Ortho-doxy

Lots and lots about religious orthodoxy lately.  Usually makes me upset.  Kind of ties into the last post.  This terrible grammar will upset Leah.  

Most who talk to me about any and all things Christian accuse me of forming theology in my own image.  And I don't disagree.  Which usually pisses people off because they expect a long argument about how it is not, how it is based on the bible, etc.  And further, they expect to take all my biblical verses and overwhelm me with evidence to the contrary.  

Making God in your own image.  Let's get real here.  Every reflection of God from us as humans is making God in our own image.  No? Or rather, making God in the image of everything we are not.  Marx is often misquoted as being an atheist with the quote "Religion is the opiate of the masses."  I think when you read on (which most don't do) it becomes apparent that Marx was upset with the alienating effect that religion had on people.  The effect that is enacted when we somehow think that by "allowing contradiction" and "allowing God's sovereign will" to be unquestioned that we are truly coming to a mature understanding of God and theology.  Marx calls those who practice religion to break down the facade.  Sure, allow some mystery in your faith, faith is not rationalism.  However, usually, mystery tends to mask the illusion that religion enacts on followers.  The illusion is that we can somehow conceptualize a portrait of God outside of our own experience and that this is the ultimate sign of the mature Christian.  I call it what it is.  An illusion.  A facade that does not allow us to admit that God has to work through who we are and what we know.  And that is ourselves.  

I do not advocate a kind of cavalier subjectivism in the conception of God.  Instead, the understanding within communities of faith that the way they conceptualize God is not absolute, but rather a kind of idealized reflection of their own corporate self.  For example, I think that Calvinism and Arminianism and all of the other belief systems about God are fine.  There are huge collectivities that espouse these views.  The issue is that both assert their absolute portrait of God, that the other is somehow "immature" or "less-than-perfect" (for some reason, this usually comes from the Calvinists moreso than others).  So is one right and the other wrong?  Which one is making God in their own image?  How about both.  So what I advocate is unmasking the illusion and realizing that from group to group, maybe God allows this.  Maybe this sounds pluralistic and it is.  And it is making God in mine, and others who think in a similar way's.  At least we admit it.

What the bible says...

The last time that I heard a book speak, or say anything was when I watched a Harry Potter film a few weeks ago. And that book more or less roared and bit somebody. And also, it was in a film about magic and about a fictional book. So, the bible does not say anything because that would imply us hearing the words of the bible from the bible itself not from a person reading the bible. And this is far more than semantic wrangling and whining on my part. Usually I hear people, when speaking about something (especially a moral issue) that believe to be supported biblically, say:

"The bible says that..."

So here, that person has effectively eliminated debate, questioning, and the need for a defense on their part with that comment. Right?

I say wrong. I say that they have made the text of the bible into an idol. And I believe myriads of problems have been cause by a simple phrase.

So, what can we do instead? Refer to the bible as being written. If you believe and want to uphold the ideal that God had some hand in the text - add that in too - just do not confuse the text with God. Thus, I would pose that very little is "obvious" in the bible. Instead, interpretations are obvious - for as literal and objectivisitc we may think ourselves, everything we read is interpreted. Everything written must be interpreted. Words only have meaning in conjunction such as society has given them meaning. So the words in the bible, believe what you may about God's role in the whole thing, still have to be interpreted through the lens of life in 2007. Which is why we have english bibles. To read the biblical text in Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic as an english speaker still typically requires you to interpret those languages into idiomatic English. For example, any verse in the Old Testament that contains the word "Let" followed by a subject ("Let the heavens rejoice...") stems from a usage of the Hebrew verb that cannot be brought into English - so translators chose "let" to be the idiomatic complement, thus interpreting the Hebrew text into English.

Go home and place your bible on your bed, table, floor, etc. and listen. If it says something, let me know. Otherwise stop making an idol out of it with your language. Anyways, remember, the bible says not to do that.

Newsmaker

Here is a song I made at work today with Garage band. I played all of the parts on the computer keys, and sang the vocals. Enjoy.

PLAY

Ryan

Wow Ryan

K that was an answer that went beyond what any of us thought Abbie was asking, eh?
A good answer though. A well-worded one.

And I never misspell anything. ;)

Today and man/woman (I honestly couldn't tell which) asked me for some change for coffee.
The person complimented my necklace, and after I said it came from Costa Rica, he/she said "Ohh she's been all over the world."
Of course I haven't been anywhere; it was a gift from Sara, who has traveled.
I believe that person, who society says is beneath me in class and income, has seen more of the world than any of us care to... and a side of the world we should all glimpse at least once.
All I had was a dime so I offered that and apologized I couldn't give more... which I meant but it isn't completely true. There has to be more we can do.

Sharon Creech reminds us: "Don't judge a man until you've walked two moons in his moccasins."

But who really takes the time and has the courage to switch shoes?

(In all honesty, I'm only posting this because I don't want Ryan to out-do me... even though I meant everything I said above. I guess he doesn't want our blog to be boring after all.)

Connect-i-cut

Firstly, to respond to Abigail's question - growing up in CT never allowed me to misspell the state name - we learned it as "If you Connect, I Cut." I don't know about Leah though. Today I thought about New Haven and Yale. Yale owns most of the property downtown as of now. Somebody told me that they liked the downtown because it is a lot safer than it used to be. Safer for who? The owners of the businesses downtown are mostly white, and are mostly upper class, which allows them to pay the sky-high rents that Yale charges. So all the folks that find downtown safe are probably white. Yale has done an excellent job at moving all the riff-raff and undesirable business to outlying areas like Fairhaven, the Hill, and Newhallville. Leah and I live on the border of Fairhaven and a half-mile up the road the buildings degrade, the businesses end, the streets fill up. How easily do we sequester ourselves from things we believe (true or not) to be unsafe? Why do we worry about a starving man in Fairhaven breaking into a car because his family is hungry or because he hasn't worked in three years; or about a woman selling her body for the money to keep her children alive? Why not worry about the vultures who cry for oil in Saudi Arabia, or the robber barons who run what they believe are "honest businesses?" We can't sequester them. We think we need them and their services. We don't think we need people breaking into cars or selling their bodies. Maybe we do though. To remind us. I am talking to and about people like myself. White, upper-middle class, educated. The maintainers of the Status Quo. The ones who keep things the way they are because we are too afraid of what they might look like otherwise. God help us destroy ourselves. Or even just to remove that last part of our state, the "I Cut" part.

What you folks can expect from us

Alright Hello. Let's get right to the point; Ryan doesn't know I made this, so can it really be called Ryan and Leah's blog? Even if he is skeptical when he discovers my massive waste of time today, he'll come around.
I'm expecting (and you might as well too) that this blog will contain many dull updates on our simple, beautiful life here in the city of Yale.
Blog ya later kiddos.
Always yours,
Leah and Ryan