Fear

I just read a very inspirational story of people who asked themselves, "What would Jesus do?" and overcame their fear, to welcome and connect with their neighbors!

If we are really afraid of Muslim violence (a reaction we choose to nurture in our thinking), or even of Muslim influence, maybe we should take what is in Luke 12 to heart:

And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.

Muslim's aren't 'the one' to fear.

According to the above passage, who should we fear, or deeply respect? "Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell." The only one who will ever have that power is God. But do we need to really be afraid of God? "Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows."

Jesus, as far as I can tell, didn't ask any of his frequent dinner guests (sinners and tax collectors) to change, to be transformed, prior to eating with them. Notice I said 'prior'! They came for the grub, and the companionship!

See, it is possible to eat and drink with people of different backgrounds, because Jesus did it!

Was he afraid that a vagrant or criminal would stab and kill him? Where would God's plan be, then? Yet Jesus didn't have any bodyguards!

Was Jesus afraid that they would convince him of some dangerous philosophy that would steer him off course? Of course not! The suggestion is absurd! God has NOTHING to fear from any of man's thinking!

And Jesus asked them for their benefit, not his own. He was concerned about their health, safety, and well-being. And just so, we should be thinking about the Muslim next door! What would benefit them? Would it be to turn them away? No.

So let the Muslim come. Let the Buddhist, the Hindu, and the Atheist come. We have NO REASON TO FEAR!

Idealism

I read a blog post recently that saddened me. Here is the blog.

It saddens me because I sense that he really does love God, he's just upset at people. And I can't agree more.

People upset me, too.

This is a difficult and maybe impossible topic to pin down to a definition.

Because on one level, our relationship with God is a completely intimate bond between the individual and his creator, and is found in that quiet place inside of us only after we have emptied ourselves of our egotistical attachments. This is prayer, meditation, like Jesus showed in the garden of Gethsemane before his arrest.

And on another level, our relationship with God is reaching out to others, as Jesus did on a daily basis to all around him.

On the personal, internal level, nothing that anyone can ever do can separate me from God. That connection is permanent. I may occasionally forget that it is there, but it never goes away.

On the external, interpersonal level, I believe we have to accept where a person is in their path as being their business, their choice, given the situation and info that they have. We can impart info to them, and/or try to change their physical situation, show compassion. But ultimately it is their choice of how they proceed from there.

And if others attack us, is it really 'us' they attack? A wild animal that is covered in oil from an oil spill, or has a broken leg or wing will attack its rescuer. But it would be insane for the rescuer to seriously be angry with the animal!

If other people, maybe even people in the church, work at contrary purposes to how we perceive they 'should' act, couldn't it be not necessarily from an evil intent, but merely ignorance? Can we be angry at them for the sin of not knowing any better?

Jesus was mistreated by people that really didn't understand that he could solve their problems, banish their fears. Did he get angry with them? What did Jesus get angry at? He was angered by the assertions of those who decided that they were experts on God.

Flash forward to the 21st century-- Spotlight on a couple of blog writers, expounding on matters pertaining to people's relationship with God-- I am humbled. This is very serious and dangerous business, writing such a blog!

I trust that God seeks and saves that which is lost. The shepherd isn't motivated by the lost sheep's thoughts, and the father isn't motivated by the prodigal son's thoughts. God knows us and seeks us out despite what we think we have to say about the matter!

What Doesn't Work in Relationships Doesn't Work With God Either

That last post was a hard one to follow. There is no way to come up with anything better than God's love! Anything after that is a let-down, but I want to start writing again so I'll jump right back into it!

I have talked about Objectification before, but I decided to revisit the topic and show how unfair it is to all parties. Oh, and it doesn't work!

What is 'Objectification'?
The following is quoted from Wikipedia:

Philosopher Martha Nussbaum has argued that something is objectified if any of the following factors is present: * Instrumentality – if the thing is treated as a tool for one's own purposes; * Denial of autonomy – if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency or self-determination; * Inertness – if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency; * Ownership – if the thing is treated as if owned by another; * Fungibility – if the thing is treated as if interchangeable; * Violability – if the thing is treated as if permissible to smash; * denial of subjectivity – if the thing is treated as if there is no need to show concern for the 'object's' feelings and experiences.

What people may be more familiar with because it has been a common topic in the past 40 to 50 years came out of the feminist movement, and that is the topic of objectification of women.

Why would someone objectify another? It is a way of dehumanizing them, in order to more easily control them or others.

I only bring up objectification of women in particular because people have already been introduced to that discussion. But women aren't the only people to be thought of as static objects to be owned or manipulated. Men are sized up (pun intended) on how good of a prospect they are. It takes very little thought to see the connection between dehumanizing a group of people by objectifying them and racial stereotyping. If not the same thing, it is darn close!

Before we examine each bullet point of Martha Nussbaum's, let's get down to the nitty gritty of exactly what the problem is. What is the problem with objectification? The problem is that if you choose to objectify someone you reject who they are on the inside, their feelings, dreams, and their personality. If you choose to sum someone up in a generalization, you reject them as a person, and any opportunity to build a relationship is gone!

Let's look at examples of each one of those points. Keep in mind that word 'any'- Objectification has occurred when ANY of the stated factors are present.

1. Instrumentality – if the thing is treated as a tool for one's own purposes

• In human relationships-- Can you have a healthy relationship if a man just wants a woman to 'fill the position' of girlfriend or wife, or mother to his kids? How must she feel, knowing that? What if a woman marries solely for security? How must her husband feel? Can love, or any healthy relationship exist between the two?
  
• With God-- Are you trying to use God as a tool, to help you succeed? If God made us in his image and we have feelings, wouldn't he have feelings, too?
  

2. Denial of autonomy – if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency or self-determination

• In human relationships-- Do you think that you are irreplaceable, or that your significant other would completely fall apart without your constant help? Isn't this degrading to them, like treating them as if they were a child with no power of their own?
• With God-- Do you think that without your help, God's purposes will not come to pass? Do you think that God would fail without you? Do you think that God needs guidance from you?
  

3. Inertness – if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency

• In human relationships-- Men, do you think you can convince a woman to sleep with you if you just come up with the right pick-up line? What about a special cologne that has an aphrodisiac, that makes you irresistible? Women, do you have any 'guaranteed' formulas to land any man? Aren't these things just a way of treating the other person as if they are an unthinking animal, and not fully human?
• With God-- Do you think that there is a formula that makes God do your will? Do you treat God as if he were just an impersonal force, like 'The Force' in Star Wars? Is there a magic phrase that absolves you, or a set of magic words that gets you into Heaven? Is being with God reduced to entering in a discount code on a cosmic web page?
  

(NOTE: In previous posts I've talked about 'intellectualizing' God, trying to manipulate him with formulas. That's what #3 here is about, too.)

4. Ownership – if the thing is treated as if owned by another

• In human relationships-- Men, do you tell 'your' wife or girlfriend that you 'own' them? Are you a control freak, telling them what they can or can't do, controlling everything they do and every penny they spend? Women, do you do that with 'your' man?
• With God-- Do you think that God only works for you? Do you think that God cannot work in other ways, through other people from other backgrounds?
  

5. Fungibility – if the thing is treated as if interchangeable (non-unique)

• In human relationships-- It is much easier to 'kiss someone off' by saying, "There's plenty of other fish in the sea!" People are not fish. Each of us is a universe of depth, completely unique.
• With God-- (I confess, I don't know what to write here. Do we realize God has his own 'personality' or person-hood? Do we appreciate how unique God is? I feel inadequate to even frame the question!)
  

6. Violability – if the thing is treated as if permissible to smash

• In human relationships-- Have you heard someone say, "I made you and I can break you!" It's the voice of an ogre of a boss to an underling, not of a healthy relationship.
• With God-- Do you consider God to be a construction? Is God just a crutch, to be used for a while and then discarded when no longer desired or needed? If God wants to do something in your life, do you think you can contravene him?
  

7. Denial of subjectivity – if the thing is treated as if there is no need to show concern for the 'object's' feelings and experiences.

• In human relationships-- Do you make promises and not keep them? Do you betray trust, by being unfaithful to your significant other? Or do you ignore them? Don't you realize that this other person has feelings?
• With God-- Do you happily and willingly 'stumble', knowing that God will forgive you? Don't you know that your stumbling only hurts you? What hurts God is that you expect him to endorse it!
  

All of these methods are ways that people use to avoid having a relationship. Why? Probably it is out of a fear of vulnerability, that they could be hurt, or that they would be expected to give of themselves, to compromise, or sacrifice something.

Life is always a compromise. If the weather is cold, you wear a jacket. If you're hungry, you look for a job, or a better job, so you can provide for yourself. If you ask someone to lunch or a movie, they might say, "No" or have a different idea. And if someone close to you is in need, yes, you will probably want to help them! When we see things from God's perspective all of us are siblings, and if one is in need, all feel it and respond.

All of us here on Earth are in the same family, and God wants us to stop avoiding relationships and to instead embrace relationships! And if any of us stand a chance of developing a relationship with our creator, we cannot continue to treat him as an external, impersonal object. God needs to be an internal, personal love affair.

Greatest of these is love

Most Christians know about 1st Corinthians 13. Many have had portions of it recited at their wedding, even if they're not overly religious or Christian. It's a great chapter about love.

Anything else? Let's take a second look:

1Cr 13:8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.

This expresses a contrast between the eternal, which is love, and the temporary. That's right, these other things will end, while there is no end to love.

1Cr 13:9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part;

This life is a finite life, and no matter how much we study we will never learn everything. No matter how we strive to discover and discern, we can never see it all in this life. No matter what we think of God, in this life we will always have a limited vision.

1Cr 13:10,11 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.

When we come to the end of our finite self, what is left is the only thing that is eternal-- love. There will be no more reason to study or limit to our vision. Just as teens no longer play with building blocks like when they were toddlers, we will have no more reason for human rituals.

1Cr 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.

1Cr 13:13 But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

For now, we have faith, hope, and love. But the particulars of faith end up to be training wheels that are removed from our bikes. Similarly, hope will eventually be unnecessary!

Faith and hope will both be unnecessary!

Some are adamant that we are saved by God seeing our good works, which also demands having the absolutely correct vision and definition of God.

Others are equally as certain that we are all saved by God's grace.

But there will come a time when we are past these disputes, and we will see them as the childish babblings that they really are.

And what will be left? Love. Love is eternal. Love is God, and God is love. Love created us, love sustains us, and we become love.

Cautionary Wisdom

I recently read the following from 'The Tao' by Mark Forstater:

"Transmit the message exactly as it stands. Don't transmit it with any excessive language. In this way the envoy can keep himself whole."
'Consider how skillful wrestlers begin with friendly trials of strength, but always end with underhand attempts to gain victory. As the pressure grows, their moves become wily
and clever.
'Those drinking at ceremonies at first observe good order, but always end in disorder. As their excitement grows, etiquette turns into uproar.
'In all things it's the same. People are at first sincere, but always end by becoming unpleasant. At the beginning things are treated as trivial, but as the end draws near, they assume great proportions.
'Words are no different than wind and waves, and actions are a matter of gain and loss. Wind and waves are easily stirred up. and questions of gain and loss easily lead to danger.
'So quarrels are stirred up by nothing so much as clever words and twisted speech, and animosities arise on both sides. When animals are threatened with death, they bellow
wildly, and their breath rages angrily. Cornered, they lash out. Similarly. If people are pushed too far, they lash out - why they don't know. Since they don't know why, who knows how it will end?"

I take this to heart. Because what I've been doing in this blog here is a form of negotiations. I have been trying to rediscover and re-inject some traditional Eastern wisdom back into Christianity, which I believe has lost this element through the years. I do believe that many times when something does not make sense in the Bible or our religion, that if a person looks at whatever it is through an Eastern viewpoint, tremendous vistas of understanding open up.
There are many in and out of churches nowadays who do not see the relevance of the traditional approach to Christianity. If I may anticipate your response to saying that-- No, we shouldn't try to accommodate to try to make everyone happy. But-- We should examine what we are doing to make sure that it is authentic, not to the customs of people but to the intent of the original text. We should constantly take a look to see if modern society has culturally moved on and left the church back in time and irrelevant. 'What should always stay relevant?' is the question.

So in the future I'm going to try to concentrate heavily on quoting text, and minimize any attempts of my ego to be clever. Because whatever the case, I don't matter.

The Point of the Point is not the Point

Have you ever had a dog?

There's a funny scenario that plays out with our pets, time and time again. You're at the park with your dog and you throw the stick/ball/Frisbee. Most of the time your dog follows the arc of your arm as you throw it, and their eyes never leave the object. But this time maybe Rover got distracted by some laughing kids or a car with a loud stereo, but whatever the case, the dog doesn't know that you threw it or where you threw it. And it looks to you, and then to the side, then back to you, then spins around. It's confused!

So you call to your dog, and point in the direction that you threw the object. What does the dog do? Yep, he's looking at your hand! You call, "No, no, over THERE!" but the dog is still looking back and forth from you to your hand. It's so frustrating, and yet funny!

The point is, don't mistake what is pointing for what is pointed AT. The two are completely different.

In the Bible, throughout history there have been wise men that the Jewish people referred to as prophets. Never did these prophets point to themselves, but always to God.

Then came one of the greatest prophets, John the Baptizer, and although he also pointed to God, you could make a case that he was mainly pointing to the coming of Jesus.

Then came Jesus, a prophet that was more than a prophet. Although he could have given in to the temptation to flex his power as God's son, he purposely took great pains to humble himself and limit himself. Why? Because his task and his message was more important than his own person. Think about that for a moment! What Jesus pointed to was more important than Jesus himself! (Wow)

Did the people around him look to see where he was pointing, or did they just look at his hand? So many people just wanted more food, healing, or another magic trick. Over and over Jesus tried to tell stories to illustrate God's love for them, that they didn't have reason to be anxious or worried, that rewards would come to the faithful, and that evil-doers get tripped up in their own evil schemes. He repeatedly showed that what you do from this point on is way more important than anything you have done in the past, and that it's important to stay receptive and not have a hardened heart to the truth. But did people actually hear Jesus? A few did.

The same dynamic is going on right now, 2000 years after Jesus walked the Earth. What do you expect to GET from Jesus? Or are you listening, trying to stay receptive and open?

Ultimately, I think there is even a truth that God is pointing us to. What could it be?

Origin of the Blockhead

I have purposely used the word 'pride' where others might have used 'ego' because I wanted to highlight the falsity of the blown out of proportion ego. We do have an identity as creations of God, and that is good. It is the false construction that is the collection of everything that you've been adding on since early childhood, that has grown into a monster. And that's what must be stripped away either now, or when you die. You can't take it with you!

The Jewish people have a legend about something called a 'golem.' When I say that, what comes to your mind? A monster? That's because the story has changed, and the meaning has changed over the years.

According to Wikipedia:

"The word golem is used in the Bible to refer to an embryonic or incomplete substance: Psalm 139:16 uses [a] word...meaning my unshaped form, which then passes into Yiddish as goylem.[2] The Mishnah uses the term for an uncultivated person..."

On the Pirkei Avos website Rabbi Dovid Rosenfeld says,

"The Hebrew word golem literally means an unfinished object, such as a utensil which has been shaped but not polished."

Notice the similarity with the concept of 'the uncarved block' of philosophical Taoism! I like the Benjamin Hoff books, one of which is 'The Tao of Pooh' which has this description of 'the uncarved block':

"One of the basic principles of Taoism is P'U, the Uncarved Block. The essence of the Uncarved Block is that things in their original simplicity contain their own natural power, power that is easily spoiled and lost when that simplicity is changed. This principle applies not only to things, but to people as well. Or Bears. Which brings us to Pooh, the very Epitome of the Uncarved Block. When you discard arrogance, complexity, and a few, other things that get in the way, sooner or later you will discover that simple, childlike, and mysterious secret known to those of the Uncarved Block: Life is Fun."

Back to 'golem' for a moment. To recap, 'golem' used to mean something similar to 'the uncarved block' of Taoism. 'Golem' always was a creature, but as people do, over the years the 'golem' became something of a monster.

Wikipedia also has this:

"In many depictions golems are inherently perfectly obedient. However, in its earliest known modern form the story has Rabbi Eliyahu of Chełm creating a golem that became enormous and uncooperative. In one version of this the rabbi had to resort to trickery to deactivate it, whereupon it crumbled upon its creator and crushed him."

The Genesis creation story has God creating Adam as a golem in Genesis 2:7

"And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Again, Wikipedia:

"Adam is described in the Talmud (Tractate Sanhedrin 38b) as initially created as a golem when his dust was "kneaded into a shapeless husk"."

I don't think I'm going out on a limb here by asserting that we started out as a child (creation) of God/golem/uncarved block, and then -WE- were the ones that, from our original identity/golem/uncarved block created the false ego (pride) which is also the story of the uncontrollable monster golem! Our pride makes us the uncontrollable monster creation! Who created it? We did!

At the end of one of my recent posts I said that the killing off of the parasite of pride is the same as being born again. As some will think this is a woefully inadequate summation, let me further clarify.

I imagine the response:
"Being 'born again' is from having a new life in Jesus Christ! You're dead to the old life and born again to the new life!"

Yes, we are talking about the same things, just using different words. The 'old life' is the life of being driven by that false creation of ours, pride. Do you remember the OT story of Jacob and Esau, and how Esau traded his birthright for a hot meal? (Genesis 25:30) That's like what happened when we traded God's true creation of our nature for our own creation of our nature, pride.

In God's creation of our nature is joyous life, but in our creation (pride) is something that comes to an early end. God's creation is lasting quality, for he is the master builder. Our creation (pride) is of inferior quality, even if we tried our best. God's creation AUTOMATICALLY recognizes and honors God, whereas our creation of pride always becomes a monster out of control. Becoming born again is changing that decision of Esau's and keeping the birthright instead of trading it away. This is what Jesus taught before we humans killed him to silence him.

Our Pride will go to any lengths to protect itself. It has a mind of it's own!

Do we then need Jesus? Yes! Jesus' death was a living display of a general principle of how we are to live. In inviting Jesus in and looking for his nature inside of us, we are forced to give up our pride. We are to stop thinking of our own survival, our own skin and it's pleasures and wants, and think of how we can help others.

What does it mean to invite Jesus into our heart? It means to look for him there! Stop looking for Jesus in rust spots and baked bread, and instead look for him in you!