|
truthsynthesizer
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Jamey
Country: United States
Metro: Roanoke
Gender: Male
Interests: hermeneutics, exegesis, metaphysics, epistemology, quantum physics, motorcycles, antiquity,
Occupation: Education/training
Industry: Education/Research
Message: message me
Member Since:
10/2/2005
|
|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| What if a pharmaceutical company created a medicine for a disease that few people had contracted? They would have little success, right? What must they do to sell their medicine? They must infect people with the disease, right? Lets pretend that a company created the H1N1 virus in order to sell their vaccine, wouldn't that be horrible? That company didn't really help anyone. They created the problem and then they solved it. Everyone would be grateful towards them for their vaccine but if they knew the whole truth they would be furious at them. This theoretical situation with pharmaceutical companies may have happened; it may be happening now, and we simply don't know about it but I am not ultimately concerned with physical diseases and cures. This happens with spiritual diseases and cures, very often. We create a law and then condemn the lawbreakers so that we can give them the medicine that we also created. This reality is actually all around us. Commercials play this reality. Coaches play this reality. Kids play this reality on their parents. Teachers, bosses, almost everyone does this to some degree.
The cure for education these days is passing the SOLs but where did they come from? The same people that are teaching us how to pass them. They gave us the SOLs and then they are teaching us how to defeat the SOLs (I understand that there is more to it than that but for the current arguments sake it is at least this). Commercials teach us about the problem we have with our old mop or cleaner: that we didn't even know was a problem and then they sell us their mop or cleaner to solve this, now urgent, problem. Coaches teach us how to better correct our problem with playing a game but in reality, we invented the game, too. What if we would have created a game with different rules or different objectives? Kids explain to their parents that they need a certain gadget or toy when in reality they wouldn't need that toy at all if they hadn't desired to be like their classmate. The kid created the disease and then he wants the cure, too. Governments do this to the max. Chesterton wrote a lot about this. Our modern welfare system doesn't get people out of poverty it assures us that they will stay there. Wealthy people don't usually buy lottery tickets and expensive groceries. Wealthy people do not usually fall for the $19.95 television advertisements. Our government creates the poor people and then they falsely attempt to cure the problem that there are poor people. Who are we going to convince that they need something? People with money are usually harder to convince. The people we convince are the one's that have already maxed out their credit cards. Fashion fits this reality to the max, too. The commercials inform us of our need for their product and then they are so kind as to satisfy that need, at a certain price, of course. These needs, these diseases, these sicknesses, are all created by us, they are not natural. My major concern is not with these minor creations, though. My major concern is with religion. Religion does this and it destroys people.
What if the church had the cure for condemnation but no one felt condemned? What would they have to do in order to sell their cure? They would have to condemn them, right? Isn't that what happens? I have spent much time with Christians in which we conversed about the wretchedness of others. I have been in situations in which my Christian group seemed to glory at the failure of people outside the church. We rejoiced at their failures because we knew they would come to us. We rejoiced that their car broke down because we were selling cars. This isn't all bad, though. Sometimes people don't really know about their problems and it helps them to inform them. The problem, however, comes when we condemn them for the wrong problem, a problem we created. The problem comes when we create the rules by which to condemn them for. Another reality going on here is the fact that these churches are not completely off base. They are right about much of the disease. It is kinda like finding people with a cold and then infecting them with the flu, so that you can sell them flu medicine. People really do have moral problems. People really do have relationship problems. The church then creates deeper problems. The conversation could go like this (Bob is the church guy and Tom is not):
Bob: Do you have a problem controlling yourself with alcohol or lust?
Tom: Yes, I do. I can't help it.
Bob: I bet you don't go to church either, do you?
Tom: No, I don't.
Bob: I had a problem with controlling my drinking and my lust until I started coming to church.
Tom: Really? I should go to church.
Tom may then attend church and he may get a better handle on controlling his lust and his alcohol problem but Tom's problems went much deeper than that. Tom doesn't only need to become more moral. Tom doesn't only need to control his lust and his alcohol. In many ways it is like Tom actually has cancer and a cold but Bob wants to cure him of the flu that Bob infects him with. When Tom's cold symptoms goes away, Bob is so happy and he reminds him of how much better life is now that he found the cure to the flu, but Tom still has cancer!
Our churches are starting with people that have colds and cancer, infecting them with the flu and then curing them of their cold and their flu while they still die from the cancer. The colds are moral problems and relationship problems that usually stem from these problems. The church then explains to them that they are unsaved, the flu, and gives them the cure, salvation via a prayer, but these people are not suffering from not being 'saved' they are dying from not having life, spiritual life. Salvation does not happen by simply saying a prayer, salvation is a process, a relationship, a loving relationship. Romans 10:13 does explain that they will be saved if they call out, but then Paul gives Israel as an example of what he means. Israel was a nation that called out, and then fell aside. Romans 11 is about Israel being cut off. Romans 10:13 cannot mean that a one time trust saves us because of Paul's example. Our, 'one time prayer' salvation is our creation and we use it as the cure for disease of not saying the one time prayer, that we created, too. We even ask people, "are you saved? do you have our cure?" I remember witnessing to my neighbor, who was from India. I asked him if he had been saved and he said that he had to go to the hospital one time and that the doctor saved him there. I then had to inform him of his disease so that I could give him my cure. He went along with it and I was so proud of myself. Where is he now? I have no idea, I wasn't really concerned with him, only with his initially buying.
Our churches are so much like our businesses, we inform you of a false need and then sell it to you. Your true deep problems are still there but we have already moved on to selling our product to someone else. We aren't really concerned with whether or not what we sell works, we are much more concerned with whether or not you buy it, initially. I have seen hundreds of people go through the church. We gave them the cure but they fell away. How do we respond? We give the cure to someone else. We don't think about analyzing our cure, we are too busy selling it. We joined the basketball team but we still can't play basketball. We thought that we found the cure to our being a bad basketball player but we really only found the cure for deciding to be on a team. Being on a team doesn't make you a player.
Our churches are little different from our our businesses. We are not really concerned with the good of the entire universe, communicative good, we are mostly concerned with how many people buy initially, self imposed self righteousness.
May we stop damning people with our own self-righteousness!
Lord have mercy,
Christ have mercy,
Send us punishment so that we will correct ourselves,
We beg for correction,
Help,
Thy Kingdom come,
Thy Will be done,
In Jesus Name,
Amen.
James S. Sturgill
| | |
| Could you imagine a dog trainer holding a race out in front of a race dog in order to make it eat? Could you imagine giving a team the championship in order to make them practice? Could you imagine attempting to persuade a man to lust after a woman with a car? Why are these things weird? We know that the desire to eat has more power than the desire to race for a dog. We know that the desire to win has more power than the desire to practice for a player. We know that the desire to lust has more power than the desire for a car for a man. What if someone used candy to get someone to church? What if someone used a ticket to an amusement park to get someone to go to church? What if someone used food to get someone to go to church? What if the presence of God was at church? What if truth was at church? What does it say about our respect for the power of God's presence? What does it say about our respect for the power of truth? God serves because we need serviced. God does not need our service. We do not serve him without him serving us first. In God's kingdom service starts from the top. The disciples missed this for so long and churches still do. This is why we have to use candy to get them there. God's presence and truth should be the greatest advertisement. What is implied in regards to power if I use candy to get you to God's presence? What is implied if I use an amusement park ticket to get you to truth? What if I use truth to get to an amusement park? What if I use God's presence to be fed?
I have been a firm believer in Socrates desire not to be paid for teaching. He didn't want to belittle the education. He said he would have to consider himself a prostitute of knowledge if he got paid. Realizing the truth of Jesus and the folly it is to the Greek, I think Socrates missed it. The higher things serve the lesser things. Knowledge could serve me and bring me money. Jesus didn't force the disciples to wash his hands, he washed their feet!
Perhaps, the problem isn't with the advertisement but with the product. Perhaps the reason churches can't sell the truth or the presence of God is because they don't really have it. There is a real presence. A parousia has already occurred. It did happen in the lifetime of those that stood there when Jesus gave the mini-Apocalypse.
My church believes in the power of truth and presence not in the power of candy and amusement park tickets. These churches that employ candy and amusement park tickets are not only inferior because of their employing modern amusement to get to something that is supposed to be there that is infinitely better but they also employ themselves. At my church, we are hungry, we are thirsty, and we go to eat and to drink. God serves us. God's promise in the new covenant takes place at my church. We do not come and sing, "Here I Am," we come and bring the only acceptable gift, "Jesus," and then being the serving Trinitarian God that he is, he feeds us. As these churches employ candy, they also employ themselves. At my church, 'the' church, we come to be served. We are the Peter from 'the you know I love you Peter' (John 21), not the Peter from the upper room of which Jesus says, "if I do not wash you, you will have no part in me. (John 13:8). We do not have the powerless faith of the old covenant that has to employ bulls and goats but the powerful faith of the new covenant that employs Christ himself. We do not offer ourselves on the invisible but necessary alter, we offer the only acceptable sacrifice, Jesus. We do not have to invite screamers, manipulators, or rhetoricians, we solemnly speak the truth and eat. We have a two part promise given every Sunday, truth and life.
An allegory that I have always used to explain love is rape. Rape is horrid, it is the worst thing that happens on earth. Rape is as bad if not worse than murder because it is the ultimate non-reality: forced love. I didn't understand how rape and this reality, that the greater serves the lesser, worked until moments ago when I was trying to explain it to someone (Joel). Rape is horrible because it wants physical pleasure and not persons, its end is less. It uses a person to the service of pleasure but persons are better than pleasure. It uses a greater to serve a lesser and it is evil. Does this greater serves the lesser make rape good? No because it doesn't actually use the person fully. If a person is truly used to serve sex, the sex would be so much more than physical because persons are so much more than physical. If a person only acknowledges the physical side of humans they are not truly employing persons toward pleasure. When one employs all of the person, it will truly employ the person and the pleasure will also be more than physical. Those that treat persons only as a physical pleasure will only get physical pleasure but to those that understand the depth of persons will have pleasure beyond explanation because persons are beyond explanation. The rapist not only rapes someone else, he gets a bad deal, too. He is like a kid that ate the peel of the apple and didn't want any more.
I am so thrilled to be freed from serving God. My God is a shock but he is real and he is true. I serve the God of the incarnation: the Christ that comes to serve. We do not have offer candy or tickets because there could be no greater employee than God himself. May God have mercy on us when we use candy to serve him.
Lord,
Help us to believe the paradox of the cross, the paradox of God,
Help us to stop employing ourselves at your service and help us to employee you to give us the ability to serve,
All of our works are like filthy rags without you but we are still like the Hebrews most of the time, we still try,
Give us your flesh to eat and your blood to drink that we may have life.
Thy Kingdom come,
Thy Will be done,
In Jesus Name,
Amen.
James S. Sturgill
| | |
| Two of my favorite phrases are "at least" and "primarily." There is no certain affinity towards the 'l' in 'at least' nor a certain affinity towards the 'p' in primarily. I do not like these phrases because of the way they roll off the tongue, like the way a mother that names her child a cursed name (for a name is much more than a sound). These phrases are so dear to me because of their significance. The word 'significance' contains a word: the word 'sign.' These phrases are signs of important realities.
'At least' signifies the reality of how much could be known. 'At least' whispers the grandeur of the universe and the limited understanding of the human mind to capture it all. 'At least' explains that there is so much more to discover while at the same time affirming that something has been discovered. 'At least' is not agnostic like the words 'perhaps' or 'maybe.' 'At least' has not arrived so much as to say anything without its condition. When I say the grass is green, there is a piece of arrival and arrogance in such a statement because there is much grass yet to see. If I say that grass is at least green, I have not arrogantly claimed the arrival of my mind to the state of all grass, but I have at least made a statement about what has been noticed about the state of the grass that these eyes and thus mind have seen. Do we see the beauty, the synthesis, the reality behind such a small phrase? This phrase is also the opposite of the anti-wonderful, arrogant, arrived word, 'just.' Just is at least the "Honey I Shrunk the Kids" invention of a society scared of meaning. We cut out our heart to save us from a heart-ache. If we make everything smaller, if we belittle meaning then pain will escape us. If we detach the depth of meaning from our world, then we detach the significance to our lives. What happens when we lose something of little significance? Nothing of any significance, right? I don't cry when I lose an insignificant piece of paper; it has no significance. I think my societies abundant use of the word 'just' is a sign, a testimony, a martyr (Greek word for witness), to the robots that we have chosen to become.
J.R.R. Tolkien gives a profound illustration of this reality in the Silmairllion. Middle Earth was originally flat. The flatness of Middle Earth gave an edge, an other. Middle Earth became the 'at least' but there was obviously much more. The God punished Middle Earth and made it round. This caused the opposite effect. Now, Middle Earth was relative to itself. Middle Earth went from being 'at least' to 'just.' This is an intense punishment but a punishment we seem to want, too. We love being the center of everything, we love being I-centered, egocentric. The God of the Cosmos, which is also the God of Middle Earth, does the same thing to us in various ways. He gives us exactly what we want: a controlled world without wonder. We want control, not wonder; this is at the very heart of the anti-lover. The lover wants wonder, not control.
I think this is at least connected to the new abundance of interest in the 'paranormal.' Even our churches have lived in the round world. They do not go beyond what the world has done. The church is little different from the average American business. We bribe you to come to church. We seem to focus on the more the merrier for the same reasons that Sprint and Verizon do. The church is now contained in the 'normal,' and we have to go to werewolves and ghosts for the 'paranormal.' We are like the inhabitants of Middle Earth, we are getting bored of our relative world and we want to know that there is an edge.
The word 'primarily' is very similar to the reality behind the phrase 'at least.' Primarily includes the reality of 'at least' but also expounds it. 'Primarily' implies the complexity and connectedness of all things but also the right and wrong. If 'at least' is natural then 'primarily' is revelational. 'At least' whispers the complexity and 'primarily' prioritizes them. We may acknowledge the complexity of the universe with humility but if we miss the priority of all the things in the universe, we will lose the humility. Most scientists admit the complexity and wonder of the physical universe but in making science the primary means of discovering truth, they lose the ability to love (love is not scientific, only sexual pleasure and reproduction is). Few people deny that their life is complex, but few people put priorities correctly. My priorities are out of line most of the time and they change from moment to moment. My primary purpose in writing this blog is not to explain what the priorities are, I am primarily attempting to explain the realities that two of my favorite phrases point to. This is what makes a good movie good. This is what makes a good paper a good paper, a good blog a good blog. A paper, a movie, could be very complex but as long as the primary purpose of the paper or movie is not lost, it will be good. This is what makes a basketball player good. He recognizes that winning is primary and not his points. No one really attempts to disconnect winning from scoring points but many players put scoring points above winning. Jesus' discussion with Mary and Martha is at least a giant testimony to this reality.
Some use these words by accident because they truly see a wonderful world. Some use these words by rule and they are learning of the wonders of the world and the ignorance of their own understanding. May we all bounce from each of these categories and abstain from the robotic normal universe that our mind controls and limits. May we correct ourselves from the protection from meaning and loss. May we not only acknowledge the complexity but also seek an authority for the primacy.
Lord,
Help us to seek love, to seek meaningm
Help us to depend on Your Authority for our primacy
Help us,
Thy Kingdom Come,
Thy Will be Done,
In Jesus Name,
Amen.
James S. Sturgill
| | |
| My favorite quote is "A good lover gives you more energy to love everything, that is what God does. A bad lover drains away your energy into himself, like a vampire. A good lover is like a fountain. A bad lover is like a whirlpool." This quote is a reality that runs through my head a lot. Recently I have been contemplating this reality in regards to suicide. The suicidal person not only drains away your energy but he drains away his own energy, even his life energy. The suicidal vampire turns on himself and in this last living act, he not only drains his own life energy but he even drains away the life of those that were around him. Even in his death, he is a vampire. This is also contrasted in the fountain. The fountain loves so much that he not only gives abundant life (zoe in Greek - the word Jesus uses in John 10:10) but also physical life. Cinderella not only attracts other happy people, she also attracts butterflies, birds, and deer. Fountains make children. Celibate fountains can also make children. When celibates share the abundant life with couples, it inspires there love and when a couple's love is inspired physical life is an effect. Speaking the truth makes children. A wonderful man once wrote that giving life, parenting, is the highest purpose on this earth. He was not excluding celibates, either. He, himself, was a celibate. He spoke of life inclusively. Humans can give life both in its zoe form and its physical form, just as humans can both steal life in its zoe form and in its physical form. God is the greatest picture of this reality. He does come to give life but not only life but abundant life. God not only created Abel, he also created Cain. God not only created David, he also created Saul. God creates physically and abundantly. God is a fountain. Before the 1930s, no Christian denomination supported fountain control, I mean birth control. When we speak truth, when we give love, when we admire or create beauty, we give life, both physical and abundant. When we speak lies, when we act egotistically or selfishly (the opposites of love), when we belittle or destroy beauty we take life, both physical and abundant.
Lord,
Your will is that we be little Christs, little fountains,
May your will be done.
In Jesus Name,
Amen.
James S. Sturgill
| | |
| I believe that the Christianity is ultimately about knowing God. The more we know God, the more we will love Him. John 17:3 is a very powerful verse in regards to this. It says, "and this is eternal life that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." Eternal life is found in knowing God but not only knowing God but knowing Jesus whom he sent. Using this, I want to elaborate on a natural understanding of God and then the supernatural understanding of God.
If someone told me that chogo is like yotigua but better. I would not know very much chogobecause I don't know what yotigua is. This is the way we understand God, too. God tells us that he is like us but different. God tells us that he is like food but different. God tells us that he is like water but different. God tells us that he is like bread but different. If we do not have a natural understanding of us, food, water, and bread, then we can't know anything about God, either. We must have a natural understanding in order to understand the Supernatural because this is the way that he explains himself to us. (there is tons of Biblical and philosophical evidence for this if one would want I could give it) When we are taught to see things in a supernatural light as oppose to a natural light this not only disrupts our ability to see natural things but it also disrupts our ability to see supernatural things. If one confuses yotigua with chogo both yotigua and chogo are lost. When we are confused with what bread is and God compares himself to bread, both are lost. What happens in many church environments is that the churched people not only lose an understanding of the natural world but losing the natural world also makes them lose the supernatural world. The people who understand and thus enjoy natural things can also enjoy understand and enjoy supernatural things. There is another level to this, too, however.
I have attempted to give 2 levels of people: those that have a natural understanding and thus can understand the supernatural and those that don't have a natural understanding and thus cannot understand the supernatural either. There is a third group, too. This third group has the natural understanding and then the supernatural understanding but then they find that the supernatural is also paradoxical. I believe this is why John 17:3 doesn't only say, "and this is eternal life that you may know God." Many people throughout history have been natural and have a pretty good understanding of the nature of God. Aristotle, Plato, the Stoics, Plotinus, these guys made true statements about the nature of God that most Christians would be unable to understand. They knew a lot about God. They had the first part of John 17:3 down but they didn't have the second part. They knew that God is all powerful. They knew that God is all wise. They knew that God is all knowing. They knew that God couldn't have a beginning nor an end, however, they didn't understand Jesus whom he sent. These philosophers are not alone, though, the disciples didn't either.
Last week the Gospel reading in the lectionary was from Mark 10:35 - 45. This is where the disciples inquire about being high ranking leaders in the Messiah's kingdom. Jesus responds to their question with,
"You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
The disciples understood that God was all powerful, they understood that God was all wise, they understood the supernatural aspects of God found in nature but they didn't yet understand the servitude, the sacrifice of God. It is good to worship an all powerful, all knowing, ever present God but it is Christianity when we worship an all powerful, all knowing, ever present God that serves and even dies. Jesus is not contrary to reason, Jesus is beyond reason. Like the Gentiles, we usually understand power as being served and having people die for you. As Christians, we should see power as serving and dieing for other people. God is not simply a powerful God that beckons us to worship him. God is a powerful God that empowers us, that serves us, that feeds us. Aristotle missed this. Peter initially missed this. Most natural people miss this. Most unnatural church goers miss this.
This three tiered hierarchy can be applied to comfort, too. The unnatural person seeks persecution, discomfort, for the sake of their own righteousness. This is typified in the Pharisees. The natural person seeks comfort for the sake of comfort. Like the party animal. The Christian, the supernatural, seeks servitude and thus persecution for the sake of other's righteousness and the universal good. The Pharisees served others in order to feel better about themselves. The natural people served themselves to simply feel good. Jesus served others at the cost of his own comfort for the good of the entire cosmos.
Most of our ideas about heaven demonstrate our distance from Jesus. We long to be served in heaven. We long for a break. We long to sit at God's right hand like the disciples asked. We are asking for tropical weather on the North Pole when we think this way. We are escapists. This self satisfying, egotistical idea of servitude is the very opposite of Jesus and thus the very opposite of his presence in Heaven.
I can explain this three tiered approach via my own feelings. Once upon a time, I wanted to die as a martyr for my own justification and glory. I despised people that enjoyed the pleasures of the world at this point, the natural people. Now, I enjoy the pleasures of the world with them, and I am asking God for the grace to die for one person, at least, daily. I want to be a husband. I want to be a husband that is guided by the perfect bridegroom, Jesus. I want to serve and find true power, love, and knowledge in this Godlike servitude. In this desire, I have to often pray, "Lord, I believe, help my unbelief." I fight against my anti-Jesus and pro Gentile understanding of power and love every moment of every day. I want to know the natural God but not the persecuted Jesus. I want half of the equation for eternal life found in John 17:3. I don't want all of it. I must beg God to give me the grace to make me like him and to allow me to know his son whom he sent.
Lord,
Help me to be Christ-like first
Help me to seek you, first.
Thy Kingdom Come,
Thy Will be Done,
In Jesus Name,
Amen.
James S. Sturgill
| | |
|
