Saturday, 06 February 2010
-
5 Consequences
In 1835, Charles Finney published Lectures on Revivals of Religion. One of my favorite sections is a lengthy list of "Consequences of Having the Spirit." Here are five of my favorite.- You will be called eccentric; and probably you will deserve it. Probably you will really be eccentric. I never knew a person who was filled with the spirit, that was not called eccentric. And the reason is, that you are unlike other people...
- ...It is not unlikely you will be thought deranged, by many. We judge men to be deranged, when they act differently from what we think to be prudent and according to common sense, and when they come to conclusions for which we can see no good reasons...
- ...You must expect to feel great distress in view of the church and the world. Some spiritual epicures ask for the spirit because they think it will make them happy. Some people think that spiritual Christians are always very happy and free from sorrow. There never was a greater mistake...
- You will be often grieved with the state of the ministry... Christians often get spiritual views of things, and their souls are kindled up, and then they find that their minister does not enter into their feelings, that he is far below the standard of what he ought to be, and in spirituality far below some of the members of his church...
- ...You must make up your mind to have very much opposition, both in the church and the world. Very likely the leading men in the church will oppose you.
What do you think? Are these common consequences of a life led by God? Which of these have you seen manifested in your own life? To non-Christians, which of these do you think is most lacking in the church community?
-NDSR
Friday, 05 February 2010
-
Words for all times
The white chrysanthemumThe tradition of Japanese poetry is probably the most amazing literature that we possess. Its subtlety and complexity in the midst of simplicity is unparalleled. No other form of writing has remained so fundamentally cohesive over the course of centuries. A brief look at the evolution of American poetry in just two hundred years shows wild variance, while we can see over a thousand years of cohesive tradition in the Japanese corpus.
Is disguised by the first frost.
If I wanted to pick one
I could find it only by chance.- Oshikochi No Mitsune
Out in the marsh reeds
A bird cries out in sorrow,
As though it had recalled
Something better forgotten.- Ki No Tsurayuki
I have always known
That at last I would
Take this road, but yesterday
I did not know that it would be today.- NarihiraIn this forlorn state
I find life dreary indeed:
If a stream beckoned,
I would gladly cut my roots
And float away like duckweed
- Ono No Komachi
A strange old man
Stops me,
Looking out of my deep mirror.- Hitomaro
Kenneth Rexroth, translator of all the above poems except the fourth (taken from Kathleen McCollough's translation of the Kokinshu), has said, "It is possible to claim that Japanese poetry is purer, more essentially poetic," than other forms of poetry. "Certainly," he says, "It is less distracted by non-poetic considerations."
My favorite of the above poems is the last one, which stopped me dead when I read it the first time. I have scrawled in the paperback book I found it in, "When will this happen to me?"
What do you think? What is your favorite form of poetry? What do these poems say to you?
-NDSR
Thursday, 04 February 2010
-
Impractical scriptures
It is amazing to me that we can continue to discuss ambiguous matters like Christian participation in the military or Christian support of the free market, while the clear and inarguable expectations for the discipleship community (that is, the church) is already so remarkable. The above quotation from 1 Corinthians is a small example.
Does any of you who has a complaint against someone dare go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the discipleship community? Or do you not know that the church will judge the world [in the end]? And if the world is judged by you, are you not worthy to judge the smallest cases? Do you not know that we will even judge angels—let alone the things pertaining to this life? So if you have cases pertaining to this life, do you select those who have no standing in the church to judge? I say this to your shame! Can it be that there is not one wise person among you who will be able to arbitrate between his brothers? Instead, brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers!
Therefore, it is already a total defeat for you that you have lawsuits against one another. Why not rather put up with injustice? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you act unjustly and cheat—and this to your brothers! [src]
Maybe pacifists are crazy to expect Christians not to defend themselves, but St. Paul is clearly just as crazy, whether he would agree with the pacifists or not. The church is a community that stands above the legal system! In the eschaton, the church will judge the nations! If we believe this, then why would we rely on the nations to judge us now? No Christian should ever need to sue another believer, because both should defer to the wisdom of the community to resolve their differences. And if no satisfactory resolution can be reached, or if one is in rebellion and will not listen to the voice of the community, then it is expected that a disciple of Christ would rather suffer injustice than take another to court.
This is not the sort of ethics that can be universalized and applied to society in general. Only the church is capable of living this way, because only the church is such an eschatalogically significant community, because only the church is gathered in faith around Jesus.
What are we to do with such impractical scriptures? What kind of implications do such radical expectations have for discussions that do involve ambiguity, such as pacifism vs. just-war, or the divorce question? How should Christians who are part of congregations that disregard this clear teaching attempt to live by it?
-NDSR
Tuesday, 02 February 2010
-
It is very important to me that I be controlled by nothing but myself and the love of God.
How else can I consider myself free?
-ND
Monday, 01 February 2010
-
Preferring Martyrdom
In a recent, very articulate post, Agnophilo described his difficulty with the notion of Christians embracing martyrdom. If God can be understood in terms of a divine parent, his argument goes, wouldn't he much rather you disingenuously recant your faith and go on living than foolishly take a stand that will see you killed to no end? What kind of parent wouldn't understand a child parroting the phrase, "My parents are awful people and I hate them" to save their own life?
I don't want to challenge Agnophilo on those terms. I imagine parents would be understanding in those circumstances; I imagine God would be understanding. I would certainly not attempt to show Agnophilo that he's wrong, when he's so clearly right. But I do want to work a little deconstruction on the idea of martyrdom that Agnophilo and his detractors presuppose. So here are some problems with this account of martyrdom that in turn reveal some reasons that martyrdom has long been a Christian pastime.The situation - The entire setup of the situation is problematic. There are rare occasions when a lone assailant has a gun to the head of a Christian and says, "Do you believe in God? Well, do you?" One thinks of Columbine High, for instance. But even in these rare situations, it is doubtful whether a quick, calculated recanting of the faith would save a life. Martyrdom more often resembles either the death of Oscar Romero, shot to death while residing over Mass in 1980, or Paul of Tarsus, who was executed by the Roman Empire in 68 CE. Very rarely, if ever, in the history of Christian martyrdom has there been an option to pay lip service to the assailant's ideology and then continuing on in a Christian lifestyle. Martyrdom is nearly universally the result of a regime (including at times Christendom itself) being threatened by a community conformed to the gospel. What the gunman is looking for is not an admission to "not believing in God," but an act of worship. When martyrdom is thus rightly understood, a number of reasons are revealed for Christians to prefer martyrdom to disavowal.
Fidelity - The fidelity that is inherent in preferring martyrdom goes beyond mere honesty. It is not just a matter of refusing to lie and agree to whatever the coercive power is demanding; it is a matter of having been shaped into the kind of person who provokes the violence of some rebellious power and nonetheless remaining faithful to the one who so shaped us. We will be faithful to the God who has been faithful to us.
Death of death - Though Christians embrace life, we cling to it loosely, for it is merely a means to a more important end, which is friendship with God. Since we know that death will not separate us from the love of God, we have no reason to fear death. This further breaks down the metaphor with earthly parents, as death in that case would be a separation from the parent, while for the Christian death is only to "depart and be with Christ, which is better by far."
Exposing the powers - Another major aspect of the Christian's willingness to prefer martyrdom is that in the cross and resurrection, Jesus exposed that the final weapon at the disposal of all tyrants, big or small, has no power to coerce. In refusing to be cowed by these powers, we trust in the ultimate power of God, the same God who vindicated Jesus in his resurrection. As Stanley Hauerwas has said, "Governors and kings understand those who would violently overthrow them. What they cannot face is the power of a people who refuse to fear them because they rightly fear God."
Efficacy - One of those commenting on Agnophilo's post said this: "Seems to me it wouldn't get very far. I mean if everyone's willing to die then who can spread the faith? I'd think they'd rather live to see another day and make another convert." Which is a very practical and commonsense approach, which paradoxically turns out to be exactly wrong. As Tertullian put it in the 2nd century, "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." Martyrdom and persecution generally lead to more converts, not fewer.
Having looked at this handful of aspects, it becomes clear that far from being an optional, unnecessary and foolish distraction from Christian living, the willingness for martyrdom is in fact right there in the middle of it. There is not too much zeal for martyrdom but, perhaps, too little. We in America are not concerned about martyrdom perhaps because we are not concerned about truth-telling and cruciformity sufficiently that we constitute any threat to those regimes that exist in rebellion to the Kingdom of God. They wouldn't waste their violence on us.
What do you think? Is a willingness to die a martyr's death an example of foolish boastfulness, or central to the way of discipleship? Is there an unhealthy attachment to the idea of dying a martyr's death? And if the implausible happened and you had the gun to your head, how would it go?
-NDSR
Saturday, 30 January 2010
-
Born again daily
One of the greatest feelings of my daily life is that of waking up with my thoughts amorphous and dull, as much dream as anything else, and then slowly, over the course of the next few minutes, shaping those thoughts, refining them, rejecting the distracted or dream-time elements and forming what's left into a coherent whole.
It makes me feel alive.
-NDSR
Thursday, 28 January 2010
-
America's Conscience (1922-2010)
Howard Zinn, professor, author and activist, died yesterday, just one week after receiving the New York University's MLK Humanitarian Award.
Zinn was a towering figure in revisionist history, in civil-rights movements (including MLK's) and in my own political and moral development. I was first introduced to Zinn's thought through a collection of essays on the "founding" of America by Europeans, which included the opening chapter to his magnum opus A People's History of the United States, which took the radical step of retelling the history of the U.S. not from the perspective of the power-brokers, but of the perspective of the common person.
I could go on about Howard Zinn, his work and his thought. But I don't want to do that right now. Right now, you should do yourself a favor and read some Zinn. He will challenge you and change you.
As he put it in his autobiography,From the start, my teaching was infused with my own history. I would try to be fair to other points of view, but I wanted more than 'objectivity'; I wanted students to leave my classes not just better informed, but more prepared to relinquish the safety of silence, more prepared to speak up, to act against injustice wherever they saw it. This, of course, was a recipe for trouble.
Thank you, Howard Zinn, for the challenge.
Rest in Peace.
-NDSR
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
-
Would you loan me 25 bucks?
To end global poverty?
That's the central idea behind micro-financial institutions, which allow everyday people to invest their money in loans to the poorest of the world's poor.
Normally, banks do not deal in small loans, because it is comparatively unprofitable. A bank makes the same in interest off of one hundred $20 loans as it does from one $2000, but with twenty times the investment of time and labor to process them. What's more, most of those living in poverty have no credit or collateral that a bank could rely on. Without legitimate means of acquiring capital, those in poverty can do nothing but survive at a subsistence level, without opportunity to better their own situation through entrepreneurship and investment.
This is where the micro-financial institutions come in. They deal exclusively in small loans to those banks normally do not deal with. And they get their capital from everyday investors like you and me.
So here is an actual example. Victor was an unsuccessful fisherman in Lima, Peru. One day, a woman gave him a piglet as a gift. He was reluctant to take it, thinking it would be a drain on his tight resources, but he ended up taking it, raising it to maturity, slaughtering it himself, frying it and selling it. He was shocked to find that it was a much better investment than fishing ever was. So he used the money to buy more pigs. Now, he needs 855 soles ($300 USD) to build a corral for his pigs so he can raise enough pigs to run a restaurant.
A local MFI called Microfinanzas Prisma will loan him the money if it can collect it from investors. Here is where you come in. If you think Victor's pig corral is a good investment, you can loan him a few bucks, as little as $25, through an American non-profit called Kiva. In the end, you will get your money back (this ain't charity), and Victor will be in a better position to support his family and employ others in his community.
Here is a video of former President Bill Clinton gushing over the capacity this model has for ending poverty in our lifetime. (Skip to :40 for the relevant bit.)
Many politicians, economists and church leaders are equally excited about the capacity for micro-loans to radically alter the poverty landscape without need for charity or government aid. Others, however, express doubt or outright disdain for micro-finance.
What do you think? Does micro-finance have the capacity to radically challenge world poverty? Will it result in the end of charitable giving? What doubts or criticisms would you offer for this economic model? Would you consider making a loan on Kiva?
Kiva homepage
Introduction to Senegal Ecovillage Microfinance Fund
Interview with Rupa Modi, manager for Kiva
-NDSR
- browse entries:
- older »
A thought
-
Lydia is knitting me an uber-cool scarf.
-
Only an ethic formed around Christ and his cross, and that falls apart if Jesus is not in fact lord, can be called authentically Xian.
-
Kitchen Nightmares: def a candidate for new favorite show.
Peace writings
Christian nonviolence - scriptural considerations
A call for just-war/pacifist dialogue
Jesus' disciples and self-defense
Catholic priest repents of dropping the a-bomb on Hiroshima
The practicality of nonviolence
Commentary on Israeli-Palestinian conflict
The problem with dual allegiance


True
Premium