drive a nicer car, have a nicer home, a bigger tv. If you don't...well, then you're nothing...yada-yada-yada.
Give me a break! Conventional wisdom has always led to two things: suffering and division. Now, I'm back on track. I've given up...again...on being a fan. Yes, I'll still enjoy sports, movies and music. I'll enjoy them like I love rollercoasters! Knowing full well, that the ride is controlled by someone else. Knowing that there are plenty of peaks and valleys...some at a high rate of speed...but also knowing that stepping on a rollercoaster is just a 3-minute joyride. After all, who would want to live on a rollercoaster! So, Go Yankees. Go Vols and good luck Hayward. I'm not the fan I once was, but rather an interested party just along for the ride and enjoying whatever is.
Thanks for reading...
True
Thursday, April 8, 2010
The Butler Way
You see the t-shirt to the left. Yeah, I picked that team to make the Final Four. I'm not bragging or anything...okay, okay...I AM very much bragging because short of the parents of Gordon Hayward, himself, I don't know anyone who picked the Bulldogs. Therefore, my bracket, which hailed Butler to emerge from the West Region, was something of a rarity. Yes, they were my sleeper pick and a well-researched one. I'm a native Hoosier, so I was already familiar with the Butler program. I started following them during one of the holiday tournaments over Thanksgiving and had been impressed in the ten games or so that I had seen since that time. Plus, my Vols took them out in the 2008 NCAA Tournament, so they were officially in my good graces as my second favorite hoops team (sorry U of L), so it was a fun pick as well.
I can already see the first question forming in your head: Why are you blogging about basketball when you generally write about spiritual issues? Good question. One of focal points of the Compassion Revolution, and specifically Revolution II The Parables, is shedding light on man's conventional wisdom versus Jesus' radical thinking...how fundamentalistic ideology has emerged from conventional wisdom, while often missing the point of Jesus' alternative wisdom altogether. What I see from Butler defies the conventional thinking that is so prominent in college basketball today. Butler is, indeed, a throw back to a more pure day in college athletics, but it's more than that.
I think back to one of Coach Stevens' press conference during that great tournament run. He basically said that, "Yes, this has been great for the program, but it's not really going to change the program significantly. We're still going to recruit kids that fit their philosophy: The Butler Way."
Hmm...that's different...radically different. Usually when a surprise team that is not in the perennial ranks of college basketball's elite makes the Final Four, that program's attitude is summed up in one word: CAPITALIZE! In other words, use that Final Four appearance to promote the program to attract some of those four and five star recruits that had previously slipped through the ole fingers. For example, consider two very good programs: Marquette and Maryland--two schools with solid basketball traditions but not among the Kentucky's, North Carolina's and Dukes of the hoops scene. Marquette used its 2003 Final Four appearance to nab a solid recruting class that same year; and Maryland's 2002 title, netted it five 4-star recruits, even though over the next four years, that group could muster only an ACC Tournament Title as a six seed in 2004. The point: Capitalize...those programs are just two instances of using that sudden burst of attention and fame to take their program to the "next level" and position it among the elite in the game.
That philosophy may be college basketball's conventional wisdom, but it's not Butler's. Their thinking is far more radical. "We're just going to keep being who we are..." "Keep recruiting kids that buy into the Butler Way" What? No money to be pumped into new practice facilities or arenas? No woo-ing those elite kids to keep the money pumping in from another hopeful tournament run? Wow. That's refreshing and quite a throw back to a time when big budgets weren't that importa...wait, I'm not really old enough to remember a time when college basketball wasn't as much about the cash as it is now.
With that in mind, "Thanks, Butler! Thanks, Coach Stevens and Gordon Hayward et al." Yeah, I was pretty sick when Hayward's prayer rimmed out. Sick to see a great story that just didn't end right. Sick to see how depressed Hayward, Mack and Jukes were in their post game press conference. Sick to watch Duke celebrate a championship that could have easily belonged to the underdog Bulldogs. But--I perked up when I heard Coach Stevens' comments. I realized that maybe conventional wisdom had yet to conquer the world of college basketball completely and that maybe, just maybe there were still a few throw backs out there...a few radical-thinking throw backs!
Thanks for reading...
True
I can already see the first question forming in your head: Why are you blogging about basketball when you generally write about spiritual issues? Good question. One of focal points of the Compassion Revolution, and specifically Revolution II The Parables, is shedding light on man's conventional wisdom versus Jesus' radical thinking...how fundamentalistic ideology has emerged from conventional wisdom, while often missing the point of Jesus' alternative wisdom altogether. What I see from Butler defies the conventional thinking that is so prominent in college basketball today. Butler is, indeed, a throw back to a more pure day in college athletics, but it's more than that.
I think back to one of Coach Stevens' press conference during that great tournament run. He basically said that, "Yes, this has been great for the program, but it's not really going to change the program significantly. We're still going to recruit kids that fit their philosophy: The Butler Way."
Hmm...that's different...radically different. Usually when a surprise team that is not in the perennial ranks of college basketball's elite makes the Final Four, that program's attitude is summed up in one word: CAPITALIZE! In other words, use that Final Four appearance to promote the program to attract some of those four and five star recruits that had previously slipped through the ole fingers. For example, consider two very good programs: Marquette and Maryland--two schools with solid basketball traditions but not among the Kentucky's, North Carolina's and Dukes of the hoops scene. Marquette used its 2003 Final Four appearance to nab a solid recruting class that same year; and Maryland's 2002 title, netted it five 4-star recruits, even though over the next four years, that group could muster only an ACC Tournament Title as a six seed in 2004. The point: Capitalize...those programs are just two instances of using that sudden burst of attention and fame to take their program to the "next level" and position it among the elite in the game.
That philosophy may be college basketball's conventional wisdom, but it's not Butler's. Their thinking is far more radical. "We're just going to keep being who we are..." "Keep recruiting kids that buy into the Butler Way" What? No money to be pumped into new practice facilities or arenas? No woo-ing those elite kids to keep the money pumping in from another hopeful tournament run? Wow. That's refreshing and quite a throw back to a time when big budgets weren't that importa...wait, I'm not really old enough to remember a time when college basketball wasn't as much about the cash as it is now.
With that in mind, "Thanks, Butler! Thanks, Coach Stevens and Gordon Hayward et al." Yeah, I was pretty sick when Hayward's prayer rimmed out. Sick to see a great story that just didn't end right. Sick to see how depressed Hayward, Mack and Jukes were in their post game press conference. Sick to watch Duke celebrate a championship that could have easily belonged to the underdog Bulldogs. But--I perked up when I heard Coach Stevens' comments. I realized that maybe conventional wisdom had yet to conquer the world of college basketball completely and that maybe, just maybe there were still a few throw backs out there...a few radical-thinking throw backs!
Thanks for reading...
True
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
2009 Religion & You Survey Part I--Media Release now available
We've broken the assessment of the 2009 Religion & You survey into three parts to be released to the media and available on the website incrementally. The first part was released last week and the second part is scheduled to be released sometime this week. The link for the first part of the assessment is below...
www.thecompassionrevolution.net/media_release4.htm
Thanks,
True
www.thecompassionrevolution.net/media_release4.htm
Thanks,
True
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Aimless rambling...
Hello All!
Yes, this is me rambling: BLAH...blah...blah...blah...BLAAAAH! Yeah, I'm in the mood to blog...to write something and that was my plan today for the "Compassion Revolution" part of the show. BUT...and this is a big ole but...I've got nothin'.
Yeah, life would be full of drama if I bought into that sort of thing. There are any number of issues requiring ego and it's appeal to conventional wisdom that could spark me, but I really just don't buy into drama.
It's been a busy day. A few meetings...one canceled...my movie tonight was canceled. Tomorrow will be quite busy and could be a little stressful if I choose to buy into that (which I doubt that I'll do).
I went to Brixx for lunch and will probably work on that for dinner. I still have some reading to do: 1) Social Media Bible; 2) Misquoting Jesus; 3) A New Earth (second time through). That will probably close out my day before going into complete chill mode, I s'pose!
I guess I could address some recent e-mails. Same ole stuff really: "You're not Christian!" Yes, I do consider myself Christian--if I must put a man-made label on something very difficult to tag. But no, I'm not one who buys into a literal interpretation of scripture or uses the Bible as a weapon to prove a personal opinion. But yes, I do adhere to the wisdom teachings of Jesus and embrace all of manking with love and compassion.
Let's see, what else? Eh...that will do for now. Maybe I'll get inspired a little later and get in another post. Thanks for listening...
True
Yes, this is me rambling: BLAH...blah...blah...blah...BLAAAAH! Yeah, I'm in the mood to blog...to write something and that was my plan today for the "Compassion Revolution" part of the show. BUT...and this is a big ole but...I've got nothin'.
Yeah, life would be full of drama if I bought into that sort of thing. There are any number of issues requiring ego and it's appeal to conventional wisdom that could spark me, but I really just don't buy into drama.
It's been a busy day. A few meetings...one canceled...my movie tonight was canceled. Tomorrow will be quite busy and could be a little stressful if I choose to buy into that (which I doubt that I'll do).
I went to Brixx for lunch and will probably work on that for dinner. I still have some reading to do: 1) Social Media Bible; 2) Misquoting Jesus; 3) A New Earth (second time through). That will probably close out my day before going into complete chill mode, I s'pose!
I guess I could address some recent e-mails. Same ole stuff really: "You're not Christian!" Yes, I do consider myself Christian--if I must put a man-made label on something very difficult to tag. But no, I'm not one who buys into a literal interpretation of scripture or uses the Bible as a weapon to prove a personal opinion. But yes, I do adhere to the wisdom teachings of Jesus and embrace all of manking with love and compassion.
Let's see, what else? Eh...that will do for now. Maybe I'll get inspired a little later and get in another post. Thanks for listening...
True
Monday, March 1, 2010
Really, Tiger? Really?
I sat on this topic for more than a week: the Tiger Woods' apology. It really bothered me at the time, but since so many people were up-in-arms with expectant anticipation to hear the man say "soooorry!", I thought I should wait and let this one stir in my noggin for awhile.
With ten days torn off of the calendar since Tiger's trip to the podium of remorse, I'm still troubled. Why did you or I need an apology from Tiger. Admittedly, while I am a big sports fan, I am not a golf fan. Sure, I know what Tiger means to the sport from a marketing standpoint. Yes, I realize he is one of the best golfers of all time. And yes, I understand why some of his sponsoring company's would be inclined to back away from him as a spokesperson. But a public apology because the man can't keep it in his pants...Really? Really? Really?
Since I was not a fan of the man's or an avid golfer for that matter, I thought that I could go on my merry way without so much as an "oops!" from Tiger. Then I thought... "Well, True, what if this had been Peyton Manning or Bruce Pearl or Derek Jeter?" What if this had happened to a sports figure that you truly cared about and followed? After much consideration, my response is the same: They wouldn't owe me an apology and neither does Tiger. After all, at no time was I forced to chase Tiger and one of his NSA affairs out of my living room (at least I don't think that was him!!!) Quite frankly, it's none of my business.
The part that really bothers me about this recent media feeding frenzy is this: people feel as if they are owed an apology by a man whose actions have not impacted them whatsoever. Sure, if I were a big fan of his, I would be upset that his string of affairs prompted him to back away from the game. Even so, I really think I would just cover up my Tiger bumper sticker with a new Phil Mickelson bumper sticker. No apology needed.
I'm struggling to figure out who might have the bigger ego: Tiger or mankind. The apology to be rightfully delivered by Tiger would need to be made to his wife and kids. At least that would be my expectation if I were a person in that circle. Sure, for good measure, Tiger should reach out to his sponsors to say, "Folks, I blew it!" Other than that...his bedroom, his business.
Why does society feel as if it is owed a formal, 'press conferenced' apology for someone's infidelity? Honestly, I don't think it does. I think that, in general, people have boring sex lives and get hyped about this kind of story to satisfy some narcissistic voyeurism. I mean, come on...should we now look for a mad rush to podiums across the nation in search of apologies from guys who can't keep it zipped? Don't most of us have day jobs and not enough time to listen to that mundane and endless parade?
Compassion dictates a loving understanding for all. It means helping those involved deal with the wrongs perpetrated in a way that promotes harmony and healing. Tiger needs to come to a recognition of exactly how harmful his actions were to those that he had made a commitment of fidelity. He needs to take actions that will ensure a similar betrayal will not occur again. As for his wife and kids, they need love and understanding as well, to help them deal with the anger and betrayal they experienced. Most of all they need space and time to heal.
To to Tiger, I say, "Make things as right as possible to your family and good luck to you." Nothing else is really my business.
True
With ten days torn off of the calendar since Tiger's trip to the podium of remorse, I'm still troubled. Why did you or I need an apology from Tiger. Admittedly, while I am a big sports fan, I am not a golf fan. Sure, I know what Tiger means to the sport from a marketing standpoint. Yes, I realize he is one of the best golfers of all time. And yes, I understand why some of his sponsoring company's would be inclined to back away from him as a spokesperson. But a public apology because the man can't keep it in his pants...Really? Really? Really?
Since I was not a fan of the man's or an avid golfer for that matter, I thought that I could go on my merry way without so much as an "oops!" from Tiger. Then I thought... "Well, True, what if this had been Peyton Manning or Bruce Pearl or Derek Jeter?" What if this had happened to a sports figure that you truly cared about and followed? After much consideration, my response is the same: They wouldn't owe me an apology and neither does Tiger. After all, at no time was I forced to chase Tiger and one of his NSA affairs out of my living room (at least I don't think that was him!!!) Quite frankly, it's none of my business.
The part that really bothers me about this recent media feeding frenzy is this: people feel as if they are owed an apology by a man whose actions have not impacted them whatsoever. Sure, if I were a big fan of his, I would be upset that his string of affairs prompted him to back away from the game. Even so, I really think I would just cover up my Tiger bumper sticker with a new Phil Mickelson bumper sticker. No apology needed.
I'm struggling to figure out who might have the bigger ego: Tiger or mankind. The apology to be rightfully delivered by Tiger would need to be made to his wife and kids. At least that would be my expectation if I were a person in that circle. Sure, for good measure, Tiger should reach out to his sponsors to say, "Folks, I blew it!" Other than that...his bedroom, his business.
Why does society feel as if it is owed a formal, 'press conferenced' apology for someone's infidelity? Honestly, I don't think it does. I think that, in general, people have boring sex lives and get hyped about this kind of story to satisfy some narcissistic voyeurism. I mean, come on...should we now look for a mad rush to podiums across the nation in search of apologies from guys who can't keep it zipped? Don't most of us have day jobs and not enough time to listen to that mundane and endless parade?
Compassion dictates a loving understanding for all. It means helping those involved deal with the wrongs perpetrated in a way that promotes harmony and healing. Tiger needs to come to a recognition of exactly how harmful his actions were to those that he had made a commitment of fidelity. He needs to take actions that will ensure a similar betrayal will not occur again. As for his wife and kids, they need love and understanding as well, to help them deal with the anger and betrayal they experienced. Most of all they need space and time to heal.
To to Tiger, I say, "Make things as right as possible to your family and good luck to you." Nothing else is really my business.
True
Thursday, January 21, 2010
The Art of Unreasonable Religion
It starts with an ego. Ego then quickly evolves with such strong attachment to an idea that one finds himself or herself carving out an identity based on said attachment. As such, we find ourselves often defending a certain position because we are, in essence, defending our own identities.
The sports world provides a good example. I'm a Tennessee fan. For more than a year, Big Orange faithful defended Lane Kiffin. Kiffin, dubbed as the 'mouth of the south', often made comments that were embarrassing to the fan base. His comments would often be utterly inaccurate or obnoxiously arrogant. No one really complained about this, until his hasty departure earlier this month. Why? Because he was wearing orange...because, while he was a brash, immature, smart-ass who had never really accomplished anything on the football field but idle chatter, he was "OUR" brash, immature, smart-ass. Our identities were closely attached to Tennessee football and he was Tennessee football's top dog.
We see the same type of identities being formed in regard to religion. We define ourselves through our chosen faith. We feel comfortable with those who share that identity and often feel uncomfortable around people who do not.
I was born and raised in that belief system but eventually had too many issues with the illogical platform...with the inconsistencies and errors in scripture and with the influence of the various sect movements that was evident in the Bible. For me, it all added up to a new spiritual path that was still very much embracing of the wisdom presented through genuine Jesus teachings, but not exclusive to that path or the 'believe in me' message that evolved through the Christian movement.
Recently, I've been involved in Discussion Boards and through e-mails with fundamentalist Christians. I routinely see people worshipping the Bible more so than the God that inspired it. I see people incorrectly using scripture as a way to lend divine authority to a personal opinion while missing the point of that scripture altogether. Bottom line: I see people embracing the art of unreasonable religion.
In the course of these e-mail discussions, I point to the inconsistencies or errors in scriptures. Those thoughts are ignored completely by those I'm engaging. When I bring context, culture, custom and language considerations to the texts...again, these thoughts are blatantly ignored. I presume the deaf ear is lent to maintain a status quo centered on the unreasonable.
Why? That's not a rhetorical question, because frankly, I don't really have an answer. One thought comes to mind. Personal identities are so wrapped up in a chosen religious path, that any notion that does not support that path--even if that thought is far more logical than what has been previously believed--is considered to be an attack on one's personal identity. Therefore, a move is made to defend--to expel a more reasonable path, even if you're defending a position that is clearly indefensible. Sounds like a step toward madness, hey?
More than 2,500 years ago, a man recognized the madness of man and enlightened many, continuing to do so to this day. That man was Gautama Siddhartha, also known as the Buddha, or "awakened one". He recognized the suffering that man had made out of life through such a strong connection to conventional wisdom--through obtaining things or finding fulfillment through social ideals, such as status, etc.
I think ultimately what he taught us was that the first step toward sanity is recognizing one's insanity. To me, that meant pushing away from the art of unreasonable religion and seeking a path of true and intimate connection to God. It meant recognizing the wisdom from an enlightened few guides, such as Jesus, Muhammad, Lao Tzu and Buddha. It meant railing against complete self-identification with the spirit guide and a complete embracing of the journey and every brother and sister along the way.
Maybe one day, we humans can awaken to the idea that our identities do not have to be wrapped up in a 'belief system' and we can begin embracing each other and our world. It's a path that creates far more peace... a lot more happiness, and might even put the human race on a journey toward sanity.
Best wishes to all...
True
The sports world provides a good example. I'm a Tennessee fan. For more than a year, Big Orange faithful defended Lane Kiffin. Kiffin, dubbed as the 'mouth of the south', often made comments that were embarrassing to the fan base. His comments would often be utterly inaccurate or obnoxiously arrogant. No one really complained about this, until his hasty departure earlier this month. Why? Because he was wearing orange...because, while he was a brash, immature, smart-ass who had never really accomplished anything on the football field but idle chatter, he was "OUR" brash, immature, smart-ass. Our identities were closely attached to Tennessee football and he was Tennessee football's top dog.
We see the same type of identities being formed in regard to religion. We define ourselves through our chosen faith. We feel comfortable with those who share that identity and often feel uncomfortable around people who do not.
I was born and raised in that belief system but eventually had too many issues with the illogical platform...with the inconsistencies and errors in scripture and with the influence of the various sect movements that was evident in the Bible. For me, it all added up to a new spiritual path that was still very much embracing of the wisdom presented through genuine Jesus teachings, but not exclusive to that path or the 'believe in me' message that evolved through the Christian movement.
Recently, I've been involved in Discussion Boards and through e-mails with fundamentalist Christians. I routinely see people worshipping the Bible more so than the God that inspired it. I see people incorrectly using scripture as a way to lend divine authority to a personal opinion while missing the point of that scripture altogether. Bottom line: I see people embracing the art of unreasonable religion.
In the course of these e-mail discussions, I point to the inconsistencies or errors in scriptures. Those thoughts are ignored completely by those I'm engaging. When I bring context, culture, custom and language considerations to the texts...again, these thoughts are blatantly ignored. I presume the deaf ear is lent to maintain a status quo centered on the unreasonable.
Why? That's not a rhetorical question, because frankly, I don't really have an answer. One thought comes to mind. Personal identities are so wrapped up in a chosen religious path, that any notion that does not support that path--even if that thought is far more logical than what has been previously believed--is considered to be an attack on one's personal identity. Therefore, a move is made to defend--to expel a more reasonable path, even if you're defending a position that is clearly indefensible. Sounds like a step toward madness, hey?
More than 2,500 years ago, a man recognized the madness of man and enlightened many, continuing to do so to this day. That man was Gautama Siddhartha, also known as the Buddha, or "awakened one". He recognized the suffering that man had made out of life through such a strong connection to conventional wisdom--through obtaining things or finding fulfillment through social ideals, such as status, etc.
I think ultimately what he taught us was that the first step toward sanity is recognizing one's insanity. To me, that meant pushing away from the art of unreasonable religion and seeking a path of true and intimate connection to God. It meant recognizing the wisdom from an enlightened few guides, such as Jesus, Muhammad, Lao Tzu and Buddha. It meant railing against complete self-identification with the spirit guide and a complete embracing of the journey and every brother and sister along the way.
Maybe one day, we humans can awaken to the idea that our identities do not have to be wrapped up in a 'belief system' and we can begin embracing each other and our world. It's a path that creates far more peace... a lot more happiness, and might even put the human race on a journey toward sanity.
Best wishes to all...
True
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Helping Haiti
The Compassion Revolution offers thoughts of empathy and concern over the horrible situation taking place in Haiti. Should you wish to donate money to the relief efforts, the following three links should help:
www.interaction.org/article/interaction-members-respond-earthquake-haiti
http://www.volunteerhoward.org/
www.redcross.org
Remember to always make sure that your donation is going to an organization directly involved in the relief efforts. These two organizations are either active in the relief efforts or can point you in the right direction to give help.
Thanks,
True
www.interaction.org/article/interaction-members-respond-earthquake-haiti
http://www.volunteerhoward.org/
www.redcross.org
Remember to always make sure that your donation is going to an organization directly involved in the relief efforts. These two organizations are either active in the relief efforts or can point you in the right direction to give help.
Thanks,
True
Friday, January 8, 2010
Missionary Position
Hello All!
I'm back from a wonderful holiday season. It was a vacation that included everything from playing great games with my nieces (from Things to Wii--and yes, I did manage a couple of wins in Just Dance on the Wii, thank you very much!) to great wine and conversation with my sister and bro-in-law; plus, time with other family and friends made it difficult to return to the grind, but alas...
It is good to be back and settled into the New Year. I wanted to address some criticism (which I love btw, so keep it coming) to start 2010 on the right note. Yes, it's true, I have often been critical of organized religion for often turning Jesus' message of love and compassion into a revamped set of rules and requirements...for evolving with legalism that has fed the conventional thinking of man, while shuffling past the radical wisdom of the religion's cornerstone...and for creating "God monopoly" within some churches, as they claim to have concrete answers to quite abstract thought.
I certainly stand by those thoughts and will until we see legalism exchanged for compassion...when we experience Jesus' radical ideology and philosophy of agape replace the "measuring up standards" wrought through conventional wisdom...and, when all faiths are given respect with the old "we're in--you're out" mentality being swept away from religious practice. HOWEVER--with that being said, if one truly experiences a special connection, relationship or intimacy with the Sacred through a church--by all means...GO...camp out in the parking lot the night before, if needed, but have that experience.
One e-mail that I received recently asked me about the need for missionary work and the vitality of spreading "God's Word" through the church. The comment was prompted by a section in my book (Revolution). It was a story that I shared from my youth. As a 10-year old, I had told my Mom that if people who had not been exposed to the "Jesus message" would not be sent to hell, but those who had received that message and dismissed it would be, why then, would missionaries...rather than telling the Jesus story, shouldn't they instead tell their subjects to run screaming if anyone mentioned the name "Jesus"?
Of course, that did not go over well with my Mother or that particular reader. She pointed out the wonderful work and help that missionaries often provide in the giving spirit of Christianity. I agree.
I have a friend who often goes to Honduras to help the inhabitants there with housing, planting and general work. It's a wonderful effort with Compassion at the heart of the journey. I love that. What I don't connect with is the idea that a group from one culture is going into another culture with much self-righteous, ego-centrism to offer help in exchange for the opportunity to tell them what they need to believe spiritually--because it's what they have always believed.
My missionary position (yes, pun intended) is that: Yes, good work can be done through missionary work. However, the focus of such efforts should be to offer needed assistance while respectfully embracing each other's cultural ideas. That type of effort would truly embrace Jesus' ideas of love and compassion. That kind of work needs to be done the world over.
I'm back from a wonderful holiday season. It was a vacation that included everything from playing great games with my nieces (from Things to Wii--and yes, I did manage a couple of wins in Just Dance on the Wii, thank you very much!) to great wine and conversation with my sister and bro-in-law; plus, time with other family and friends made it difficult to return to the grind, but alas...
It is good to be back and settled into the New Year. I wanted to address some criticism (which I love btw, so keep it coming) to start 2010 on the right note. Yes, it's true, I have often been critical of organized religion for often turning Jesus' message of love and compassion into a revamped set of rules and requirements...for evolving with legalism that has fed the conventional thinking of man, while shuffling past the radical wisdom of the religion's cornerstone...and for creating "God monopoly" within some churches, as they claim to have concrete answers to quite abstract thought.
I certainly stand by those thoughts and will until we see legalism exchanged for compassion...when we experience Jesus' radical ideology and philosophy of agape replace the "measuring up standards" wrought through conventional wisdom...and, when all faiths are given respect with the old "we're in--you're out" mentality being swept away from religious practice. HOWEVER--with that being said, if one truly experiences a special connection, relationship or intimacy with the Sacred through a church--by all means...GO...camp out in the parking lot the night before, if needed, but have that experience.
One e-mail that I received recently asked me about the need for missionary work and the vitality of spreading "God's Word" through the church. The comment was prompted by a section in my book (Revolution). It was a story that I shared from my youth. As a 10-year old, I had told my Mom that if people who had not been exposed to the "Jesus message" would not be sent to hell, but those who had received that message and dismissed it would be, why then, would missionaries...rather than telling the Jesus story, shouldn't they instead tell their subjects to run screaming if anyone mentioned the name "Jesus"?
Of course, that did not go over well with my Mother or that particular reader. She pointed out the wonderful work and help that missionaries often provide in the giving spirit of Christianity. I agree.
I have a friend who often goes to Honduras to help the inhabitants there with housing, planting and general work. It's a wonderful effort with Compassion at the heart of the journey. I love that. What I don't connect with is the idea that a group from one culture is going into another culture with much self-righteous, ego-centrism to offer help in exchange for the opportunity to tell them what they need to believe spiritually--because it's what they have always believed.
My missionary position (yes, pun intended) is that: Yes, good work can be done through missionary work. However, the focus of such efforts should be to offer needed assistance while respectfully embracing each other's cultural ideas. That type of effort would truly embrace Jesus' ideas of love and compassion. That kind of work needs to be done the world over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
