Charley Honey - Remarkable Stories of the Christmas Season

http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/12/stories_of_the_christmas_seaso.html

Published: Saturday, December 24, 2011, 6:47 AM

Updated: Saturday, December 24, 2011, 12:51 PM

By Charley Honey | The Grand Rapids PressThe Grand Rapids Press

A remarkable man passed away three weeks ago, though you probably didn’t mark his passing. His name was Fred Ritsema. Mr. Ritsema was not a newsmaker. But he once told me a Christmas story that was, of the many I have heard over the years, the most remarkable.

He returned home from World War II on a Friday. The following Monday, he stuck out his thumb on Chicago Drive SW to hitchhike to Australia, where he’d met Edna May Shute at a dance. Nearly three months of trains, trucks and steamers later, he showed up at her doorstep on Christmas Eve 1945. They married and came back to Grand Rapids, where they lived a good, non-newsmaking life.

“Jesus, Heavenly Father, bring us together in heaven once more, unending,” read his final prayer in his obituary.

Now that’s what I call true love, the kind that inspires songs crooned over an old radio while Mom and Dad dance around the living room. Ardent, devoted, sacrificial love. A Christmas kind of love.

My dad’s story

Different story, different man, same kind of love: Christmas Eve, early 1950s. My folks have just made the two-hour drive from Toledo to my grandparents’ house in Detroit. Hugs and kisses, kids wide-eyed, taking in the old-fashioned tree and dishes of candy. Secretly, my folks unpack our gifts.

Uh-oh, no BB gun. My brother Mike’s biggest present, missing in action. I don’t know if it was a Red Ryder, but it definitely could put your eye out. That Christmas, Mike wanted it more than anything in the world.

So, after we kids are tucked in, Dad gets in the car, drives back to Toledo, gets the gun, drives back to Detroit. Early Christmas morning, Mike gleefully opens his gift. Dad manages a bleary-eyed smile.

[Insert here your favorite family story of Christmas craziness. Crazy distances traversed, church pageants gone awry, 2 a.m. runs to Meijer for batteries. All because families love each other, and because Christians love this certain baby who showed up in a box of straw.]

Mary’s story

The latter event had been preceded by a long trek to Bethlehem, a pretty crazy hike for a pregnant teenager. But Mary had been assured by an angel, so Scripture says: Fear not, God favors you, and nothing’s impossible with God. OK then, says Mary. Whatever you say, angel.

Her ready acceptance of this rather spooky news set the pattern for all crazy Christmases to come. The unexpected happens, things change, the world turns upside down. And the angels say, fear not.

My family’s loss

Christmas changed in a big way for my family this year, back in July. That’s when my mother, a rather boisterous angel in her own right, left this life. But that was just the beginning.

Seven weeks later, Dad’s legs went out from under him. Spinal stenosis had finally caught up, choking off his walking nerves. Still deep in grief and in no particular mood to battle, he went under the knife.

This is when God and his angels really went to work — just as they had in Mom’s heart surgery 10 years before — through the skilled hands and caring hearts of physicians and caregivers.

The surgery went off without a hitch, the doc coolly clearing backbone from nerve while we kids sweated bullets. Then followed three weeks of rehab at Mary Free Bed Rehabilitation Hospital, where small miracles were performed on Dad’s 89-year-old body, and six weeks at Clark on Keller Lake, a United Methodist assisted-living facility where the caring staff and autumn leaves healed his spirit.

The angels throughout this stretch were way too many to fit on the head of a pin or in a newspaper column. At Mary Free Bed, therapists cheerfully pushed him onto his feet with help from a really cool walker, doctors expertly guided his recovery, nurses shamelessly babied him, a psychologist listened to his broken heart and social workers held his hand every painful step of the way. One particular social worker close to my heart brought him yogurt and his morning paper.

At Clark, caring nurses and aides attended to his every need, cooks prepared delicious meals, friendly residents chatted with him about their respective journeys into walkers and wheelchairs. Meanwhile, back home, neighbors watched the house and watered the plants to prepare for his return.

Dad came home in early November, driven by my brother who wouldn’t touch a BB gun now if you paid him. He stayed with Dad for a month, I stayed for a week, and now my sister is home for several months. Mom’s special chair is empty, but her spirit still dances through the house.

Dad has accepted her passing bravely though sorrowfully. Nothing can ever be the same, and this sure isn’t the Christmas we expected. But it is Christmas nevertheless, and we will celebrate it in a new way.

And all these angels in the wings whisper, “Fear not.”

 

 

Email Charles Honey: honeycharlesm@gmail.com


 

5 Myths of Christmas

Confusion Regarding the Yuletide is Common

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/2011/12/16/20111216christmas-myths-martin.html

by James Martin

posted Dec. 24, 2011 05:10 PM

No matter your religious beliefs -- whether you're devout, doubtful or downright atheist -- you're probably familiar with the Christmas story.

But its history, significance and traditions are sometimes misunderstood. Let's clarify what the yuletide is all about by examining five myths.

1. Christmas is the most important Christian holiday.

Adoration of the Shepherds by Gerard Van Honthorst, 1622

For all the cards sent and trees decorated -- to say nothing of all the Nativity scenes displayed -- Christmas is not the most important date on the Christian calendar.

Easter, the day on which Christians believe Christ rose from the dead, has more religious significance than does Dec. 25. Christ's Resurrection means not just that one man conquered death, nor was it simply proof of Jesus' divinity to his followers; it holds out the promise of eternal life for all who believe in him.

The two holidays' relative importance is even reflected in the church's liturgical calendar. The Christmas season lasts 12 days, as all carolers know, ending with Epiphany, a feast day in early January commemorating the Wise Men's visit to the infant Jesus.

The Easter season, on the other hand, lasts 50 days. On Sundays during Eastertide, Christians hear dramatic stories of the post-Resurrection appearances of Christ to his astonished followers.

The overriding importance of Easter is simple: Anyone can be born, but not everyone can rise from the dead.

2. There is biblical consensus on the story of Jesus' birth.

Life of Christ Window 1-6: Birth Narratives

From bottom left: Annunciation, Visitation, Nativity, Annunciation to Shepherds, King Herod, Three Magi.

Panels 1-6 at the bottom of the Life of Christ Window, the center lancet beneath the west rose window. Dating from about 1150, it depicts the early life of Christ from the Annunciation to the Triumphal Entry.

Chartres Cathedral, Chartres, Centre, France

Even knowledgeable Christians may expect to find the familiar story of Christmas in each of the four Gospels: the journey of Mary on a donkey accompanied by Saint Joseph, the child's birth in a manger surrounded by animals, shepherds and angels, with the Wise Men appearing shortly afterward.

But two of the Gospels say nothing about Jesus' birth. The Gospel of Mark -- the earliest of the Gospels, written roughly 30 years after Jesus' Crucifixion -- does not have a word about the Nativity. Instead, it begins with the story of John the Baptist, who announces the impending arrival of the adult Jesus of Nazareth. The Gospel of John is similarly silent about Jesus' birth.

The two Gospels that do mention what theologians call the "infancy narratives" differ on some significant details.

Matthew seems to describe Mary and Joseph as living in Bethlehem, fleeing to Egypt and then moving to Nazareth.

The Gospel of Luke, on the other hand, has the two originally living in Nazareth, traveling to Bethlehem in time for the birth and then returning home.

Both Gospels, though, place Jesus' birthplace in Bethlehem.

3. Jesus was an only child.

Catholics, myself included, believe that Mary's pregnancy came about miraculously -- what we call the "virgin birth." Catholics also believe that Mary remained a virgin her entire life, though many Protestants do not.

So, when Catholics stumble upon Gospel passages that speak of Jesus' brothers and sisters, they are often confused.

In the Gospel of Luke, someone tells Jesus, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you." In Mark's Gospel, people from Nazareth exclaim: "Is not this the carpenter's son?... Are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?" Even Saint Paul called James "the Lord's brother."

These passages are sometimes explained away by saying that these are Jesus' friends, relatives, half brothers or, most often, cousins.

But there is a perfectly good word for "cousins" in Greek, which Mark and Luke could have used instead of "adelphoi," meaning "brothers."

Many Catholic scholars maintain that Jesus indeed had brothers and sisters -- perhaps through an earlier marriage of Joseph. So, a virgin birth, but step-brothers and-sisters.

4. The secularization of Christmas is a recent phenomenon.

Worries about diluting Christmas' meaning go much further back than recent memory. Gift-giving, for example, was seen as problematic as early as the Middle Ages, when the church frowned on the practice for its supposed pagan origins.

More recently, some religious leaders in the 1950s fretted about the use of the term "X-mas" (which, depending on whom you believe, either substitutes a tacky "X" for Christ or uses the Greek letter chi, an ancient abbreviation for the name).

The first few Christmas stamps issued by the U.S. Postal Service in the early 1960s featured not the familiar Madonna and Child, but a bland wreath, an anodyne Christmas tree and sprigs of greenery.

And some of the most beloved "Christmas" TV shows from the 1960s -- "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" and "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" -- have little to do with the birth of Christ and are more about vague holiday celebrations and, mostly, gifts.

Linus' famous recitation from Luke's Gospel in "A Charlie Brown Christmas" is the exception in pop culture, not the rule.

The overt religiosity of that scene, which flowed from the faith of Charles Schulz, drew criticism even at its first airing in 1965, as David Michaelis detailed in his 2008 biography of the cartoonist, "Schulz and Peanuts."

5. Midnight Mass is at midnight.

 

Midnight Mass, traditionally the first celebration of the Christmas liturgy, is also when Saint Luke's account of the birth of Jesus is read aloud. Recently, however, many churches have moved up their celebrations -- first to 10 p.m., then to 8 p.m., and now as early as 4 p.m.

Why? For one thing, churches are packed on Christmas Day.

Second, the elderly and families with children may find it easier to attend services on the 24th, so as not to conflict with the following day's festivities.

As a result, some parishes are cutting back on Masses on Christmas Day.


James Martin, a Jesuit priest and culture editor of "America" magazine, is the author of "Between Heaven and Mirth: Why Joy, Humor, and Laughter Are at the Heart of the Spiritual Life." This column was published in the Washington Post.

An Update from Biologos

The Biologos foundation has been very helpful to this blog site's insistence on reconciling the Christian faith with today's scientific research and discoveries. From time to time, as I find Biologos' directional, I have included those sets of articles for consideration in the exploration of how Emergent Christianity embraces science with the Christian faith in the hopes of re-gaining an expanded Bible and a vision of God's world from God's perspective.

Like this site here, as it concentrates on separating true Christian doctrines and from religious dogmas, Biologos has been re-creating a faith-based reference site for baseline discussions amongst Christians from different walks of faith in the hopes of providing concrete direction to the many areas of biblical topics that can be confusing or mis-applied.

Let us give thanks to Darrel Falk and his intrepid team of explorers for showing the deep relevancy between science and that of the Christian faith. And for those science teachers amongst us you'll find the Biologos workshops and seminars a ready tool for your classroom lectures that you may join and participate as you read further.

These are exciting times of discovery that continue to show the mystery, the infinity, the wisdom of God through the process of mediated creation that He has begun and continues to create. Praise God for He is worthy to be praised! He is our Lord and King. He is Majestic. None other rules over His Godhead. He alone is the Lover of our souls. We are His as He is mine. His wonders are too mysterious. His creation too vast. We cannot comprehend His greatness. We can but only bow our heads and give thanks to the greatness of His majesty, His wisdom, His love. Amen.

R.E. Slater

relevancy22

December 23, 2011

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

BioLoguration II

http://biologos.org/blog/biologuration-ii

December 21, 2011

The BioLogos staff in San Diego

Today's entry was written by Darrel Falk. Darrel Falk serves as president of The BioLogos Foundation. He transitioned into Christian higher education 25 years ago and has given numerous talks about the relationship between science and faith at many universities and seminaries. He is the author of Coming to Peace with Science.

Looking Back

Although BioLogos officially began in 2007 as an organization that would develop a website to answer questions that emerged from Francis Collins’ book, The Language of God, it began in earnest exactly three years ago with the submission and approval of an expanded grant from the John Templeton Foundation.

I remember that Christmas season well as Syman Stevens, Karl Giberson, Francis Collins and I excitedly began working towards the launch of The BioLogos Forum website in April of 2009. Except for Christmas Day itself, emails bounced onto our computer screen like popcorn and we were frequently all online at the same time. We were embarking on a project to show that biology and Christianity—even Evangelicalism—are harmonious. Our confidence in the faithfulness of God’s Word and in the reasonableness of using science as a tool for understanding God’s world drove us forward. The ensuing weeks were terribly exciting as we met regularly by phone, and then in person over Valentine’s Day weekend around the dining room table of Francis Collins and his wife, Diane.

About one week before the public launch of the website on April 28, 2009, in Washington, D.C, Francis broke the news to us that he might be asked to serve as the Director of the National Institutes of Health, and if that happened he would have to remove himself from BioLogos. That is exactly what happened, but before it did Francis wrote his first blog, BioLoguration. With that, BioLogos was officially launched. Francis was unanimously approved by the U.S. Senate in August of 2009, and in reflecting on his departure, I wrote a blog entitled, The Vision Lives On.

I’ve always considered those two blogs as a sort of plumb-line by which we could measure whether BioLogos was accomplishing its mission. Looking back, I am thankful to see that for the most part, we are. Employees have come and gone. Syman is now working on a PhD at Oxford University and Karl resigned to devote all of his time to writing books and speaking. Others have since joined us and I have the privilege of working alongside a marvelous team, most of whom work faithfully behind the scenes. Through all these changes, we have continued to make an impact.

Where We Are Now

The BioLogos website has become a significant resource for people seeking ways to celebrate and explain the harmony between science and faith. In addition to blogs, scholarly essays, and links to countless other resources, our new BioLogos Resource Center contains over 100 short video clips featuring a wide variety of articulate Evangelicals, including some from a soon-to-be-released film co-sponsored with Highway Media called “From the Dust.”

Print media is also important to our success; this year we celebrated the publication of The Language of Science and Faith, a book co-authored by Karl Giberson and Francis Collins (which they began in the summer of 2009 while Francis was still able to work with us). We remain committed to developing quality resources to help those who are struggling to make sense of their faith in light of modern science and vice versa.

Although our website has long been the public face of BioLogos, it is only a small part of our outreach activities. One of our most important initiatives is the annual Theology of Celebration workshop in New York City, a gathering of many influential leaders within the Evangelical world. At this meeting we think and pray together about how the church can best respond to the issues of origins raised by science. Our next meeting, planned for March 2012, will focus especially on pastoral concerns.

Our summer workshops for science teachers in Christian schools have continued to be a great highlight as well. Those of us who have taught in the program consider this experience to have been among the most fulfilling of our careers, and the teachers themselves—after meeting in person for two, week-long workshops and online over the intervening year—viewed it the same way, almost without exception. Not all left the program with a BioLogos perspective, which is fine: our purpose in these workshops is to explore—to learn, think, pray, and worship together.

The Shape of the Future

The future looks bright for BioLogos. Our website, already strong, will become an increasingly helpful resource in the coming years for pastors, teachers, new Christians, high school students, college students, scholars and seekers. People will quickly be able to find resources that address their most pressing questions and enter into discussion about whatever they find most interesting.

BioLogos will also provide resources that will last for decades as the church, including conservative Evangelicals, comes to embrace as brothers and sisters those who accept mainstream science, even as many leaders and congregants remain hesitant about it themselves. We will be patient with each other; we will be loving; we will be an example of what it means to follow Jesus in the Romans 14 sense. By that I mean we will be careful that the minors not become major in the Kingdom of God. Still, we will clearly articulate what we believe and why, and we will provide resources for those who seek to understand.

Our programs for science teachers will expand significantly. Through workshops and new resources, teachers will be better equipped to clearly lay out data for their students and guide them through the process of interpreting it in a scientifically and theologically informed manner. The teachers themselves need to be heavily involved in helping us accomplish this.

During this coming year, if the funds become available, we will also initiate conversations with university campus ministries to aid Christian and non-Christian young people who are studying science, especially biology, in a secular environment.

The Need is Great

Our goal, quite simply, is to help the church understand why a growing number of Christians, many of whom have a traditional, orthodox faith firmly grounded in the Bible as God’s Word, see no conflict between mainstream science and Christianity. We also want to cultivate a world where Christian young people feel emboldened in their faith—rather than weakened—when they come to understand the strength of the scientific data. This is a monumental task, to be sure, but every day we sense God’s calling to continue in the work.

BioLogos cannot succeed without you, the members of our community. While we have been blessed to receive a renewal of our Templeton funds that support some of our core activities, we must raise private funds for all aspects of our education initiatives. Science teachers who are Christians, especially those in Christian schools, are in desperate need of professional support. Their resources are very limited. Just ask them! Ask them about workshops at Christian school conventions. Ask them how much professional development activity is available to them. Ask them whether they feel supported to really wrestle with the findings of science.

Thankfully, we as a community can help. One very generous couple has promised to provide a matching gift up to $100,000. Every gift received (or post-marked) before January 1st from a new donor will be doubled up to that level. Similarly, for previous donors, the amount given over and above that given last year will also be doubled.

BioLogos is a movement. Its purpose is not simply to change minds, but to change hearts. We believe, with near certainty, that God created through the evolutionary process, but our task is not to get everyone to see it our way. Our task is, however, to help everyone embrace the many Christians who already do think this way. We ask you to join us in the BioLogos movement today. Some members of our community are giving $25, which immediately translates into $50 because of the match. Others feel called to give much more. Believe me, gifts of all sizes do add up!

Final Thoughts

I entitled this essay BioLoguration II. There are a couple of reasons for that. One is simply that we’ve received our grant renewal and BioLogos now moves into the phase governed by the second grant. However, the other reason is that the first BioLoguration focused on introducing our mission and helping people to become aware of the need. That went exceptionally well, much better than we would have anticipated. Hundreds of thousands of people have visited our site— indeed, we have close to 50,000 visits each month. So now that many people know about BioLogos, we can say that the first phase is complete. Now we set out to help the church embrace the many Bible-believing, Jesus-loving disciples who think science is a reasonable, reliable tool for listening to what God has to tell us about his creation.

As the years go by, I expect there will be a BioLoguration III. The twenty-first century is the century of biology, biotechnology, and biomedical engineering. There is a need like never before for a Christian voice and conscience as society wrestles with great questions posed through this new knowledge.

Although the need for fully informed Christians is great, many of us aren’t there yet. Many of us are still wrestling with the evidence for evolution, theological ramifications, philosophical questions, tradition-specific concerns, hermeneutical issues, and how science can enrich and inform our worship. These are fascinating and wonderful issues, even as they are at times heart-wrenching. That’s phase II. BioLoguration II takes us into this stage. Once we make significant progress on this front, we’ll be ready for the all-important BioLoguration III. We invite you to prayerfully consider a gift today to bring out this brighter future.

Anuradha Koirala Indian-Nepalese Orphange to Stop Sex Trafficking

CNN Hero working harder than ever to stop sex trafficking
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/06/23/cnnheroes.koirala.qa/index.html?iref=allsearch

June 23, 2011 5:48 p.m. EDT

Maiti Nepal

83-Maiti Marg, Pingalsthan, Gaushala
P.O. Box 9599, Kathmandu, Nepal

Phone: 977-1-4492904
Fax: 977-1-4489978
E-Mail: info@maitinepal.org

program@maitinepal.org

Website: http://www.maitinepal.org

Anuradha Koirala was honored as the 2010 CNN Hero of the Year

at CNN Heroes: An All-Star Tribute.  Jun 23, 2011 | 03:21

CNN Hero fights to end sex trafficking

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Anuradha Koirala, the 2010 CNN Hero of the Year, is saving Nepalese from sex trafficking
  
• Koirala and actress Demi Moore featured in "Nepal's Stolen Children," a CNN documentary
• The documentary, part of the CNN Freedom Project, premieres Sunday at 8 p.m. ET
  

RELATED TOPICS

• Human Trafficking
• Nepal
• Demi Moore

(CNN) -- More than 17,000 women and girls from Nepal become sex slaves every year. Many end up in India, China or other Southeast Asian countries, and roughly half of them are children.

Anuradha Koirala -- the 2010 CNN Hero of the Year -- has been fighting to end this sex trafficking for nearly two decades. Since 1993, she and her organization, Maiti Nepal, have helped rescue and rehabilitate more than 12,000 women and girls.

Recently, Koirala partnered with actress Demi Moore on "Nepal's Stolen Children: A CNN Freedom Project Documentary." For the film, which premieres Sunday at 8 p.m. ET, Moore traveled to Nepal to meet Koirala and some of the people rescued by her group.

CNN's Kathleen Toner recently spoke with Koirala, 62, about how her life has changed since being honored as Hero of the Year and what work remains to be done.

Kathleen Toner: How did you feel when you were named Hero of the Year in November?

Anuradha Koirala: There were so many other people doing very good things who were being honored, so I wasn't expecting it. I was shocked.

I first thought of all of my girls at Maiti Nepal. I wished I was in front of them. I wished I was in my country. But I knew it was a chance to draw attention to the problem of sex trafficking.

When I returned home, they had a big rally with thousands of youths. I realized that the whole country was eager to work hard to make Nepal trafficking-free. It was wonderful.

Toner: How have things changed for you?

Koirala: I now feel that there is extra responsibility on me. I feel I must be even more committed since people around the globe are depending on me. I need to work even harder to get to the end.

We are working so hard. Our work is the same as before ... but (we want) to monitor more of the border crossings. The border with Tibet is a very important area. ... It's very difficult. People easily take a one-day pass to go across to Nepal, and no one monitors. We've found many girls being taken across the border and being used in different entertainment sectors and brothels, so now (we're considering) working there.

At this point, the most important thing we have to do is surveillance and stop, stop, stop girls from being exploited.

Toner: What was it like to work with Demi Moore on "Nepal's Stolen Children"?

Koirala: She was superb. I have seen artists, film stars, musicians and all kinds of celebrities, but often they look very snobbish, very superior. She was very down-to-Earth. She knew the issue and was really committed.

When we were working on the documentary, we had to go to the home of a girl who'd been trafficked, but it was very difficult. Her village was in the mountains, and her home was on a very steep hill. It was a very hard walk for half an hour.

(Moore) is very determined (to help). When she came to Maiti and met the girls, she was so good with the children. She really is committed to this issue. If more people like her come into this field, then maybe we will succeed someday.

Toner: What do people need to know about this issue?

Koirala: This problem of trafficking children and women needs to be addressed, because HIV and trafficking are synonymous with each other. The fundamental human rights of the girl child are being seriously violated. It is a heinous crime, and it harms the girls physically and psychologically. It's also increasing the transmission of HIV to a larger population.

We have to make more awareness, and everyone should be involved: NGOs, government ministries, police, media, community activists and the entire community. (We) can't reach every affected individual; families and communities need to be assisted and encouraged to take responsibility. ... At the end, the whole theme is sensitizing and increasing awareness of the public on a large scale.

Toner: It's such a widespread problem. Do you think that you are making progress?

Koirala: Yes. If not, I would not have been chosen (as CNN Hero of the Year). But more sensitizing and awareness is needed.

Nothing is impossible if the whole world collaborates. If CNN supports us, if the U.S. government supports us, if all of the world supports us, why can't we (end sex trafficking)? But I think I have to live also for another 20 years.

See the full story on CNN Hero Anuradha Koirala:
Rescuing girls from sex slavery

On Idols, Happiness and Personal Meaning

Who Stole My Happiness?

http://peterrollins.net/?p=3435

by Peter Rollins

posted 12/12/11

One of the first problems that we are confronted with concerning the “Thing” which we imagine will bring us fulfilment (money, fame, health, relationship etc.) is, of course, that we can’t seem to ever get our hands on it. If we do reach out and grasp we open our hands and find out that it isn’t actually the “Thing” after all (because it has not satisfied in the way we fantasised). This is not to say that a form of happiness and satisfaction is beyond us, just that the imagined fulfilment of desire is an impossible dream (that would turn out to be a nightmare were it ever possible). The belief in something that can fulfil us (in theological terms “the idol”) is then oppressive because it always seems out of reach, robbing our current situation of meaning.

This is, of course, a rather mundane and well-documented phenomenon. However what is reflected on less is the way that we imagine others having the “Thing” and how this affects the way we relate to them.

Take the example of a minister standing in front of his congregation preaching against the sexual sins of the world. Let us imagine him working himself into a sweat about the orgies, sex parties and deviant behaviour going on just beyond the walls of the church. One of the striking things about this is the way that all of his pent up emotion and moral indignation often seems like nothing more than a thin veil hiding the truth that he is jealous of all the fun they are having. They are having so much pleasure while he is not, they have the “Thing” that he doesn’t.

To approach this from a different angle I recently talked with a woman who broke up with someone and subsequently felt bad because she knew that he was very unhappy as a result of the split. She told me of how, a couple of months later, she found out from a friend that he was much better and in a new relationship. When she heard the news she expressed joy to her friend. However she admitted to me, and herself, that the initial “sorrow” she felt at him being unhappy actually contained a form of hidden pleasure while the “pleasure” she had at thinking he was happy veiled a sorrow.

Her feelings had nothing to do with her disliking the man or not wanting him to prosper; it was rather connected to her (implicit) belief in the "Thing."

This is also seen to play out when someone breaks up with us. It is not uncommon to imagine that the other person is out partying all the time, meeting new people and generally having a ball. All the while we are unhappy, unstable and unable to leave the house. They appear to have the pleasure that we lack and we resent them for it, even wishing them harm. More than this we are willing to hurt ourselves in order to rob them of their pleasure (the most extreme form being suicide – where we will end our own life to rob them of the "Thing").

The point of these brief comments is to draw out how our belief that there is something which can satisfy our desire and render us whole, [which] is not only oppressive because (i) we can never seem to grasp it, but also is oppressive because (ii) of the way that we think others have. When we are truly able to see the other as being just as riven with desire and lack as we are then reconciliation becomes more possible.*

This is a subject that I go into in much more depth in my next book (due out October 2012).

* * * * * * * * * *  * * *

*If I might attempt to complete Peter's thought, we might imagine ourselves no less fulfilled or happy than another person similarly plague by personal thoughts of unfulfillment and unhappiness. Each of us have our own personal "idols and meaning" issues. Each of us are just as torn as the other. But in different ways. This is a sin issue. Rather than being content with life's many little perfections of beauty around us we always want more from God. Our pride and ego would drive us to lust and discontent. These are different than dreams and passions which would drive us to God's re-purposing of our lives. One is an idol. The other is worship.

R.E. Slater

December 15, 2011

How (not) to Honor Christmas

Blessed are the entitled? (*Reposted from December 8, 2010)
http://rachelheldevans.com/blessed-are-the-entitled

by Rachel Held Evans
December 8, 2011

photo © 2007 Sharon Mollerus | more info (via: Wylio)

“Christmas survived the Roman Empire,
I think it can handle the renaming of the Tulsa parade.”
- Jon Stewart (watch the video)

Ever witness a kid digress into complete meltdown mode after his parents refused to buy him that new video game?

“But I want it! It’s mine! Give it to me!”

Entitlement can get ugly, especially around Christmastime.

And the only thing more embarrassing than watching a little kid throw a fit is watching a grownup throw one.

“If you don’t play religious music at your store, we’ll boycott it!”

“We demand that manger scenes be placed in front of all government buildings!”

“How dare you say ‘happy holidays’ to me? I want to speak with the manager!”

“I want it! It’s mine! Give it to me!”

I’m not sure when or why it happened, but in some circles, entitlement has been declared December's Christian virtue. Suddenly it’s not enough that Americans spend millions of dollars each year marking the birth of Jesus. Now we’ve got to have a “Merry Christmas” banner in front of every parade and an inflatable manger scene outside of every courthouse... or else we’ll make a big stink about it in the name of Jesus. Having opened the gift of the incarnation—of God with us—we’ve peered inside and shrieked, “This is not enough! Where are the accessories? We want more!”

This is a strange way to honor Jesus, “who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped…but made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant.” (Philippians 2:8)

Jesus didn’t arrive with a parade. He arrived in a barn.

Jesus wasn’t embraced by the government. He was crucified by it.

Jesus didn’t demand that his face be etched into coins or his cross be carried like a banner into war. He asked that those who follow him be willing to humble themselves to the point of death, to serve rather than be served, to give rather than receive.

What a tragedy that history’s greatest act of humility is being marked by petty acts of entitlement and pride.

Don't tell anyone, but sometimes I wonder if the best thing that could happen to this country is for Christ to be taken out of Christmas—for Advent to be made distinct from all the consumerism of the holidays and for the name of Christ to be invoked in the context of shocking forgiveness, radical hospitality, and logic-defying love. The Incarnation survived the Roman Empire, not because it was common but because it was strange, not because it was forced on people but because it captivated people.

Let’s celebrate the holidays, of course, but let’s live the incarnation. Let’s advocate for the poor, the forgotten, the lonely, and the lost. Let’s wage war against hunger and oppression and modern-day slavery.

Let’s be the kind of people who get worked up on behalf of others rather than ourselves.

And "...your daughters will prophesy"

http://rachelheldevans.com/daughters-will-prophesy

by Rachel Held Evans
December 13, 2011

“Whoever welcomes a prophet as a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and whoever welcomes a righteous person as a righteous person will receive a righteous person’s reward. - Jesus, Matthew 10:41

Josiah became king of Israel when he was just eight years old.

Described as Israel’s last good king, he reigned for thirty-one years during a final period of peace before the Babylonian exile. About halfway through his reign, Josiah learns that the long-lost Book of the Law—the Torah— has been discovered in the temple. Upon hearing the words of the Torah read aloud, Josiah tears his robes in repentance and summons a prophet, for he sees how far Israel has strayed from God’s ways.

Contemporaries of Josiah included the famed prophets Jeremiah, Zephaniah, Nahum, and Habakkuk—all of whom have books of the Bible named after them. But Josiah did not choose any of those men. Instead he chose Huldah, a woman and prophet who lived in Jerusalem. “Huldah is not chosen because no men were available,” writes Scot McKnight, “she is chosen because she is truly exceptional among the prophets.”

Huldah first confirms the scroll’s authenticity and then tells Josiah that the disobedience of Israel will indeed lead to its destruction, but that Josiah himself would die in peace. Thus, Huldah not only interpreted but also authorized the document that would become the core of Jewish and Christian scripture. Her prophecy was fulfilled thirty-five years later (2 Kings 22).

The Bible identifies ten such female prophets in the Old and New Testaments: Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Noadiah, Isaiah’s wife, Anna, and the four daughters of Philip. In addition, women like Rachel, Hannah, Abigail, Elisabeth, and Mary are described as having prophetic visions about the future of their children, the destiny of nations, and the coming Messiah.

When the Holy Spirit descended upon the first Christians at Pentecost, Peter draws from the words of the prophet Joel to describe what has happened:

Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
Your young men will see visions,
Your old men will dream dreams.
Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
And they will prophesy (Acts 2:17-18)

The breaking in of the new creation after Christ’s resurrection unleashed a cacophony of new prophetic voices, and apparently, prophesying among women was such a common activity in the early church that Paul had to remind women to cover their heads when they did it. While some may try to downplay biblical examples of female disciples, deacons, preachers, leaders and apostles, no one can deny the Bible’s long tradition of prophetic feminine vision.

I believe that right now, we need that prophetic vision more than ever.

Right now, 30,000 children die every day from preventable disease.

Right now 3 million women and girls are enslaved in the sex trade.

Right now a woman dies in childbirth every minute.

Right now, women age 15-44 are more likely to be maimed or to die from male violence than from cancer, malaria, traffic accidents, and war combined.

Meanwhile, the evangelical church has busied itself with endless debates about the “appropriate roles” of women in the church and complaints about the supposed “feminization of the Church,” as if women are no longer needed for the Kingdom, as if we’ve stepped outside our bounds. Meanwhile, churches are spending years debating whether a female missionary should be allowed to speak on a Sunday morning, whether students older than ten should have female Sunday school teachers, whether women should be allowed to read from Scripture in a church service, whether girls should be encouraged to attend seminary, whether women should be permitted to collect the offering or write the church newsletter or make an announcement. Those of us who are perhaps most equipped to speak and act prophetically in response to the violence, poverty, and inequality that plague our sisters around the world are being silenced ourselves.

Folks who see the leadership of women like Huldah and Junia as special exceptions for times of great need are oblivious to the world in which we live. Those who think the urgency of Pentecost has passed are deluding themsleves. They “have eyes to see but do not see and ears to hear but do not hear.”

Women around the world need the voices of all their sisters to cry out in one accord.

I’m with Sarah on this one. We cannot afford to wait for permission to make change; women themselves must be the change.

So, ladies—speak out.

Preach.

Prophecy.

Stand with your sisters.

Change the world.

And if a man ever tries to use the Bible as a weapon against you to keep you from speaking the truth, just throw on a head covering and tell him that you’re prophesying, just like the Bible says you can do.

To those who will not accept us as preachers, we will have to become prophets.

Emergent Christianity and a Calvinistic Philosopher's Assertion for Theism and Evolution

Reading through the NYT article below reminded me of the several themes we have been discussing these past many months concerning the Emergent Christian faith and the world's (and church's, for that matter) many interpretations of realism. One of those themes explored is the belief in God (theism) within late 20th Century Postmodernism leading towards an era (perhaps) of Authentication for the early 21st Century. As versus the atheistic and agnostic counter positions which would include the evolutionary Darwinian philosophy of naturalism.

Clearly Evolutionary Creation does not require the view of Darwinian Naturalism to be held as a plausible view of biblical creation. It has been shown in many articles the appropriateness of a theistic view as related to this subject.* In fact, the onus is actually on the competing views of atheism and agnosticism to show the validity of their arguments. It is but left for the theist to assert his interpretation of scientific results and make argument where and when necessary (as Mr. Plantinga illustrates below in his most recent book).

Further, we have asserted here the general support of all scientific study and research without finding it necessary to "modify" those results towards a Christian philosophy (counter to neo-evangelicalism and Christian fundamentalism's more lingering resistance and doubts). We are comfortable in accepting all theories and postulates. And are confident that within science itself lies the necessary mechanisms for debate, doubt, synthesis, and restructuring through continuing examination, resultant corollaries with newer, displacing, scientific theories. (Interestingly, this also has been occuring within the branch of Theology as well!)

Consequently, it is left to the Christian faith to theologically (NOT scientifically) interpret those results (in terms of metaphysics, ontology, epistemologies, etc). Organizations like Biologos have been doing just that. So too have religious departments been working with both their philosophic and scientific counterparts towards a fuller understanding of God's universe from our many temporal, and limited, understandings. Article after article has been posted here showing the great amount of effort that has been occurring through postmodernistic cultural inquiries and study, by debate and argument, by prayer and prayerful insight. The Christian knows that God is true and that His creation will reveal God's many wonders and splendors despite occurrences of non-Christian interpretation. Good scientific research will eventually verify this belief as is even now being shown in recent discoveries.

Lastly, it is true that Emergent Christianity is allowing for a broader, more moderating version of Christianity than has been found to either the right or to the left of its position. First and foremost is its postmodernistic vision of today's global cultural outreach. The Christian faith has much to offer the world's many religions and cultures. Why? Because Jesus' Gospel will emancipate and deeply enrich every participating religion and culture that chooses to follow Him. What Emergent Christianity does not require is the forcing of the Christian faith upon others. It is respectful of every man and woman's free will of choice, and subsequent interpretation of Jesus to himself and his culture which follows a good, studied discernment of Scripture and doctrine.

Nor does Emergent Christianity force its culture upon its adherents. Every culture is left to freely adapt and assimilate itself to its best understanding of Christ as presented by postmodernism's re-constructive theologic work currently being undertaken throughout universities and emergent churches regarding who Jesus is, how we may comprehend Him, His Word, and ourselves. And as distinct from the many barriers of common Christian folk religion, religious dogmas, restrictive worship styles, and personal faith practices. Emergent Christianity seeks a truer form of personal liberty in each one of these areas as testimony to God's love and grace.

Moreover, Emergent Christianity desires to worship-and-work as one unified body with other similarly committed Jesus followers by seeking communal unions as can be found in the broad spectrum of conservative Christians to practising progressive Christians.  However, Emergent Christianity is also willing to be abandoned by both ends of this spectrum if,  while pursuing its own version of a loving, more realistic faith, than (i) what the religious right is offering; or, a better, more firmer ground of truth, than (ii) what the religious left is offering. Emergent Christianity seeks association with Evangelicalism in all its many forms (including Calvinism) as much as it seeks unity with the many denominational expressions of the Progressive Christianity. But in the realisation that each-and-all participating groups must be willing to change and adapt to either a more loving, or a more biblical, theological interpretations-and-practices than are presently being observed. And to adopt those interpretations-and-practices which would lead to a better, more wholistic, foundation of Christianity unity, and fellowship, as honoring to Jesus, our Savior and Lord, in concerted missional outreach to the postmodern world.

R.E. Slater

December 15, 2011

*per Evolutionary Creationism:

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/11/evolution-is-god-just-playing-dice.html,

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/11/gods-role-in-creation.html,

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/11/misconceptions-about-evolutionary.html

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Books

Philosopher Sticks Up for God
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/books/alvin-plantingas-new-book-on-god-and-science.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all%3Fsrc%3Dtp&smid=fb-share

By JENNIFER SCHUESSLER
Published: December 13, 2011

Adam Bird for The New York Times. The

philosopher Alvin Plantinga, whose new

book is called “Where the Conflict Really

Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism.”

There are no atheists in foxholes, the old saying goes. Back in the 1950s, when the philosopher Alvin Plantinga was getting his start, there were scarcely more religious believers in academic philosophy departments.

Growing up among Dutch Calvinist immigrants in the Midwest, Mr. Plantinga

Had he not transferred to Calvin College, the Christian Reformed liberal arts college in Grand Rapids, Mich., where his father taught psychology, Mr. Plantinga wrote in a 1993 essay, he doubted that he “would have remained a Christian at all; certainly Christianity or theism would not have been the focal point of my adult intellectual life.”

But he did return, and the larger world of philosophy has been quite different as a result. From Calvin, and later from the University of Notre Dame, Mr. Plantinga has led a movement of unapologetically Christian philosophers who, if they haven’t succeeded in persuading their still overwhelmingly unbelieving colleagues, have at least made theism philosophically respectable.

“There are vastly more Christian philosophers and vastly more visible or assertive Christian philosophy now than when I left graduate school,” Mr. Plantinga said in a recent telephone interview from his home in Grand Rapids, adding, with characteristic modesty, “I have no idea how it happened.”

Mr. Plantinga retired from full-time teaching last year, with more than a dozen books and a past presidency of the American Philosophical Association to his name. But he’s hardly resting on those laurels. Having made philosophy safe for theism, he’s now turning to a harder task: making theism safe for science.

For too long, Mr. Plantinga contends in a new book, theists have been on the defensive, merely rebutting the charge that their beliefs are irrational. It’s time for believers in the old-fashioned creator God of the Bible to go on the offensive, he argues, and he has some sports metaphors at the ready. (Not for nothing did he spend two decades at Notre Dame.)

In “Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism,” published last week by Oxford University Press, he unleashes a blitz of densely reasoned argument against “the touchdown twins of current academic atheism,” the zoologist Richard Dawkins and the philosopher Daniel C. Dennett, spiced up with some trash talk of his own.

Mr. Dawkins? “Dancing on the lunatic fringe,” Mr. Plantinga declares. Mr. Dennett? A reverse fundamentalist who proceeds by “inane ridicule and burlesque” rather than by careful philosophical argument.

On the telephone Mr. Plantinga was milder in tone but no less direct. “It seems to me that many naturalists, people who are super-atheists, try to co-opt science and say it supports naturalism,” he said. “I think it’s a complete mistake and ought to be pointed out.”

The so-called New Atheists may claim the mantle of reason, not to mention a much wider audience, thanks to best sellers like Mr. Dawkins’s fire-breathing polemic, “The God Delusion.” But while Mr. Plantinga may favor the highly abstruse style of analytic philosophy, to him the truth of the matter is crystal clear.

Theism, with its vision of an orderly universe superintended by a God who created rational-minded creatures in his own image, “is vastly more hospitable to science than naturalism,” with its random process of natural selection, he writes. “Indeed, it is theism, not naturalism, that deserves to be called ‘the scientific worldview.’ ”

Mr. Plantinga readily admits that he has no proof that God exists. But he also thinks that doesn’t matter. Belief in God, he argues, is what philosophers call a basic belief: It is no more in need of proof than the belief that the past exists, or that other people have minds, or that one plus one equals two.

“You really can’t sensibly claim theistic belief is irrational without showing it isn’t true,” Mr. Plantinga said. And that, he argues, is simply beyond what science can do.

Mr. Plantinga says he accepts the scientific theory of evolution, as all Christians should. Mr. Dennett and his fellow atheists, he argues, are the ones who are misreading Darwin. Their belief that evolution rules out the existence of God — including a God who purposely created human beings through a process of guided evolution — is not a scientific claim, he writes, but “a metaphysical or theological addition.”

These are fighting words to scientific atheists, but Mr. Plantinga’s game of turnabout doesn’t stop there. He argues that atheism and even agnosticism themselves are irrational.

“I think there is such a thing as a sensus divinitatis, and in some people it doesn’t work properly,” he said, referring to the innate sense of the divine that Calvin believed all human beings possess. “So if you think of rationality as normal cognitive function, yes, there is something irrational about that kind of stance.”

Longtime readers of Mr. Plantinga, who was raised as a Presbyterian and who embraced the Calvinism of the Christian Reformed Church as a young man, are used to such invocations of theological concepts. And even philosophers who reject his theism say his arguments for the basic rationality of belief, laid out in books like “Warranted Christian Belief” and “God and Other Minds,” constitute an important contribution that every student of epistemology would be expected to know.

But Mr. Plantinga’s steadfast defense of the biochemist and intelligent-design advocate Michael Behe, the subject of a long chapter in the new book, is apparently another matter.

“I think deep down inside he really isn’t a friend of science,” Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science at Florida State University, said of Mr. Plantinga. “I’m not objecting to him wanting to defend theism. But I think he gets his victory at the level of gelding or significantly altering modern science in unacceptable ways.”

Mr. Dennett was even harsher, calling Mr. Plantinga “Exhibit A of how religious beliefs can damage or hinder or disable a philosopher,” not to mention a poor student of biology. Evolution is a random, unguided process, he said, and Mr. Plantinga’s effort to leave room for divine intervention is simply wishful thinking.

“It’s just become more and more transparent that he’s an apologist more than a serious, straight-ahead philosopher,” Mr. Dennett said.

When Mr. Plantinga and Mr. Dennett (who said he has not read Mr. Plantinga’s new book) faced off over these questions before a standing-room-only crowd at a 2009 meeting of the American Philosophical Association, the event prompted ardent online debate over who had landed better punches, or simply been more condescending. (A transcript of the proceedings was published last year as “Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?”)

Mr. Plantinga, who recalled the event as “polite but not cordial,” allowed that he didn’t think much of Mr. Dennett’s line of reasoning. “He didn’t want to argue,” Mr. Plantinga said. “It was more like he wanted to make assertions and tell stories.”

Mr. Plantinga and Mr. Dennett do agree about one thing: Religion and science can’t just call a truce and retreat back into what the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould called “non-overlapping magisteria,” with science laying claim to the empirical world, while leaving questions of ultimate meaning to religion. Religion, like science, makes claims about the truth, Mr. Plantinga insists, and theists need to stick up for the reasonableness of those claims, especially if they are philosophers.

“To call a philosopher irrational, those are fighting words,” he said. “Being rational is a philosopher’s aim. It’s taken pretty seriously.”