Cdero’s Weblog

This past weekend I found a new appreciation for Paul’s words in Galatians 5:16,

“But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.” (NASB).

How does one refrain from doing evil? By thinking real hard and long? By

meditation and contemplation? By one’s doctrinal beliefs? Not at all!

Its by walking by the Spirit or to put it another way, by living obediently to God’s calling of abundant wholeness. This past weekend I attended Pentecost 2008, Training for Change, a one and a half day conference on organizing teams to help make poverty a central issue in your Churches and in the White House. Part of the experience of being there was participating in groups where you was challenged to share relevant autobiographical information to people, in just 2 minutes, that served as a frame of reference as to why one is called to peace and justice. By the time the training was over, participants were already mobilizing a team and carrying out a plan of overcoming poverty.

I learned the value of simply doing something as oppose to processing it and trying to understand it before doing it. Don’t get me wrong, God gave us minds to process things but when it comes to the issue of poverty, and other social oppressions, it is as serious as somebody about to be hit by a car and the would be hero not thinking but simply acts to save the individual from harms way.

Many times in our culture of intellectualism, we attempt to understand things before an action is involved. In this sense, thinking is security, its about being in control. Not so bad right? Security and having a handle on things are good but at times it can be a hindrance especially when there is a matter of life and death.

I am one of those people who like to be in control of things by processing almost everything that is put in front of me to make decisions about. I am indecisive because my decisions about things have to be measured by how much I have ran it through the scanning devise–my less than certain brain. This way of deciding is helpful if you are deciding on what is the best deal on a home or trying to figure out a math problem. But when it comes to the Christian call to peace and justice, its not a matter of the mind but a matter of the heart ( both should be one in the same but our culture has created a thick wedge between them).

Many of Jesus’ liberating actions towards the poor and the mistreated started with having compassion for them ( Matthew 14:14, 15:32, 18:27,20:34; Mark 1:41, etc).

My prayer is that God’s faithful community would have compassion and be moved to action that will begin to liberate people from individual and systemic injustice. It has to start with compassion, not doctrine, not denomination, but with compassion. Lets ‘just’ do it, lets do justice!

I just returned from my first attendance at Pentecost, Training for Change http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=get_connected.pentecost08&item=pentecost08_main

Like many advocates for peace and justice, I struggle with the issue of poverty in terms of knowing what the exodus out of poverty leads to. I know that poverty is something that people are to exit out of but to what?

In Hip Hop, which I am called to be a prophetic voice in, a calling out of poverty is the reoccurring message of many rappers. However, a distinction exists between the earlier voices of Hip Hop and today’s hip hop voices. The former made known of the living conditions of the poor (Melle Mel and the Furious Five, Public Enemy) while the latter have indulged in materialism and hedonism ( Lil Wayne, 50cents,) as evidence of being saved out of poverty.

Yet, as one who shares in preaching a message of overcoming poverty, I can not do either of what the past and present voices in hip hop have done. I cannot merely make known that poverty exist nor preach materialism as a way out of poverty. I also have to take personal action amongst others who are doing the same while pointing to materialism as not a way out of poverty but expose it for what it has ironically done to many Americans–leaving them impoverished.

You ask how can materialism leave people impoverished? Before understanding this dynamic one has to re-understand poverty to be more than lack of material need. Poverty means lack of many other things. I have not yet figured what poverty also entails today and so I too am part of in re-understanding poverty. However, one thing that poverty does not lack is God and the Gospel(Psalm 140:12; Is 25:4;Luke 4:16-21,6:20-21) which is why I am left in befuddlement as to why the poor will attempt to replace God and the Good news of his ways with cars, mansions, jewelry, and other possible idols.

The two days I spend at Pentecost 2008, has help me to resurrect my own story which provides a footnote to why I want to be a part of eradicating poverty, and to be a part of the new story that sees poverty, in all of its forms, overpowered, a story known as the Gospel of and about Jesus Christ.

Is it how logical the Bible is formulated or is it the grace of God?
The answer is the latter.

Yet, some make the great point that God has communicated through the Bible. The God whom we have placed our faith in is the God of scripture or declared in scripture. Thus, the Bible as a logical formulation has to mean something.

Some ask, “If His Holy book, which is set apart from all other literature, had contradictions in it, what would that say about Him? What would it say about His true uniqueness (”echad” in the Hebrew), that His Holy book would be as contradictory as a mere human’s work?”

The Bible is no mere human book but it also is not only a divine book. It is both human and divine, kind of like Jesus was, a point that Peter Enns makes in his book Inspiration and Incarnation. Thus, Jesus showed human elements about himself ( he slept, bleed, and got hungry) and divine qualities ( forgiving sins). If the Bible had contradictions should it be chalked up as human folly rather than divine folly?

Or, what if the Bible had contradictions but rather than contrary to the Bible’s authenticity it actually proves its authenticity?

For example, some think that the New Testament (NT) was fabricated by the disciples yet if it was fabricated, it would of been squeaky clean, omitting embarrassing details such as the disciples timidness, etc, etc. Yet, since it was not fabricated, it comes to us rough, rugged, and raw. The flaws recorded in the NT is an argument for its authenticity.

Can the same be true about alleged contradictions? Furthermore, if the Bible had contradictions, why could they not be divinely intentional?

For instance, what takes place in Job is contra Deuteronomy in the sense that since Job was an upright man, he should not have been cursed. But, we are ok with this conflict because we see God doing something with it. It has value. Can the same be true about other possible contradictions?

I say possible because personally I won’t have a problem with the Bible, or my faith, if the Bible had contradictions. My faith does not rest on how logical the Bible has been formulated. Logical coherency in formulating the Bible would be a human limitation just as lacking the technology needed to record all of what Jesus taught was a human limitation (John 21:25). However, logic does mean something since if it was totally thrown away, then how would I make sense of God being light and in Him no darkness (1 John 1:5)? That is a logical statement, so is the statement in Hebrew 6:18. Thus, the Bible can not be completely devoid from logic but it also can’t be devoid from human error.

In going back to the human element of the Bible, we must remind ourselves that the Bible came to us in stages, in different languages, through many people and although we see God’s hand in history preserving what we have today as the Holy Bible, we still see textual difficulties, even order issues ( different orders in various canons) that causes people to write books about them to help us explain them away.

Yet, we do not find the need to apologize for the weakness of Moses, Abraham, David, Solomon, Rahab, Paul, and the disciples, which the Bible unashamedly displays for us, but were used to produce a trustworthy Bible, even with all of its difficulties. So, why also apologize for such difficulties?

If there are claims of the Bible having contradictions, why is there a need to explain it away? If God can be revealed through imperfect people, then surely God can be revealed through an imperfect logically constructed Bible.

Recently I have had discussions with one man who has taken serious issues with the view that sees Psalms 29 and 83 as being Baal-like hymns originally used to worship Baal but utilized by David to worship Yahweh. Today, the same thing is being done with Christian hip hop and praise worship and even the classic hymnal songs have been adaptations of other songs or tunes originally used in hedonistic ways. In many ways such adaptations are like Moses giving God his wooden staff used to help him walk but once it left Moses’ hands and into God’s hands, it became an instrument of redemption.

The problem that some people have with the view that sees Psalms 29 and 83 as having a Baal background is probably based off of unrecognizing the polemical nature of God’s word. If one understands the polemical posture of Biblical narrative and poetry on matters of creation, then one would understand the use of a Canaanite hymn originally intended to worship Baal but used instead to worship Yahweh by those under God’s divine inspiration. If it be said that scripture bears God’s character, then surely we can see the mocking nature of Psalm 29. God has revealed to us through His word that He is a God of humor, a sarcastic God who loves to mock Israel’s surrounding mythological world.

In addition to Psalm 29, there is Psalm 33, Genesis 1:1-2:4 and Isaiah 40-48, among others, which gives lots of attention to creation. The Bible’s redundant attention to the theme of God being the sustainer of creation is intentional due to Israel’s surrounding neighbors and their cosmological obsessions. For God to be presented as the only true sustainer of the cosmos was both a mockery and a magnet for nations to repent and turn to the true and living God. Hence, it is no surprise that God utilized creation in judging Egypt ( Exodus)

Again, if one recognizes the polemical nature of God’s word, Israel’s surrounding cultures, and God’s will for all nations to repent and turn to Him, then people would not make speaking against the view that Psalm 29 and 83 are Baal-like hymns used to worship the true God of the cosmos their battle cry.

By now I assume that many around the world have heard of the Koran used as target practice at a military shooting range by a U.S. soldier…Check out the Link…http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080520/…ush_apology_dc

My argument is simple, the Bible’s moral law requires us to respect people. Respecting others is a fruit plucked out of the golden rule of loving your neighbor as yourself.

While there are wars recorded in the Bible between the nation of Israel and other nations, on religious and moral grounds, nevertheless there are instances of what Israel generally thought of God like, although resentfully, that is that God is gracious, merciful, loving and thus you have Genesis 21, among many others, revealing the mutual respect that Abraham and Abimelech had for each other, regardless of theological differences and it shows how God was gracious to both. More about this story below…

In addition to these glimpses, you have practically the whole NT that teaches goodwill to all men, regardless of differences in belief systems, thus you have the Sermon on the MT( Matthew 5-7), what Paul asserts in Galatians 6 about doing good to all people, especially to those who are in the community of faith, and it instructs Christians on how both unbelievers and believers are to be treated. Then you have Romans 12 where Paul teaches to strive to live at peace with all people.

The aforementioned passages informs me of how I am to look at the issue at hand…the issue of the U.S. soldier who disrespected every Muslim by using their bible as target practice.

Thus…my most basic argument is that deliberately disrespecting Muslims by using their Koran as target practice, something they view as a hideous crime, and a disrespect against their customs, is wrong.

For the record, I am not saying all offenses should be avoided. I am an apologist of the Christian faith. I speak my mind and I am not afraid of stepping on a few toes. However, using the Koran or something that is highly regarded as sacred by my friends, by my fellow citizens in this nation and by many around the world, as target practice, is unlike other things that we Christians do that may offend people from other faiths that stem from cultural differences.

It is a no brainer….I am not going to piss on someone’s tombstone because I have to go pee…I am not going to treat a person’s gift to me like crap….I am not going to take a JW’s watchtower mag and scrunch it up in front of there faces…I’ll simply say no thanks…I am not going to walk into a Mosque’s sanctuary with my shoes on…I am not going to raise my foot in an Indian home so that the bottom of my foot is shown…I am not going to be a a guest in someone’s home and pee on the toilette without whipping it off…(LoL)…I am not going to be a guest for dinner at anyone’s house and then eat and run…( some cultures expect long visits…) and I am not going to draw horns on a picture of the Pope…

What I am going to do is respect people to the best of my ability as God expects me to and if it takes respecting them by not mistreating their sacred objects, then so be it.

After all

“Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers. (Gal. 6:6-10). God will deal with unbelievers (Gal. 1:8-9)

and

If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,”says the Lord (Rom 12:18-19).

As previously noted, even though there were wars between Israel and other nations, which were based on moral and religious grounds (some were a result of God’s judgment on Israel), there are still glimpses in the OT where we have a model of peaceful and respectful relationships between the two.

There is the situation at Beersheba between Abimelech and Abraham which was a relationship of mutual respect even though Abraham served the true God and Abimelech did not…( Gen 21:22-32).

Abraham lied to Abimelech saying Sarah was his sister (same thing he did in Gen. 12 with the Egyptians). Abraham was in the wrong for a) lying to Abimelech and b) disrespecting the nation’s customs for not having a veil over his wife, symbolizing that she was a wife.

Of course, Abraham offended God the most by almost having Abimelech killed and by lying when he did not have to. But here is what I want you to notice, while God’ grace on Abimalech is amazing, it is even more amazing that God would show grace on Abraham. Why? Because it shows that Abraham is no better than Abimelech. The same grace that spared Abimelech is the same grace that spared Abraham. Thus, if you, the Christian, can treat me with respect as a brother in Christ, then you can also show respect to a Muslim because I am no better than a Muslim…

If Abraham can respect the customs of the Philistines… then surely you and I can respect Muslims by not using their sacred book for target practice.

The story between Abraham and Abimelech is powerful and shows the possibilities of peace between people of different belief systems ( Check out Genesis 26 with the same principle seen between Isaac and Abimelech).

The tension between what scientists can do and what they should do is strongly felt when one considers the possibilities of the human Genome Project.On one hand you have what seemingly looks like favorable results stemming from such a project-cures to deceases, choosing desirable traits, etc. On the other hand you have questions about human rights being violated and the sheer skepticism of what the unknown may bring. There are a plethora of issues stemming from an analytical look at the implications of knowing every sequence of every human gene. The following, however, briefly explores how the nature of God as revealed in the Bible informs our thinking about biotechnology issues and reveals what Christians can learn about the nature of man in light of the scientific goal to understand genetic codes.

Theological Lens

The nature of God is relevant to any Christian thinking about issues in biotechnology.

First of all, Christians believe the Bible is true when it reveals that God created humanity in God’s image (Gen. 1:26). The meaning of being made in the image of God is understood by Christian theologians on various levels. Some theologians point to humanity’s volition, intellect, and emotions as characteristic of being made in the image of God. Others understand image as denoting ownership. The understanding is based on Matthew 22:20-21 where the Pharisees ask Jesus if its lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. Jesus responds by asking them what image is on the denarius. Of course the image is of Caesar, therefore render to Caesar what is his but then render to God what is God’s. The principle understood is that the image something or someone bears is the property of whom or what the image is reflecting. Whatever the understanding is, the concept of image is essential to understanding the nature of humanity.

The image of humanity from the perspective of biotechnology via the Human Genome Project, etc, paints a different picture of what it means to be human.

In a nutshell, biotechnology primarily sees humans as bodies of complex organisms made up of genetic codes. Thus, the nature of humanity through the lens of scripture collides with a view that sees humans solely as genetic codes. Scripture informs Christians to think otherwise, namely that humans are more than a body of genetic material but are also immaterial in nature.

Secondly, reducing humans to mere genetic codes and attempting to explain human behavior by means of genetic sequencing is to challenge the Biblical view of free will and moral responsibility. Do genes make humans behave in particular ways? If so, then the concept of sin is obsolete since murders, sexual immorality, etc, are not a result of bad human choices but a result of having “bad” genes. And, if human behavior is a result of genes then how is one responsible for his or her actions?

Thirdly, what do the conclusions derived from the Human Genome Project imply about the Bible’s account of how humanity was created and how both good and evil came about? It would seem that Genes rather than Genesis would be the new authority on human nature.

What does it mean to be Human?

The scientific aim of trying to understand the human genetic code could help us understand the material make up of our bodies but it can also blur the lines between biological traits and humanness. From a Christian perspective, our cue comes from the epitome of humanness-Jesus Christ, who became flesh and took residence among God’s creatures and still does through His Church. We learn in Philippians 2 that a characteristic of what it means to be human is humility. Humility is not something that humans simply choose to show but is who they are supposed to be characterized by. Thus, in becoming a human, Jesus showed what it means to be truly a human through his humility.

A deeper analytical view of all the implications of biotechnology undoubtedly can provide more to think about in terms of what it means to be human. The aforementioned points and observations is simply the start of how Christians relate and interact with biotechnology. My next post will focus on a human ingredient already mentioned above-humility. Stay tuned…
PS. I apologize for my long absence from posting…I had to focus on my last weeks of classes in order to finish strong…expect more from me now that classes are done.

I just got off the phone with a dear brother who is concerned about my theology. He has read some of my posts on a particular forum and have followed my blogging.

We talked about Joel Osteen who I think paints a incomplete and inadequate picture of the life and call of the Church. However, unlike my friend, I don’t think he’s poisonous. Unfortunately its true, Osteen preaches a message that embodies the American dream as if that equates to the message of Christ in scripture. Yet hearing his explanations and reasons as to why his message is more earthward than heavenward helps me put him in proper perspective. Simply put, Osteen’s message is fashioned to a crowd that may know they are citizens of heaven but do not know how to live like Christian citizens on earth. In a nutshell, what I hear Osteen preach is hope, encouragement and inspiration–the same stuff we hear our parents and mentors saying to us.

We talked about Peter Enns and his “unorthodoxy” via his so called controversial book. See http://cdero.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/bible-monopolybible-monopoly

Unlike my friend, I don’t think Enns’ incarnational paradigm undermines the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture. Enns is doing a great service among conservative Christians and liberal Christians by interacting with the extra biblical data that is out there that is in need of being synthesized by evangelicals as well as the broader Christian community. Asserting that pagan sources provided the structure and shape of parts of scripture is not a denial of the divine inspiration of scripture nor its inerrancy.

We briefly touched on Walter Brueggemann whom I highly respect as a scholar and theologian. Again, I am suppose to treat people like Brueggemann as dangerous people?

What my friendly phone conversation boils down to is differences and disagreements. It is fine to disagree with Enns’ incarnational paradigm. It is ok to disagree with some of Brueggemann’s conclusions. But calling these men and people alike dangerous is nothing more then causing a false alarm.

When I think of the word dangerous, I think of the bubonic plague, violent armed criminals, taking a stroll around my neighborhood at certain times of the day, guns, knives, bullets, using an electric saw, etc.

Sorry, Brueggemann, Osteen, and Enns do not strike me as dangerous people. perhaps my detractors would say that the pen is mightier than the sword. If so, then perhaps dangerous is the wrong word. What is really meant is that such preachers and authors are a threat to the Biblical monopolization and religious control a person or group is trying to maintain.

I am currently taking a class called, Film, Culture and Theology. It has been quite rewarding. There are many things that go into film that viewers are not readily aware of such as camera angles, the impact of lighting and shade, the juxtaposition of scenes, cutting, transitions, the use of irony, even the effect of the soundtrack etc.

My first class on film was four years ago and in that class, I learned that when ever there is editing involved, the film is sure to be bias only presenting half-truths to no truth but never the whole truth.

The documentary, Jesus camp, shown here http://www.atheistnation.net/video/?video/00118/atheist/jesus-camp/#comment

is no exception. The film is the finished product of a film crew that presents children as being brainwashed by Church leaders and parents into joining the religious right. In a nutshell, the film characterizes the Churches, parents, and children in the film as a dangerous religious political movement. Mike Papantonio, a Christian radio host, is the resistant to the movement.

That being said, let me be clear that I am not down with religious right evangelicals nor do I support their cause. My intentions here is to make readers aware of the impact of film and, while keeping in mind how each component of making a film shapes and impacts its viewers, help them raise relevant questions about what they are watching.

A few observations about the art of the film

-the suspenseful almost scary music in the background adds to the film’s objective which is to show how kids are being brainwashed.

-The location is key. The film location is Devil’s Lake, North Dakota. The name of the location is intentional. Furthermore, its in Middletown America. The scene evokes images of places where militia cell groups are formed and trained.

-The focus on kids gives off the impression of innocence and vulnerability. The assumption is that these kids are but puddy in the hands of adults.

-The use of American flags and slogans of “God bless America” help to drive home the idea that what is being filmed is a political movement rather than a moral and ethical movement.

Other observations

The film does a great job at showing how indeed the children in the film are being conditioned into believing in certain values. Question: Is being conditioned into belief wrong? Are we not all conditioned into believing in things? In light of the film, what are we to do as Christians with Israel circumcising their children and teaching them at an early age the Torah? What about Proverbs?

Also, notice how on their website http://www.jesuscampthemovie.com/ they describe the Churches and parents as “training grounds” for children. This is an interpretation and thus their point of view.

Again, I am not endorsing the religious right but bringing attention to the bias nature of film, encouraging viewers to see that everyone has a point of view–especially when we are dealing with film where editing and directing is heavily involved in the process.

Added info: One thing that characterizes the Religious Right is the emphasis of national sins such as the acceptance of homosexuality, abortion and divorce, at the expense of omitting other national sins such as racism, violence, discrimination, materialism, etc.

A couple of weeks ago I was engaged in a forum debate surrounding Rev. Jeremiah Wright honoring nation of Islam’s leader Luis Farrakhan. The discussion actually centered around the article at the following site.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obamas-mentor-gives-farrakhan-his-award

What was the issue? How can a Christian honor a racist man like Luis Farrakhan? Even though I pointed out that Luis Farrakhan was being honored for his community service in down trodden Black communities, the lynching continued.

I then saw a double standard. The same people ridiculing Rev. Jeremiah Wright for honoring a man who they perceived as an evil racist man (Luis Farrakhan), cherished another man whom was perceived as a not so bad man–the puritan Johnathan Edwards, a man who was a slave owner. A man who was racist. Unfortunately, the revealing of a double standard did not calm the raging mob. They quickly defended their man-of-honor attempting to justify his ownership of slaves. Talk about a double standard!!! see debate here:

http://www.hcr.fm/forum/showthread.php?t=27520&highlight=jeremiah+wright

Now, Jonathan Edwards was a Calvinist. According to Kevin Jackson [ see his blog at http://seekadoo.blogspot.com/2008/03/theology-and-slave-trade-i-was-recently.html] the Calvinism of men like Jonathan Edwards helped them to accept slavery. He says that “Calvinists of the era were more likely to support the institution slavery…” because of their view of God’s sovereignty. The way things are is because God wants them that way thus bringing glory to God (Jackson).

Now in order to be fair about this Jackson’s assessment, you should all know that according to his blog, he is committed to Arminian Theology thus he may have an axe to grind against Calvinists. But besides that, did the Calvinism of the men of that era blind them from seeing the evils of slavery? Any Thoughts? Resources?

I remember when Christian Hip Hop was a ministerial movement. Today it consist of money making monopolies.

I remember when Christian hip hop was a poor community. Today it is a prospering commodity.

I remember when Christian hip hop aimed to see converts to Christ. Today it is more concerned with making concerts for the Church.

I remember when putting out a full length LP was to get it into people’s hands as an evangelistic tool. Today they are pressed up to reach the charts and collect sound scans.

I remember when Christian hip hop was unified under the person of Jesus Christ. Today it is unified under the current hot Christian emcee on the mic.

I remember when souls were on every Christian hip hop connoisseur’s mind. Today it is the dollar signs.

I remember when Christian hip hop carried it’s cross and endured thorny treatment. Today Christian hip hop has gotten use to the red carpet treatment.

I remember Christian hip hop without the myspace.com, the record labels, the elaborate websites, the email blasts, the E-cards, the award ceremonies, the exclusive interviews…

I remember when Christian Hip Hop was beats, rhymes, and the testimony of the saints witnessing God turn two turn tables and a microphone into a feast of prophetic words that fed thousands. Today it relies on the next biggest technological / marketing advancement that manages only to feed fanatic frenzy.

I remember when Christian hip hop was viewed with missionary value. Today it has more monetary value.

I remember when Christian hip hop was not one’s bread and butter but a platform to advertise the mind and ways of Christ while grinding else where to make a living. Today it is a means of living and thus, people do Christian hip hop to live rather than live to do Christian hip hop.

What I remember is but a memory. Today it is consumed in the experience of something else.

May God have mercy and grace and may God restore our purpose and aims as a missional movement. May God make us a team again rather than a competition where each man/woman is for him/herself.

May we carry the cross again and release ourselves from carrying the burden to sell, sell, sell.

May we invest in people’s lives rather than invest in more album release parties, tours, advertisements, music videos…..