amy- The Sweet Calm

Monasteries always hold a degree of mystery and wonder to me. It takes me to a place of calm and peace within my heart. I feel free to let my mind wander and take me into the deepest recesses of my mind. Santa Croce in Florence is one of the places that stick out in my mind as being a place of calm. It seemed far removed from the typical “downtown” area of Florence, and made me think of the greatest artists ever known worshipping there. As I explored, a calm came over me. I never wanted to leave. Santa Croce was not crowded with tourists when we arrived; the clouds seemed to be moving in and out in accordance to my thoughts. I thought of history and those who might have taken comfort within Santa Croce’s walls. I thought of the combination of art and nature working so harmoniously together in the courtyards. I thought of the respect which the artists must have given when they painted for such a prominent church in Florence. Before we went, I remember myself feeling a bit flustered about having to change plans so quickly. As a group, we had planned on doing Santa Croce the second day, but we changed it literally as we took the bus into the city. I was nervous and uptight, ready to just “follow the schedule.” I am glad that we did Santa Croce that first evening. My attitude changed after being able to wander the courtyards on my own. I went into these quiet cave-like buildings that held displays which no one was visiting. I remember just wanting to stay there and think. I am glad for those quiet times in these amazing places we were able to visit over the semester.

amy- Recitation

In chapel, here at IBTS, they often have written prayers that are to be repeated. This is very foreign to me. I often wonder the efficacy of these prayers. When I say these “prayers,” most times it feels a bit hollow and awkward. I hardly recognize my own voice and I never feel like I am fully able to get the right prayer rhythm. I really do try and feel something from these prayers, but my feelings do not get the message. In all honesty, I do not mind saying these prayers, but I want to hear the thoughts of my brothers and sisters in Christ! I feel that genuine prayers give such great insight into each person’s personality. If someone stumbles in their prayer, I could care less. I like hearing the thoughts: this is what is important to me. We have so much to learn from one another’s spiritual walks. This is such a crucial part of true fellowship. Fellowship is created by the sharing of one another’s thoughts and struggles. Pseudo-fellowship is merely politeness and action without love. One of the greatest blessings in my Christian experience has been the sense of family in the church. To know you are cared about and loved as a sister or daughter is a great feeling. I am reminded of song lyrics that say “They will know we are Christians by our love.” Church communities tend to be known as more of a stiff, cold group of people. Though I do not think that the set prayers are harmful, I think that genuine prayers are helpful. Christian relationships should always encourage and build up rather than tear down. This does not happen in one day, but by slowly infusing a sense of genuineness and honesty within our communities.

amy- Reflection on Medieval Christianity's Art

I cannot say I receive any joy from medieval art. I suppose the answer to this would be the icons are not supposed to attract the viewer to the art, but there are times I wish it had more variety. I really understand the heaviness of the medieval time period. As the viewer examines the art, he is able to feel the oppressive nature of sameness. Purely artistically speaking, I understand the term “Dark Ages.” If I step back, however, I am able to understand the practical and useful function of these artistic pieces. A change occurred within me when I stepped back and examined this historical context. Looking at all the pietas or contemplative Marys no longer held boredom, but, rather, an interest in seeing how these might have affected those who were not able to read. Jesus’ death is portrayed in such a way that it is difficult for the viewer to look at the image for long. For those in the medieval time period, Jesus could be a comfort to them in their sufferings. And yet… it is very hard for modern day man to understand these portrayals. I find that I do not fully understand them. When I see baby Jesus portrayed as a “baby-man” I cannot really take it seriously. In our practically minded society, this picture strikes us as funny, but within the coherent whole of the medieval time period, this idea of Christ is perfectly understandable.
After studying both the Italian medieval art and the art shown at Saint Agnes’ convent, I am not surprised that the Renaissance began in Italy. I feel as though the icons and medieval art in Italy held a type of artistry that genuinely wished to convey the truths of Christ. I remember at the Accademia in Venice being stunned by the complex biblical concepts the artwork attempts to convey. It was about the story rather than the art. At Saint Agnes’s convent, I felt that the work is so simplified that it did not hold the depth of the art in Italy. The Italian art held hints of the incredible heights it would reach during the Italian Renaissance.
At the same time, I do not want to be too harsh on the artwork shown here in Prague. One is able to observe how the level of skill in the art increases as the viewer sees the time period change to the 16th century. It is as if someone had turned on the light and the artists start to become more innovative. I remember specifically one of the forerunners in the new wave is a Mary who the artist dresses in black. This depiction was so different, just from the colors, that it caught my eye immediately. It is strange how the smallest change in protocol can catch the eye of an observer. After that point in the gallery, I could see the slight changes in the artwork by giving Jesus different features or showing more genuine humanity in the Biblical stories. I think by learning about the medieval time period, I have become less harsh on medieval art. It will never be my favorite, but I have a better understanding of it.

amy- The Crossing

I suppose it is a funny reality. Before this semester, I think I can safely say that Elise and I never ever thought of adopting any Catholic traditions. After this semester, I think we will have an accidental Catholic bond. I can also safely say Elise and I never would have examined our “accidental Catholicism” as academically as we did this year. The reader must understand: Elise and I have been in quite a few precarious situations. In Delphi, we were the triumphant mountain climbers, but most definitely not the triumphant dog tamers. Metaphorically and physically, the phrase “coming off the mountain,” definitely relates to us. We had a wonderful time reaching a shack on the top of a mountain in Delphi, but our bravado ceased as we attempted to find a way of getting around the loud, angry sounding barks of dogs. We would battle on, retreat, and then try and logically talk ourselves into facing the dogs. Elise and I would look at each other and go forward. We crossed the area where the fence was located. We heard the dogs barking. We looked at each other and both started crossing ourselves as we scrambled over rocks and trees trying to get out of that situation. This symbol of Christ somehow just naturally came into our minds. It was very strange, because both Elise and I come from a Protestant background. To make this story even more interesting is that we have done that not only once, but twice. When we somehow ended up in the Paris ghetto, again we looked at each other with wide frightened eyes and our hands moved from parallel to perpendicular. It is strange to find out what symbols one uses in extreme situations. Nevertheless, I think this experience can fall under the category of “experiential symbol use.”

amy- The Question of Perfection

Let me start with a disclaimer: I may be biased towards John Wesley. Yes, I have always admired his zeal. As I learn throughout my life though, zeal works as a double edged sword. Whenever one takes a strong stance for something, many times they are misunderstood and this zeal can hinder them from reaching more people. No doubt, however, this zeal also attracts some that would not normally be attracted in the first place. I see this in the case of John Wesley and discussing him in class. It is my personal opinion that John Wesley never believed that anyone could be perfect. I do not believe that he could have preached for as long as he did, and knowing the hearts of man as he did, without coming to this conclusion. I think his message was and is for believers who wish to follow Jesus’ way to the fullest extent of their ability. Yet, as I said before, this message seems as though it was strongly said, which sometimes leaves room for a one-sided understanding. If John Wesley is stressing the power of the Holy Spirit in a Christian’s life, it may seem as though he is stating the believer himself is achieving some form of perfection. If not understood in context, John Wesley sounds like another preacher trying to raise himself up. Paul in Romans speaks of the double nature of the Christian. To think that John Wesley did not understand this double nature and that he thought the Christian could be perfect would be to reject some of the most core beliefs of the Christian faith. Talking about John Wesley’s beliefs is interesting, but there must always be an understanding of the man in relation to the Bible. Assumptions must be made about John Wesley’s beliefs on the Bible as well. Do we think he saw Romans seven, ignored what Paul was saying, and decided that he indeed could be perfect?

amy- Counter Reformation

This summer I noticed that Dostoyevsky referenced the Jesuit order in his book The Brothers’ Karamazov quite a few times. Adding to my curiosity of Roman Catholicism or Catholicism in general, his reference seems to be very negative in parallel to the other monastic orders he references. I still probably do not know too much about the Jesuit order or the Counter Reformation, but I understand Dostoyevsky’s innuendos more from Garrett’s presentation. Like most things, the idea of the Jesuits is a beautiful ideal from the papacy at the time, but its true function turned into something quite different than the intention. The good intentions from the papacy were an attempt to overthrow the corruption of the priesthood and bring the Reformers back to the Catholic Church. The order of the Jesuits seems to mainly function as the right hand men of the pope. Now my impression of all this is one of extreme incredulity. Giving the pope the power of his own personal monastic order is dangerous. It seems that history has not been kind to this order either. Dostoyevsky makes the Jesuit name seem synonymous with trying to intellectually outwit the ideas of the Bible. I find it interesting that the order who is supposed to be closest to the pope is associated with rationalization. I think that Dostoyevsky’s book would be interesting to analyze according to what the book says about monastic life. His book is what really sparked my interest in the Counter Reformation and the contrast between the ideal and the evolution.

amy- A Blessing

So many strange things have happened throughout this semester. I came into the program without any idea of what the class schedule would be like, or what the people would be like. The first few weeks of a new environment are always a bit difficult, but the key seems to be one’s attitude to the set-up. I feel as though one of the stabilizations I was able to receive during this semester was the short chapels in the mornings and the communion chapel on Wednesdays. I am not much of a morning person, but these chapels really have kept me in check when it comes to late nights and routine. I need the motivation to get up in the morning and, more importantly, need to start my day thinking of God. For me, it felt like a continual Bible conference not unlike the ones I have attended since I was young. This additional sense of community really helped me to get to know the environment in which we are living. An important part of Christianity is the relationship between the human and God. We are able to come to God through Jesus and have the privilege to come to Him daily. During these chapels there are no real “profound” earth-quaking theological realizations, but there is another opportunity for God to speak through His people. As a Christian, it is the small truths of daily life that are shown in the chapels. Even the worship at the start of the day helps me focus on Christ more. I am always singing, so the singing in the chapel is a constructive way to outlet the desire.

amy- The Shock of Luther

I understand that Luther was amazing. I really do. I admire him for really following his beliefs, and yet I find myself saddened for his legacy. No one finds themselves more surprised at this fact than myself. Now let me clarify. It does not change my initial opinions on the work of Luther, it just shows one the fallibility of man. I feel as though it is obvious that I am referring to the anti-Semitism of Luther. I have never done any research on my own about Luther, so I was surprised to hear that he was as vehemently against the Jews as he was for the reforming of the Catholic Church. It makes me think of a quote that has stuck with me: “There but for the grace of God go I.” In this case, it makes me think of how Christians just hope and trust the grace of God covers their sins. Luther is just another example of how the most spiritually gigantic people can fall. Luther’s sin of hatred to another race has horrifying repercussions, but within it all is found the grace of God. The same thing can be seen in the case of David from the Bible. His sin with Bathsheba had terrible consequences for his family, but in the end he was restored back to God. For me, this is how I have to examine Luther’s life and pray that I can learn from his mistake of forgetting the love of God that extends to friends and enemies alike.

amy- The Legacy of Jan Hus

Well, I would suppose it is obvious why Jan Hus is so fascinating now more than ever. It is strange how prevalent his name is in Prague, even now. I think for us, as Americans, this should give us insight as to the nature of the religious wars that took place in Prague and the Czech Republic. In general, I think it is hard for us to completely understand the violence and insanity of the Protestant Reformation and the Thirty Years’ War. Can I really even understand an inkling of Hus’s conviction? Do have even an inkling of the kind of strength to be burned by fire? I always think of the martyrs of Christ as having some sort of amazing personality trait that elevated them above the rest, but I think it is not so. I think their faith in Jesus and belief in the truth of the Bible was what sustained them through their persecution. I often try and find a “unique” aspect of Hus’s persecution, and then I try to take a step back. His job was taken away, he was excommunicated, arrested and finally brutally killed. When one thinks about the intensity of all those actions, there does not need to be some “defining feature” amidst all those things. Those things should be more than enough to remember. Nevertheless, my favorite part of the Hus presentation was most definitely finding out that Hus’s last words apparently referred to Martin Luther. This, ironically enough, is what I remember most about Hus—his “defining feature.”  Even now, I cannot quite wrap my mind around such prophetic words.

amy- The Forerunner: John Wycliffe

I really loved learning about the bold nature of John Wycliffe. It is funny, because I feel as though not many would remember him as a large part of the Protestant Reformation. Reading more about him fascinated me. Especially within the church, it makes me happy to see that there were some people who could not bear to see the church defame the name of Christ. John Wycliffe did this. I think I also really like the role that he took in the Reformation. It was as if his writings were sitting underground like a landmine, just waiting for the right person to discover the truth they contained. Where did Jan Hus and Martin Luther get a lot of their outlines and ideas? They received it directly from the Bull that Wycliffe sent directly to the Pope. Another humorous aspect to Wycliffe’s life is the fact that the church exhumed his bones so that they could burn another heretic. As a Christian, seeing how zealously Wycliffe wanted to get the Bible into the hands of the people inspires me to treasure my own Bible more. I was really fascinated with the attitude of Wycliffe. He was so concerned with what the Bible truly meant and was not working any angle other than truth. I wish to have that sort of character: the sort of character that is concerned with the truth, but the truth with love. Wycliffe wanted each individual to read what the Bible really said and work out his or her own faith. He no longer wanted people to blindly follow the manipulated “Biblical teachings” that the church leaders instated. When I read what he had to say about the indulgences and the greed of the church, I could see his righteous anger burning for the citizens who were being swindled by those who were supposedly doing “God’s work.” Once again, it is merely inspiring.

Amanda: Jesus camp

Our conversation about the perfection doctrine as well as our later discussion on various movements in the Pentecostal church made me rehash my experience of watching the controversial film, Jesus Camp. The film documents a summer camp of charismatic evangelicals led by Pastor Becky Fischer in North Dakota. Here, the children are taught to speak in tongues, pray to a cardboard cut out of George Bush, and put on plays dressed in camouflage to represent their identity as “Christian soldiers.”

To be honest, this film terrified me and even moved me to tears at some points. It wasn’t just that I didn’t understand the way they chose to worship, or how they chose to raise their kids, it was that I felt so much hatred and judgment from Fischer, as well as the children, as young as 6 years old. Fischer even goes so far as to compare the camp she has created to Islamic schools which prepare children for jihad. She then goes on to say, “I want to see them radically laying down their lives for the gospel as they are in Pakistan, in Israel, in Palestine and all those different places.” The thought of bringing children up to have the mindset of war and being in ‘the army of God’ seems so obviously far off from what Jesus’ life clearly exemplified and completely blows my mind.

I have had little to no interaction with people who actually believe these things, yet I find it absolutely fascinating that Christianity can be interpreted in such drastically different ways. On the topics of indoctrinating as well as a desire to fuse church and state, Fischer outright admits in the film that this is their goal. The Camp itself is designed to provoke these kids to want to pursue roles in politics later in life in order to “take back America for Christ.”

Ted haggard and new life church is also featured in the film, and interestingly, Haggard comments on homosexuality. The film clip features him preaching in front of his congregation and saying “we don’t have to debate about homosexuality, the answer is clearly written in the bible” and then goes on to jokingly say to one of the cameras who are filming him, “I think I know what you did last night, if you pay me a million dollars I won’t tell your wife.” Well, if that isn’t the most ironic thing I’ve ever heard….

I would highly recommend this film for anyone interested, but I would warn that it might leave you a bit broken and wondering how the life and teaching of Jesus have been and continue to be so misused.

Here is the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNfL6IVWCE

Amanda- The wealth of God

Throughout the semester we have talked a lot about the shift in the role of the Christian church in society throughout history. One important aspect that kept coming up a lot with my processing of all the sights we’ve seen and the conversations we’ve shared is the wealth of the church as well as how the church is supposed to gain as well as use the money they have. We have come across some of the most extravagant, incredibly costly cathedrals and basilicas on our trip and have studied much corruption and abuse of power in the church. The subjects of indulgences, tithing, and financial prosperity of the church have provoked more study of what the direct biblical response is to these topics.

Two specific segments of the bible immediately come to my mind when dealing with these issues. The first has been brought up many times in class, which is the story of Jesus turning over the tables of those who were selling things in front of and inside the temple. The second is one of my favorite verses from the bible, and describes Jesus’ reaction to the question of if he thought it was right to pay taxes. Jesus responds, “Give to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, and to God that which belongs to God” (Mark 12:13-17).

In both biblical examples it seems very clear what Jesus’ stance is in regards to money and the relationship the church is to have with it. Instead of falling trap to the Pharisees and saying that it wasn’t right to pay taxes so they could arrest him, he disregarded money as a concern of God, and questioned the motives of the men for even asking in the first place.

Amanda: Christianity in context

There is an incredible tension that occurs between making faith relevant to a culture, and stepping outside the fundamental beliefs of that religion. Separating doctrine from the core morals and beliefs which the rest of a religion is founded on is practically impossible yet doctrine can’t be the sole unifying factor between people of the same faith. The story of Bruce Olsen that we talked about in class is a perfect example of how the gospel of Christianity was successfully explained to people who had no knowledge of a Jewish Jesus, yet some might argue that this takes away from the power of the story.

It is true that the Jewish law does play a pivotal point in explaining the emergence of Christianity, but to me it is far more important to first establish a connecting factor which all people can understand before more elaborate concepts of the Christian faith can be presented. I would argue then that regardless of time period, cultural factors, religion or race, the accounts of the life and actions of Jesus should be the main focus, rather than the details of the story. If the purpose of sharing the gospel is in fact to help those who are confused and misguided by all the contradictions in the world and to turn them towards faith, this seems like it should be an obvious solution to the problem.

Amanda- The necessity of language as a symbol

The conversation we had in class the other day about the use of language in religion completely culminated my current struggles in my own spiritual journey. I’ve always accepted the fact that language as well as all types of art are a way to respond to experiences as well as a means of communicating your own experiences to others, but until recently I haven’t been able to verbalize my frustration with their limitations.

It is an undeniable part of humans that we all search for meaning and that we attempt to live lives that correspond with the truth we have come to understand in the world, but this idea of personal truth or reality sparks much controversy. On one hand, you can’t let others just tell you what to believe, you have to understand it for yourself, but on the other hand there must be some sort of unity and community in order for progress to occur. In my opinion, this is one of the biggest struggles that all religions face in appealing to non-believers and believers alike.

The idea of language merely being a metaphor for truth made a lot of sense for me, and really clicked with my understanding of religion. The symbol of religion will never be able to fully encompass the holy, omnipotent, all knowing God which it claims to represent, yet it is necessary in order to mediate the struggle of the human pursuit of truth. We must never claim that any of us know absolute truth in our own language or anything else which is beyond the moment of experience, yet we must use language to communicate with one another to share and grow in faith.

Final - AHB

This class has been an interesting survey of a number of different issues related to Christianity. It was an incredible experience to expand my learning with trips to some of the most important sites for the early church. Seeing these places gave the stories an added depth. I didn't walk away with a life-changing encounter with God but I did learn to evaluate religion with a more nuanced perspective. There are many of us whose past causes us to flee religion like the plague; however, I hope to never give up the understanding that the search for god is of utmost importance for human life. I have an insatiable desire to understand the beginning of truth and life, and whether or not I come to believe in one or many divinities that is a decision that will profoundly impact the rest of my life.

What has been most interesting this semester is our discussions on myth. Most Christians would shy away from calling their religious beliefs myths, and this has always been one of my strong contentions with Christianity. We know that even the Bible has experienced a host of changes and revisions since it was first written down. And the earliest accounts would have existed for a long time in a strictly oral tradition. There are reams of examples of contradictory claims within the Bible, and in order to resolve these issues one must make some pretty difficult logical jumps ("He who has eyes" - I guess).

Modern Christianity has done a disservice to its tradition. Churches today seem completely ineffectual, and I become increasingly disgusted by their attempts to turn their message into, "Be a Rich, Happy, and Successful Believer" (That's for Mr.'s Olsteen and Warren). God is used like a music box to get people to dance to someone's tune. These "ministers" have no idea how to connect and impact society. When Jesus commands to "be in the world, but not of it" I'm pretty sure that his meaning was drastically different than what we see today.

I don't think I can say that my religious views concretely changed a great deal, but I no longer see myth as united with ignorance. We learn a great deal about ourselves by investigating the myths that give us meaning, and I think that if nothing else, religion is useful in that respect.

Martin Buber...I think

Garrett Lambur
Before this semester I had never been exposed Martin Buber’s I and Thou and I found it to be quite an interesting subject. In all honesty at first I struggled to wrap my mind around the idea of an I and it relationship and a I and you relationship, there was something very foreign in the idea for me. What still somewhat boggles my mind is the idea of an I and you relationship as the relationship between I and the “wholly other” but that it cannot be named for that makes the relationship an I, it, and destroys the relationship. To justify my understanding of this I have to put the idea of I and it and I and you into context for myself. I understand these may not be exactly what Buber was saying but it is how I interpreted it. An I and it relationship is one that relates more to a possessive nature of an inanimate object. There is no two-way path were emotions or feelings are shared between the two. The relationship does not allow for any sort of positive growth as a human being, the relationship is seen as a means to an end. In contrast, the I and you relationship is one that does not exist based upon material possessions. It can allow for personal growth as a human being as you share a relationship. There is no ability to possess the you, the you is, it exists beyond a means to an end, there is more than just trade of something in return for something wanted. Only in these contexts does the idea that as soon as you attempt to name a relationship with God does it become an I and it relationship. For as soon as you name it an it relationship you are attempting to quantify the relationship, which is not possible in an I and you relationship. The I and you relationship simply exists and allows for growth but cannot be labeled, it just has to be accepted.

Buber stated that people only usually see people as It’s and not You’s which I believe is mostly true. In my life I cannot think of many relationships that I have that do not fall outside of the It realm. I always seem to attempt in my head to quantify my friendship with people, to question it, how strong is it, what would they do for me and what would I do for them? By doing so I am immediately attempting to quantify it. I would like to think that my relationship with my parents is an I and You relationship but there are times where I find myself quantifying it. I have to say that I see their view of the relationship to me is I and you, I am their son, nothing else matters, they would love me no matter what happens in my life. Of course I cannot truly know if it is such a relationship but I hope it is. The more I attempt to think about this subject the more confused I make myself for just by thinking about I and you it seems I would be degrading such a relationship thus making all relationships in my life I and it, which I view as a sad thing. I can say that after pondering this, philosophy is not my strong point for this is not the first thing I have struggled with attempting to understand.

Zeitgeist - AHB

After my last blog I figured it would be appropriate to review the film Zeitgeist and consider some of its ideas and messages. Unfortunately, as we all know, the internet connection here is pretty atrocious, so this is in no way meant to be a review of the entire film (I'm streaming it online). The film begins by a quote that effectively sums up the main contention in the film: "They must find it difficult . . . Those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority." What the filmmakers go on to do is investigate a lot of different claims of truth made by politicians and religious figures. On the one hand this movie feels like an absurd conspiracy-theory, but I don't think that it so be so readily dismissed. For one thing this short film has become huge in certain circles, and is interesting for that reason if nothing else.

Part I of the film investigates the central claims of Christianity. The primary message is that very few of Christianity's central claims are original. Most were taken from Pagan and Egyptian religious beliefs and practices. Principally, Pagan religions focused on the sun and the twelve constellations of the Zodiac. The Sun was seen as the divine messenger between God and earth/mankind. The Egyptian's built on to this belief by turning the generic Sun-God into Horus (3000 BC). Horus was also the God of light, and he was locked in a titanic struggle against the "prince of darkness" (so to speak) Set. Their battle took place daily which explained the rising and setting of the sun. There are also many other similarities that Horus shares with Christ: born of a virgin on Dec. 25th (obviously Christ's birth in this sense is traditional rather than actual), worshiped as a babe by 3 kings underneath a peculiar star, became a teacher at 12, began public ministry at 30, and gathered 12 disciples who helped him perform miracles and walk on water. Horus was betrayed, crucified, dead for three days, and then resurrected.

Following this discussion of Horus the film goes on to demonstrate that many other religious deities (Krishna, Attis, Dionysus, Mithra) had these same characteristics, so much so that it is nearly impossible to know who came first. The point is that these "solar messiahs" have existed throughout human history, and Christ is only the most recent among many. The whole system is entirely astrological, but I won't go into the whole explanation here.

If we assume that myths are an extremely essential part of human life, we must ask ourselves another question: which myth do we believe? Are all religions just a reinterpretation of this main theme? And if so, why ascribe to Christianity before all others?

There will always be rounds and rounds of arguments over claims like this - and I am in no way saying that I buy in to the contention made in this film. Here, for example, is a religious studies professor making counter-claims - http://singinginthereign.blogspot.com/2007/07/zeitgeist-movie-is-christianity.html - The point I want to make is that it is so difficult to determine truth in these kinds of circumstances. Some might say that this creates the need for myth, but what is that myth supposed to make us feel? Should we believe any religious claims simply on the basis that they give our lives a false sense of worth? Most arguments like this make me want to forget the whole damn thing.

Atheism - AHB

About a year or so ago I watched a trailer for the film "Zeitgeist", which is a deeply anti-institutional film shot in a faux-documentary style. My interest with this film was not so much geared toward the political overtones, but rather with the religious message. Around this same time I became interested with the religion-themed writings of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Betrand Russell. I do not consider myself an atheist (and even many atheist author do not consider themselves to be such because of logical reasons), but I've long since given up on pursuing spirituality in a structured sense. Part of the reason for this is because I spent an inordinate amount of my childhood trying to live out doctrines that no longer mean anything to me. My feeling is that if god's representative people on earth are not worth following, he/she probably isn't either. Anyway, it is interesting how trendy atheism is starting to be in certain circles. I think the fact that so few people regard themselves as pure atheists shows that our society is still skeptical at best (or worst depending on your perspective). Ever since people started misquoting Karl Marx's "religion is the opium of the masses" there has been a kind of seductiveness to the atheist position. Sometimes people just want to be considered a minority. It is still clear that Christianity is the dominant belief in American society - I think a homosexual muslim would have a better chance of ascending to the presidency than an atheist, but there is some pretty strong undercurrents moving through society. And I think the passing of the baby boomer generation will only continue that trend.

I'm not really sure where I'm going with this blog. I just think that there are a lot of interesting perspectives going around today, and some of them deserve a look.


This is a recent quote from the L.A. Times that I found interesting: "In the end, even these specifics don’t intrigue me as much as this fact: Zero-sum arguments about faith and faithlessness just go round and round, generating heat and no light. It’s better to return to real knowledge and fundamental questions. Rather than arguing over the existence of God, rather than playing believer-nonbeliever gotcha, we learn a whole lot more if we just keep asking ourselves—in as many new ways as possible—why it is that so many of us feel compelled to pray."

Here's another quote by Sam Harris that really represents the growing thinking of many:

"If there are objective truths about human well-being—if kindness, for instance, is generally more conducive to happiness than cruelty is—then there seems little doubt that science will one day be able to make strong and precise claims about which of our behaviors and uses of attention are morally good, which are neutral, and which are bad. At time when only 28 percent of Americans will admit the truth of evolution, while 58 percent imagine that a belief in God is necessary for morality, it is truism to say that our culture is not prepared to think critically about the changes to come."

Where are the Christians?

Where are the Christians?
Lauren Brooks
There have been many things that have surprised me since I have been here and traveling around Europe; for instance, the plethora of mullets, the numerous amounts of Americans everywhere, and the lack of peanut butter. But by far the thing that has surprised me the most is the lack of religious people in Europe. We have all traveled all over and experienced many different countries and had the privilege of meeting new people. Of course when meeting these people the usually pleasantries ensue and almost immediately the question of “what are you studying here?” is asked. At first I felt someone what ok in explaining that we were studying Religion in film and the arts mostly specifically from a European point of view, but after a couple of interesting responses I have become a little afraid of telling people what I study.
“Do we even have churches here in Prague?” “Religion, so are you like a priest or something, can girls do that?” Now granted a lot of these responses have come from conversations in a bar or club over a few beers and yelling across a smoky room, but at the same time the large amount of statistics I have observed continue to reinforce this conclusion. Despite the fact that we attend class and live at a seminary school I have barely noticed any religious people in this city. However, what does being “religious” really mean and better yet how do you see it? I just figured that being in such a historically religious region of the world would mean lots of religious people. I am so jealous that these people get to worship in these beautiful places with so much history and to me it seems like they don’t even notice half the time. Meeting all kinds of different people has showed me some huge differences in Americans compared to Europeans. I just know now that all the time I have spent in these sacred places I won’t take for granted.

Some Beliefs

Garrett Lambur
In my last post I touched upon the idea’s of free will and God’s ability to influence the earth and I thought I might expand upon this. I struggle with the idea that God has the ability to influence daily events on this planet. There are too many atrocities and other horrible things going on that I believe if God did have influence would not be happening. Why would God have let 6 million people be murdered in cold blood at the hands of one single human being? Why would over 20 million people be murdered during a 30 year reign of terror within Russia? Why let millions of people be enslaved for hundreds of years? Why let thousands if not millions of people die in civil wars against their own family members happen? To me there is too much unnecessary blood shed in the world for me to believe in the ability of God to touch everyday life. I guess you could consider me more of a Deist in my belief, not in the same manner as say Thomas Jefferson or others in the 17th and 18th century, but it is a close description of myself. Why would God help to intervene with something in our life while allowing for those other millions of people to die? Don’t try to argue with me that they had not let Jesus or God into their life, for millions of those millions who died were Christians themselves. I do not buy into that it was all part of God’s greater plan for them because I believe in free will and by claiming that there is a greater plan makes life pointless to me. If no matter what I do I am going to end up at the same place then why try to make any difference in my life, I would just wait until whatever end was planned for me happened. As a result I believe that things that happen all have a how though we may never know how and that God was not involved in the how, but he just is.

Evangelicalism

Garrett Lambur
As I was reading “Intro to Christianity” I came across something that before hand I was completely unaware of, the basis of American Evangelicalism. I have not had much experience with Evangelicalism and know no more than the common stereotypes associated with it. But in the book it talks about the basis upon which it started back in the 1700’s and I found the principles quite interesting. The stress upon a new birth I was aware of but that it determines whether one is Christian or not. I do not find myself able to agree with this for I do not believe that a sudden new birth can by itself determine if you are Christian. I feel that it is a simplistic and personally that there is no single thing that makes a person Christian, there are a many different things. Continuing, they stress the importance of emotions so that the conversion is of the heart not just the head. I can respect such an idea because saying you believe in something is much different from actually believing in it. Though the showing of emotions for Evangelicals may be too far for me I can respect this ideology, for one who shows strong emotions for a subject may strongly believe in that subject. The last major point being the sufficiency of God, that at the time of the Great Awakening was God’s sovereignty over life. This is where I would draw great difference from the Evangelicals because I struggle in accepting the idea that God influences every day life. There is a part of me that struggles to accept such an idea because I believe in free will. Some would say that we still have free will because you must choose to accept God yourself but this is not a good enough rebuke for me. Without free will then are you truly living life? I am looking at this in absolutes but that is just how I view the issue, I cannot accept the idea that God rules over everyday life because by doing so I touch upon losing the ability of free will, which is very important to me, we all make our own choices in life.

Revealed

Garrett Lambur
The first chapter of the Intro to Christianity book is titled God As Revealed in the Bible and this strikes a particular chord for myself. I am incredibly skeptical of people who say that God has spoken through them or revealed himself. For reasons I can’t truly specify I am very wary of those who claim this experience, part of it is fear that they may only be using it for personal gain. I have no issue with those who say they have found God or Jesus Christ because I do not feel they are attempting to claim that he spoke through them. Past history has only sought to increase my wariness of those claiming to be a vessel for the word of God. I have heard too many stories of the massive Churches that have huge TV audiences and personal greed becoming too much for the minister. There are ads on TV where the minister/preacher claims that he will imbue a handkerchief or something like that with the power Jesus for the low cost of $29.95 plus shipping and handling. Seriously? A minister/preacher has the ability to instill a piece of cloth with the power of Jesus? Wouldn’t he be doing better things with his life than selling these so called powers to the masses? I don’t remember any of the stories of Jesus involving himself selling anything he did to make money. As a result of hearing more and more of these stories I have become incredibly skeptical of those claiming to be speaking the word of God or something similar to this. Personal greed, yes a possible side-effect of capitalism or wait, any type of economical system, helps to weaken the trust for what is told to you by complete strangers.

Buber Revisited - AHB

"If we go on our way and meet a man who has advanced towards us and has also gone on his way, we know only our part of the way, not his -- his we experience only in the meeting ... We have to be concerned, to be troubled, not about the other side but about our own side, not about grace but about will. Grace concerns us in so far as we go out to it and persist in its presence; but it is not our object." - Buber

This is one of those universal truths that really resonates with me. I think that it is impossible to successfully navigate life without learning what it means to forgive and love, but in order to do those I must begin from the standpoint of the humanity that we all share. I love this quote by Buber because the language is so vague. The best metaphors for life are based on this idea of a journey, but that term in itself doesn't describe much of anything. My "way" is what I will spend the rest of my life trying to discover, even though I've already set out upon it. Recognizing that everyone else is set upon the same quest helps me empathize with their struggles. Kant believes that all rational humans are trying to live up to the moral law (this is a rather complex argument), because we all feel the pull of the law on our conscience. Therefore, our injuries to one another are not necessarily acting out of malice, but rather out of a failure to adopt the moral law in our practices. I can't wholesale condemn someone if I believe that they are still connected to and reaching for the moral law.

One of the really great subjects in film is the classic American gangster (pick your ethnicity). The reason that Pacino is so good in the Godfather is because you see his struggle between the life of crime and the love of his family. All great gangsters have a code (something they perceive to be the moral law), the problem is that their code is in opposition to that of society. I've become really addicted to "The Wire" this semester. The essence of the show lies in this same sort of dilemma. Cops, politicians, fiends, thugs, and businessmen are all caught up in trying to navigate life - the point being that everyone is crooked somehow. One newspaper that reviewed the show by saying something like, "all the characters are simply caught up on different sides of the socially acceptable."

Buber quickly summarizes our position when he writes that our only concern is our own will.

THE WIRE QUOTES!!

Omar: "I'll do what I can to help y'all. But, the game's out there, and it's play or get played. That simple."

McNulty: "I got to ask you. If every time Snotboogie would grab the money and run away, why'd you even let him in the game?"
Witness: What?
McNulty: "If Snotboogie always stole the money, why'd you let him play?"
Witness: "You got to, this is America, man."


Bubbles: "Thin line between heaven and here."

Omar: "All in the game yo, all in the game."

-Those were mostly just for fun

Disney

Garrett Lambur
I found Kip’s paper on theme parks as religious sanctuary incredibly interesting. I know many in the class did not like the idea itself or that Kip wrote this but still went to them himself. But I enjoyed the new perspective upon these giant entertainment venues and I don’t view him as hypocritical for visiting them, all this paper did was attempt to look at them from a different perspective, not condone them. The idea itself really took me by surprise but made a significant amount of sense. As did the idea that within a capitalistic system there can be a lack of true caring or helping one another. To this idea I took some discourse because I do not totally agree with it. Yes capitalism allows for human beings to ignore the human side of each other and view everything as a transaction between two people but this only happens when people choose to take this viewpoint. It happens in capitalism only because people choose to do so; capitalism itself is all about choices. Within any other system you would still have people who choose to ignore the humanity in humans and view them only as an object.

Looking back at the idea of Disney Land as a giant church makes me laugh at first until you look deeper into it. There are people who worship Disney Land and everything Disney and a parallel can be drawn to worship within religion. I truly enjoyed the idea that Disney allows for humans to re-establish contact with their sacred myths, the characters themselves. Thinking of Disney characters similarly to say Hercules (now a Disney Character) or say the Norse Gods and their stories. Disney has become so engrained within our culture; I believe that part of the great draw about being a princess for girls comes from the Disney princesses. Disney Land seems to represent an attempt to create Nirvanna, a perfect place, a place for people to escape from the normal problems of everyday life, except for one continuous problem most people continually face, “Its HOW much?”

"Me"

Garrett Lambur
As I was reading Otto I came across a bit of information that I was unaware of before but is very significant. Otto was discussing in Chapter 19 whether it is possible to get a first hand apprehension of the holiness from Christ. He determined that it was hard to do from proclamation and with no “me” statements from Christ. No “me” statements from Christ? I was completely unaware of this fact. He continues that the records focus more upon the miracles of Jesus rather than the numenious experience. Well that means that he could have made them but they aren’t recorded. But I find it hard to believe that through out the entire Bible, of which my knowledge is poor, there are no me statements from Jesus. As I sit here writing this and pondering the implications of this, part of me wants to say that by having no me statements it shows his true lack of a possessive nature and his own giving nature. But another part of me thinks that I cannot possibly draw such a conclusion just from a lack of “me” statements, partly because it could have been that the writers of the Bible simply left out such statements. The Bible itself is such an enigma. It presents all that is necessary to have an entire religion yet it does not have one author or even an author. It is a compilation of many different person’s lessons and experiences. But part of what we have been going over in class lately is the validity of an academic source and one big part of a good source is that it is reviewed by peers. Now I realize that the Bible is not an academic source but part of me questions its validity. It has been translated, re-translated, then translated back numerous times and you can never truly translate one language to another. There are little nuances that you miss in the translation or words that have no equivalent in another language. Not only are their translation issues but there are different copies of the bible where the writer decided to leave out part or change it to fit his own ideas. The King James Bible was itself translated from three different languages and part of it was done in a manner to satisfy the Church of England and its ideologies. As a result, part of me is suspicious of the bible and as a result suspicious of the lack of “me” statements from Christ. Perhaps he did not say any “me” statements or perhaps they were never recorded, and perhaps we will never know.

The Printing Press and Martin Luther

Garrett Lambur
One thing I love to do, too much, is to think of how things might have been different if you removed one piece from the puzzle. We discussed this somewhat in class when talking about Martin Luther and the Printing Press. Would Martin Luther’s 95 theses have had as great an impact upon the world without the Printing Press to quickly spread these ideas to the masses. Look at Wycliffe and Jon Hus, both challenged the theology of the Catholic Church. They are a great example that it had happened before and I think I remember hearing that part of the inspiration for Martin Luther’s ideas came from the work of Hus and Wycliffe. Within Prague and the surrounding area Hus had a great impact, his ideas spurred on the Hussite wars that ravaged the area. If his ideas were enough to lead to fighting over them how come this did not spread through out all of Europe?

It all comes back to the Printing Press. Before the Printing Press very few of the people were literate. Thus ideas had to be spread orally not in writing and the Church already had a great system to spread their own ideas about religion, the Churches throughout Europe. Any challenger would not have a platform from which to preach their ideas to the people. Literacy changed a great many things in Europe, people could learn information on their own, they were no longer dependent upon the Catholic Church to supply them with information regarding Christianity and the Bible. Luther was able to capitalize upon the new ability to preach from anywhere in the world to anyone, though he did not plan to do so. The printing press was the equivalent to the Internet. Can you imagine anytime before Internet? I can remember some but very little. It has revolutionized how we receive information. The Printing Press did the same thing back in the 1400’s. Thus without the Printing Press I believe that Martin Luther would not be the historical figure that he is today because his ideas would not have spread and brought about the Protestant Reformation.

Luther

Garrett Lambur
After our discussion in class about the significance of Martin Luther I wanted to explore the topic a little further. I’m not sure how Luther is seen in today’s world. I have never run into anyone who has called him one of his or her hero’s or a man they really respected. Neither have I ever heard of someone who totally hates Martin Luther for what he did. But it would be quite easy to view him from both points of view. He could easily be seen as the champion of Protestant Christianity for without him there may never have been a split with Christianity and only Catholicism would exist. Though it is very likely that someone else would have come along and provided the stimulus for the split as he did. I was not aware until this semester that he was following the in footsteps of others before him who had challenged the ideology of the Catholic Church, which is very ignorant of myself. It would also be very easy for him to be viewed with hatred, as one who defied the Pope and the Catholic Church and in essence defying the God. He brought so much trouble to the Church and its followers, and not only did he anger the Church but his defiance brought about a lot of trouble for all of Europe. He caused great strife through out areas of Europe that brought about fighting and death.

What is strange to me is that I have never run into someone who holds a strong viewpoint one way or the other. Luther seems to be just accepted as the man who started the Protestant Reformation. He is an important character in history and is seen as thus but as only thus. There may be people out there who see him in a different light but I have yet to run into one of these people.

The Crusades

Garrett Lambur
A topic we really haven’t talked about in class but still intrigues me, The Crusades, killing those who live in the holy lands because we haven’t ever lived there but we want to. A real estate agent could have made a killing back then. Yeah, bad joke. But I find the idea of the Crusades interesting. Its purpose was to take back the holy lands so that European Christians could visit them and so that the Catholic Church could hold them. I understood the drive behind attempting to take these lands back, they hold incredible religious significance but not until we discussed the idea of the access mundi did the significance really click for me. I do not know the history of the idea of access mundi within the world so I cannot say if the Church back followed the idea under that name.

Access mundi is still a strange concept for me. I have a hard time grasping the concept that because a religious event took place on this spot that it becomes a closer place to the other side. The idea that a place becomes more important because something important happened there completely clicks for me. But the idea of being closer to the other side or other world just doesn’t really click for me. Yet people have been following this idea for a long time as can be seen in the Crusades. Though they may not have called them access mundi, I have no idea if they did or didn’t, they seemed to take the idea of access mundi very strongly. Strong enough to send thousands of soldiers from across Europe in an attempt to take back these access mundi in the holy lands.

Another strange thing about the Crusades, it was a religious idea that brought together the many different arguing factions within Europe for a common goal. This was not readily done, the Europeans loved to fight amongst themselves as seen in the War of the Roses between France and England. It was quite a feat for them to come together after a common goal that was brought by Christianity though sad that it brought about much death and suffering.

Moravian Church Reflections - AHB

I've been going through some of my research material for the paper I am writing on the Moravian Church (Unitas Fratrum/Unity Brethren). This morning I came across some really interesting stuff that corresponds very well to subjects that Kip has continually mentioned.

The modern day Moravian Church began in a small community in Saxony around the beginning of the 18th century. A young German count named Zinzendorf was asked to donate land to religious refugees from all over central Europe. Many of the people that came were the descendants of the spiritual movements that grew up out of the teachings of Jan Hus. These people were often persecuted by the Catholic church and sometimes even other protestant denominations. Zinzendorf was extremely pious for a rich and influential aristocrat, and he agreed to set aside the necessary land, which eventually become known as Herrnhut. Because there were doctrinal differences between the people of Herrnhut many divisions began to form. However Zinzendorf and the other leaders tapped into the history of men like Comenius and Jan Hus, and they were able to codify a set of governing principles that every member of the community had to agree upon and sign. Several months later this bond was reinforced by a spontaneous "spiritual renewal" (Aug 13th 1727) that fell upon the church while they were walking home from their weekly service.

The progression of these events is really interesting, and I think it teaches a great deal about communities in general. First, there is a mutual bond, in this case it was the desire for religious freedom. Second, there is disunity, which can be caused by an incredible number of variables. Third, there is a rejoining of the community by a return to core values. In the Moravian's case they returned, but also improved upon, those values. Fourth, there is an event that solidifies the bond of community and takes it out of the abstract and into the concrete. Without this moment the unity cannot be maintained. Finally, these events become the framework on which future generations build their own communal life. Each of these major historical events has become a sanctioned Moravian holiday, and the modern church has ritualized these stories so that they will not be forgotten.

Personal Chapel

Garrett Lambur
One of the most interesting concepts that I have come across on this trip is that of personal chapel. In the Troja Palace there was a quite ornate private chapel that just struck me. Today you would be hard struck to find a personal chapel anywhere in the States, I am unsure about the rest of the world. Chapels or Churches or places of religions worship have become a group activity within our world. It is one of the best group activities for establishing a sense of community. I am sad to say that I have not ever experienced this myself but I have seen it and what good it can do for a group of people.

The times were different when the Troja palace was constructed. There was a definite separation between classes that was not crossed. The nobles kept themselves separate from the poor in most cases, they flaunted their wealth and lived almost only for their own personal gain. So following that thinking the idea of personal chapel would fit the mold. These families did not want to be associated with the masses and separated themselves even when worshipping. It amazes me to see the change of interpretation of Christianity over the time and part can be seen in this subject. Christianity at that time was more one of what I would label shock and awe, people seemed to worship based entirely out of fear of what would happen if they didn’t. Today the idea behind worship is more out of love and happiness, drastically different from the older drive to worship.

Along with keeping the nobles separate from the masses, having a personal chapel was another way to flaunt their wealth. This family could afford to have this chapel inside their house and thus not have to travel to attend a place of worship. The idea strikes me as strange by today’s standards but when I look at it through the standards of the time it makes more sense but I do not agree with it.

Different Religions

Garrett Lambur
So this is more of a gripe that I have against people and their religions. Why is it necessary to fight over it? Enough people have already died at the hands of religious fanatics in the past. Though I believe that one word summarizes why, fanatics, people who carry things to the extreme. But seriously, why would one religion be better than another? Now I’m looking more at Christianity, Islam, and Judaism than other religions. Of these three religions, all basically have the same ultimate ideal, the perfect afterlife with God. All three pray to God but in different manners, though some would argue that there are different Gods but I take the opinion it is the same one. I am of the opinion that we cannot correctly interpret how to worship God for we cannot hope to understand God. If we attempt to do our best in the way we view we should than I would hope that he could accept that. But when a person says that one religion is superior to the others it’s upsetting to me. I think that I could take the different parts of those three aforementioned religions and create a hybrid religion that would help me to end up in the same place as everyone else. Many would take up great argument with this because I have not been told by God to worship in this way. But then why would he help to create three different religions? Or does this mean that there is more than one God and each religion has its own? Perhaps in this sense the Greeks were on to something, the battles between the Gods. So if the Gods made man then it would have to have been a group effort with arguing and discussion and the like. It is actually quite funny to think about a bunch of infinite beings sitting around conversing in whatever manner they use talking about how they will create the smartest creature on the Earth. I apologize for my digressing in this blog but my original gripe started me on a great train of thought I could not refuse to follow.

The Heirarchy of Christianity - AHB

One of the things I've noticed this semester is that most major church movements contain two essential components, a spiritual leader, and a common history. Both of these seem to be essential aspects, and while the first is almost obvious, the second has taken on a greater meaning over the last couple months of our studies.

The Jewish people were able to survive through so many trials because they never completely lost their sense of identity, despite the best efforts of others to homogenize them. Each of their leaders built on this shared history, and there is a lot of examples of the Jews institutionalizing the remembrance of their past. Even when Christ came he tapped into the Jewish identity and history as a basis for his movement. Many of the Jews dismissed his teaching, but he was still one of their own (I like the image of Jesus weeping over the city of Jerusalem and its narrow mindedness). This may be a common formula for any kind of social or political movement, but it is definitely key to any spiritual movement.

The reformation is another example with some interesting differences. Here reformers were building on the historical and religious foundation of the Catholic church, but they wanted to make such drastic reforms that they were forced to separate completely from the church. Both Jan Hus and Luther built their reforms on the people nearest them. And hundreds of years later their ideas are informing the spiritual lives of millions all over the world who have chosen to follow these august traditions.

The role of community and history is important in every aspect of life. I think this also relates to some of the things we've talked about with myth. It is very hard to separate history from myth, but really that is not what is ultimately important. Our inherent social desires require that we assimilate ourselves within a particular group identity, and this is as important in religion as anywhere. Often American's have a hard time understanding what Europeans know instinctively.

MLK & Chavez - AHB

While reading through some of the a few of the subsections (concept, people) in the Intro to Christianity book I came across short articles on MLK Jr. and Caesar Chavez. For various reasons these are two men that have always been interesting to me, although I know far less about Chavez.

The Bible has a great deal to say on how one should live, and it is always interesting to see the practical ways by which individuals walk out those commands. Both Chavez and MLK are incredible individuals who accomplished a great deal on behalf of their people. Chavez is kind of legendary in Los Angeles, and everyone knows the reputation of MLK. They were both deeply driven by their religious beliefs, and used these beliefs to form a large diverse body of support.

Nonviolent activism seems to be the best, and most universally agreed upon, way for religious groups to advocate their political beliefs; however, this still requires disobedience from established authority, which is a tricky subject. The question is, how far can one go to change society? The Biblical stories surrounding the early church don't talk about abortion protests or bus-boycotts; rather, those individuals changed their society by virtue of nothing more than their presence. Is a dynamic church one that is politically active and vocal, or one that goes about its religious business? I realize this is kind of a continuation of my blog from last night, but there are so many ways to consider this issue.

Either way there is a lot to be said for any man or woman that can shoulder the burdens, hopes, and expectations of an entire community. Also, at least in MLK's place, the depth of forgiveness that a person has to walk through is pretty amazing. Reading his "Letters from a Birmingham Jail" I'm always struck by the complete lack of bitterness towards people that have been enslaving and murdering blacks for generations. I definitely get the sense that his spiritual upbringing is the only thing that could have given him the strength to do what he did in the manner that he did; it is especially amazing when compared with the militarism of Malcolm X.

Christianity in Culture - AHB

Due to the fact that I no longer can devise blogging subjects for "Christianity", I decided to choose sections from our required reading, "Introduction to Christianity", and use the material therein to generate new and exiting subjects (I know you're excited, don't try and hide from me). This first one will be from pg. 202-218.

This section on "Christianity in Culture" was one that immediately grabbed my attention. My interest in politics and my rather unique religious background brings me to this topic often, and there is always new arguments/objections to consider. I believe that I've even brought up these subjects in past blogs.

The authors presentation of this section is excellent, and I would encourage everyone to read it if you haven't had a chance yet. She ends the chapter by saying that none of the questions raised can be answered. How do you choose between biblical commands and teachings that seem to contradict one another. Even if you hold to the position that the N.T. trumps the O.T., you are still left with a host of questions to resolve. The central question of this chapter is how a christian should exercise their faith in the midst of a world that holds to other truths and beliefs. The author staked out four main position that a religious person can take: withdrawal, domination, nonconformity, and adaptation. Within these general positions there is obviously a lot of room for personal opinions, but I think these terms help break it down a little bit.

This chapter explored the relation of a christian to war, poverty, and racism. It is interesting that religious sects, supposedly based upon the unchanging truth of a single book, hold positions that are entirely at odds with one another. What really bothers me is the inability of people to take the approach of midrash and question there own beliefs. Ultimately, this may not change a man's opinion, but at least he will be able to articulate it correctly.

Another problem is that many Christians know so little about church history and the bible that they don't have enough information to form a well thought out opinion. This leads many to use the Bible to rationalize their preformed opinions, rather than a tool for reasoning.

Even those of us who don't hold to a particular religion must work through these issues. We live within a society that is intended to be shaped by the opinions of the individual, so in essence the way we choose to live our lives has profound consequences beyond our own experience.

Saint Agnes Convent - AHB

I'm going to try and answer each of Kip's discussion questions systematically so that I don't get too off track.

1) (HISTORICAL PROGRESSION) There was definitely a clear historical progression in both form and content. I'm not sure that I would have recognized this without knowing it before hand, but it was very cool to think about the changes as I witnessed them. From what I could gather the art was from about a 300-400 year time period (13th-17th century or so). Initially I didn't consider this a long amount of time, but if you compare it to the rapidity with which contemporary art changes, it's a whole different game. The earliest paintings and carvings were very simplistic, almost to the point of being primitive, especially the wooden statues. All the faces were sort of placid, besides the occasional suffering Christ or Madonna. As we went on and especially near the end the style changed a great deal. There was a lot more color, and even the themes became more exciting. It was almost like the artists had to take some time to get comfortable, as if the earliest painters and sculptors didn't quite know where the limits were.

2) (COMPARISON W/ GRECO-ROMAN) To my surprise I didn't find a lot of similarities in this area. Sure, the subject is in some way related, but I think they ways of treating deities was just entirely different. First of all, there is almost no sensuality in Medieval Christian art, and I can't think of a single example of Greek or Roman art where this is the case. The Madonna is depicted as almost sexless, and yes I'll concede that it may be profane and shallow to think about the Virgin Mary's physical body (that woman has no chest), but c'mon, if you changed the face on those statues I would have no idea what gender they were going for. This may also go back the artist's being unsure of how to depict these incredibly Holy subjects. Another difference I found interesting is the subject matter of many of the paintings. Classical Greek or Roman art generally deals with the great exploits of gods or men. The emphasis is definitely on accomplishment. In Medieval Christian art suffering seems to be the main theme. The only scenes of glory are those that show Christ or God ruling in heaven. However, I did notice a few things that reminded me of Greco-Roman motifs, paintings, and sculptures. Occasionally there was a glorifying image of someone like St. George, and his story of slaying the dragon reminded me of Apollo and the python. Another similarity is the beauty of the figures. Whether or not the artist succeeds is irrelevant, what is clear is that God and the Saints are intended to be almost angelically beautiful.

3) A few of these paintings and sculptures aroused strong feelings within me, but nothing like some of the other art that we've seen. For whatever reason I just don't seem to connect with the sense of the Holy that is supposed to get across. A part of this is that the images are so familiar by know that the message is old and tired. The only feeling that I get is profound apathy. Sorry for to say (Kabat accent).

Community - AHB

One aspect of Christianity that has always intrigued me is the communal nature of religious orders. In a small way we have experienced what that is like this semester. Living, working, eating, and playing with the same small group of people everyday is a challenging experience, but it also forces personal growth in unique ways.

Through my studies of the 18th century Moravian Church in Herrnhut, Germany that grew out of the teachings of Jan Hus, I've been deeply impressed by the sense of community and the way that they worked through vast personal differences by focusing on the singularity of their devotion for God. There was a long period of division within the church, much like what we saw in Babette's Feast, but a single event reunited the entire community and filled everyone with love for their neighbor. I don't believe that these kinds of events are exactly unique to Christianity, but I do think it is important to recognize that events like these are rare but extremely important.

The decline of church attendance is one of the factors pointed to for the lack of community in the United States. Even while we were traveling throughout Europe I was struck by the way that Catholicism transcends all other distinctions. In Notre Dame Justin and I heard part of a mass given by a black priest to a congregation that probably contained a dozen different ethnic groups.

I often take issue with the lack of authentic love within the modern church, but there are times when it shows an example that I think everyone can learn from.

In Review...

For my last blog on our Christianity course, I wanted to review (for my own sake) the biggest things I’ve learned and the main things I hope to remember from this course.

What comes to my mind first is the idea of “holy” from Otto’s book Idea of the Holy. (Go figure.) I hope I always think of the words numinous and mysterium tremendum when I encounter the spiritual through art or nature, and that I am always open to this radical definition of the holy which extends so far beyond “sinless.” I think Otto’s ideas are excellent, and love how he has expanded my view of God.

The second idea that has really challenged me this semester is a new view of communion. Although we only discussed it one day in class, I have really latched on to this new way to think about the bread and wine and am excited about what I’ve come up with. I love thinking about communion as a way for Christ to indwell in us, individually and as a community, and for us to participate in a “sacred energy exchange” to live our lives for Christ, since he voluntarily gave up his for us. Every time I take communion, I am not only remembering Christ’s death, but I am allowing God to place a part of himself in me.

The last thing that I have really learned this semester is the history of the reformation, and in particular Jan Hus’ involvement. I have never been very clear about the reformation of the church, but I now think of the timeline of the three main characters: Wycliffe, Hus, and Luther, and I can remember and understand the process much better.

eks

Psalm 96:9

“Worship the LORD in the splendor of his holiness; tremble before him, all the earth.”
Psalm 96:9

When I came across this verse, I immediately thought once again of Otto’s mysterium tremendum. Splendor of his holiness? Tremble? Before reading The Idea of the Holy, I think I would have skimmed over the above verse, thinking it was nice but not pausing to really consider the word “tremble.” Trembling is not the first verb that comes to mind when I think of God, but it is quite a powerful one. To tremble before something means you’ve encountered something to grand, so mysterious, so frightening, that you cannot control your own body but you tremble in its presence. It’s when your “creature consciousness” kicks in and you realize how absolutely profane you actually are. I like how Otto phrases it that this feeling is not based on consciousness of individual acts of sin, but on our “own very existence as creature before that which is supreme above all creatures.” THAT is how we are supposed to approach the Lord.

And in the splendor of his holiness? Rarely do we hear the word “holiness” attached to the word “splendor.” It doesn’t make sense, if you only think of holiness as being perfectly without sin, something ‘completely good.’ Unfortunately, that is pretty much the modern view of holiness. Holiness is associated with a detached, perfect, sinless being, but Otto gives us so much more to comprehend when we consider the word “holy.” When you try to imagine the wholly other, the fascinating, mysterious, and tremendous, you can BEGIN to understand how to worship the Lord in the splendor of his holiness.

In the English Bible, the word “LORD” is capitalized in this verse, indicating the Hebrew word “YHWH” (as Dr. Redick taught in class). In the chapter “The Numinous in the Old Testament,” Otto says that the numinous is most apparent in YHWH, in contrast to the name Elohim, where the rational aspect outweighs the numinous. I thought it was really cool to see an example in the Bible that is consistent with Otto’s book, in that this verse, which represents the numinous, uses the name YHWH.

eks

Love is Blind?

One of my favorite concepts from the first chapter of I and Thou by Martin Buber was that hate, not love, is blind. There is a lot of hate in our world, and much of it comes from not understanding other people and not being willing to see their humanity. According to Buber, “hate is by nature blind. Only a part of a being can be hated.” You have to ignore common human experience to hate.

I can just imagine a situation right now, where an American says, for instance, that they hate Iraqis or Palestinians. They associate all of these people with acts of terrorism committed by only a few, and turn their anger and hurt into hatred. But to do so, they have to ignore (or choose to not see) the humanity we all share! It’s easy to hate what we don’t know and are unwilling to understand. It would be much harder to hate a muhajjabe Palestinian woman (who covers her head), if you see her in her everyday life, making bread for her family, consoling her children when they fall down, taking care of her aged father… this might sound a little melodramatic, but it’s really what I thought of. Buber’s words make it so clear: Hate, by nature, is blind because you have to ignore the humanity that binds us all in order to hate.

Love, in contrast to all of this, cannot be blind for it must see the whole being to be real! We commonly speak of love as being blind, but in reality, for the love to be true, one must see their beloved in all of her beauty and ugliness, and yet still choose to love her. This is the example the Bible gives us of God himself, who sees our inmost, depraved being, and yet loves us anyway.

eks

Amanda: Technology and Theology

Recently we’ve talked a lot about consumerism, capitalism and the modern church. Something I have found quite interesting to observe through my personal spiritual journey is the way the church is finding its place in the information age. Sermons are now downloadable, bible verses can be googled, and youth pastors have facebook. Along with this, we’ve also seen a rise in mega churches which seem to all be equipped with edgy worship bands and a jumbo screen to display hip computer graphics and lyrics to songs.

All of these things seemed to really increase in popularity just as my young mind became attracted to all that Christianity had to offer, so I thought the two went hand in hand. You could have found my 9th grade version of Christian faith revolving around owning Third day cds, Donald miller books, and attendance at any church that seemed cool enough to make its members raise their hands and dance in the aisles. I had to have my hands on anything that incorporated the words: Jesus, revolution, progressive, and faith in the title.

Only until I matured a little bit did I realize that I was just doing every possible thing I could to make myself appear to be a Christian, instead of actually creating this ‘personal relationship’ I was hearing so much about. One of the greatest things about technology is also its biggest danger. More and more people are getting access to these means of spreading information, and we are left with the tempting choice to completely stop thinking for ourselves. We have to option to sit back and simply absorb these mp3’s, youtube videos, and blogs floating around the internet and regurgitate their ideas anytime our own beliefs are challenged.

Now that time has passed, and I have been able to take a step back from what all these people were telling me to do and think for myself about who I really want to be in life. Only after I unplugged my headphones and removed my transfixed glance from a computer screen and actually read the bible for myself was I able to make sense of all of these things. Now I am able to more clearly decide what I believe to be true, and wean out the information I do not find to be honest. Now I feel that I am able to turn to books, music and movies for encouragement, but not for giving me a purpose.

As one of my favorite Christian authors puts it, “God has spoken, the rest is just commentary, right?”

Numinous in the Modern Church

In the chapter “The Numinous in the New Testament,” Otto says that Christ didn’t teach, per se, the numinous aspect of the Holy One of Israel because the Jews already knew it. He taught the ‘heavenly Father’ that was not self-evident.

I think this is a good assessment of the gospels, and a good explanation to weave together the Old and New Testament. I think, however, it’s also a reason for the lacking of the numinous in the modern churches in America. The more I read about Otto’s “wholly other” and mysterium tremendum, the more I fall in love with that aspect of God and think it’s incredible. I can begin to see it expressed in the great cathedrals of Europe’s past, but think it’s all together missing in the evangelical churches in America, and in Christianity in general. There is nothing mysterious about most church buildings in America, and generally nothing tremendous about the church service. We don’t focus on the fascination we should have with the all powerful and incomprehensible God. “A value, precious beyond all conceiving…”

Past of the reason for this, I believe, is that we focus too much on the New Testament. Yes, it’s incredibly important because it’s the basis for our faith, but Jesus knew the Old Testament and used it for all his teachings. Even though we have a new covenant, there is much truth to be learned from the old. We have focused on Christianity so much on us and what Christ did for us when he was crucified, that we neglect the worth of God just in who he is and his absolute worth. It’s awful, and what people don’t realize is that we’re hurting ourselves and limiting our satisfaction by not exploring and attempting to understand the limitless worth of the Holy One.

eks

Amanda: Buber's Challenge

One of the most fascinating things to me about modern Christianity is the many ways in which people have tried to maintain their faith while still participating in the ‘ways of the world.’ I put that phrase in quotes because I personally have a hard time separating these two areas. Many Christians adamantly see a line they can not cross in order to still call themselves a believer in Christ, but I would argue that this line is more like a piece of thread that is impossible to stand on.

This clash between sacred and profane realms and differing outlooks on life direct the ways in which we carry out our day to day lives and interact with one another. Believers in any faith must face the temptations presented to them in the world, and direct their actions according to the way they are spiritually led. This attempt to straddle the border between not fully participating in the profane world and remaining focused on the Holy is a task that I feel is often misrepresented in Christianity today.

Buber communicates this struggle very well in his text I and Thou when he points out, “One does not find God if one remains in the world; one does not find God if one leaves the world”

I have heard countless sermons about how a ‘good Christian’ is expected to live as an example in the world to non-believers but I don’t think enough attention is paid to how hard it is to do this without participating in what the bible would see as sinful acts. To me, this is the biggest dilemma many church goers face and the reason that many of these non-believers are turned off by the church.

I believe more focus should be placed on supporting one another in this quest to remain spiritually minded rather than Christians trying to separate themselves from non-Christians.

Amanda- Putting the Christ back in Christmas??

With the holidays just around the corner I felt it appropriate to discuss the great ways in which our country has completely exploited the holiday of Christmas. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not complaining. I love the wonderful American traditions associated with Christmas, I am merely pointing out the illusion that Christmas in America is meant to celebrate the birth of Jesus.

We must consider the fact that our country was founded on religious freedom, and these attempts at making Christmas more focused on family than faith may just be our answer to letting everyone celebrate it…. Or it might just be a way for marketers to trick us into thinking we are being inclusive, but really just making sure they make money off of everyone. It is now considered politically incorrect to say “Merry Christmas,” and the appropriate greeting is “happy holidays.” After all, corporations wouldn’t want to offend any Jews, Muslims, Agnostics or non-believers and run the risk of losing their business, would they?

From the day after thanksgiving we are bombarded with television commercials, radio and magazine ads, and even e-mails alerting us of the great things we need to buy in order to prove our love to the people around us. Stores battle for our attention to communicate that their products are the best and convince us that we are smart for choosing to spend our hard earned money there.
Available exclusively, and for a limited time: for only $59.99, you can finally show your boyfriend that you are in love with him and are ready for him to pop the question already!
Sounds great, doesn’t it?

(I can almost hear the sound of Lauren banging her fist on her desk in disgust)

Let me reiterate here, there is nothing wrong with buying presents, or participating in the holiday. Christmas is my absolute favorite time of year, and I think the holiday season is a great time to get together with loved ones and reflect on the year that has passed. I just want America as a whole to recognize what it is we are actually celebrating, and embrace it. If your family happens to be religious or spiritual, great. If not, great. Christmas can still be a time for Christian practices, or it can just be an excuse for you to see your extended family once a year. Either way, Christmas is a time for all of us to reaffirm and express the love we have in our lives and that is truly something to be celebrated.

In Defense of "Spirituality" - AHB

Early on in the semester Kip made a few comments that aroused my intellect. He said that the term "spiritual", that gets thrown around so often, is really a misnomer because it creates a separation from the word "religion" that doesn't actually exist. Since this was a while ago I cannot remember the full extent of his argument, or even the circumstances in which this topic came up, but it is something that I've done a lot of thinking about.

As more people have become uncomfortable with organized religion this term "spiritual" has taken on a greater role. By defining him or herself as spiritual, an individual can express their interest in religious things without actually ascribing themselves to a particular institution. I disagree with Kip's suggesting that this term is meaningless. Religion is by definition organized or institutionalized in some sense. Images, symbols, locations, etc. all go in to creating a structure so that a group of people can develop a religious identity. Without all these pieces there can be no religion. So when someone describes themselves as spiritual, they are merely saying that their interest in personal and has nothing to do with an outside structure.

I don't know what other people's responses would be, but I thought it was an interesting comparison to think about.

The Four Loves

I recently read C. S. Lewis’ book The Four Loves and found the chapter on friendship incredibly interesting and challenging.

First of all, it was super challenging. Lewis presents a very high and honorable notion of friendship. He says it is the least jealous of loves, and that the more people it is between, the better it is… “to divide is not to take away.”

It was also very interesting in that he presents a friendship that is solely based on two (or more) people being interested in the same thing and on the same journey. Friends live side by side (as opposed to lovers facing each other) because their eyes look ahead on a journey. Friendship is uninquisitive, he says, and friends don’t ask questions for their own sake. Instead of caring about their job, family, or past, friends ask, “Do you see the same truth?” Where eros is concerned with naked bodies, phileo is concerned with naked personalities.

I see much truth in what Lewis presents, but it challenges me because I don’t see most of my friends in this way. I can imagine what it would be like to have a relationship based entirely on a common passion, but I don’t think any of my relationships are like that. Uninquisitive? I certainly care about the lives on my close friends, and listen to their daily activities. In that sense, I feel the book would dispute calling my relationships “friendship,” And never jealous? Always happy to add a third? I have to admit this is not often my feeling toward my best friends. I can easily grow jealous if someone else is taking their attention, and do not want someone else to take my place. I can see, however, how this wouldn’t be the case if the friendship was solely based on something we shared in common. If our relationship was based on a passion for Jane Austen books and films, and then we met someone else who also loved her works, then I think we would be happy to have someone else to share our joy with. And I can even see how a common interest is necessary to start a friendship, a good one at any rate. But I feel like friendship quickly and easily moves beyond just a common passion. I think true friends would become interested in each other’s lives and families, and then the relationship begins to change from the type of relationship Lewis attributes to friendship.

The chapter provokes good contemplation, and will hopefully inspire the development of deeper friendships, allowing for the uninhibited “naked personalities” of Lewis’ Phileo love.

eks

Jesus On Our Wall

We were bombarded with images of Jesus in the film “The Faces of Jesus.” We saw him portrayed in all different styles and with all different expressions. Some focused on the caring, loving shepherd while others focused on the suffering savior. Some showed him judging the earth while others showed his healing the sick. We saw monasteries and churches in which every room held a painting or statue of the Son of Man. I was a little overwhelmed by it all, and not especially pleased. I wondered why so many images were necessary, and was glad my family and church wasn’t like that.

Then Dr. Redick asked an interesting question, “Do we have any religious images on our walls? What kind? And why?”

After seeing so many ostentatious and frightening images of Jesus, I didn’t even think of the images in my own house. We don’t have many, but above the dresser in my parent’s room is the classic image of a calm, brown haired Jesus that is very popular in America (it was mentioned in the film). And somewhere else I think we have a picture of a lamb.

I’m forced to think of these images in a new light after watching the film. Why do we have them on our wall? Perhaps to remind us constantly of Christ’s presence, or to honor him for his sacrifice? We certainly don’t worship the images, and honestly I don’t think we give them much thought. We realize that the representation of Jesus doesn’t have much basis for reality (we know he was a Jew but no specifics of his appearance are given) and yet we display it anyhow.

I still feel slightly uncomfortable with so many images of Jesus adorning these great churches, but I have to admit now that perhaps our traditions are not so far off. For some reason or another, my parents chose to put an image of Jesus on their wall. It has never bothered me before, but being a little disturbed by all the ones in the film has made me rethink. Why do we have a framed picture of God? I’m not really sure.

eks

Amanda: Confession and the Catholic Church

Confession, or penance, is one of the holy sacraments of the Catholic Church, and is highly important in the structure of the church. It is believed in the Catholic Church that the sacredness of priests is in the office, not the priest himself. The priest is not meant to be placed on a platform of an individual who is better, or more holy than others, but that he is a representative of God in his title.
Referring to scripture, “Unless you repent, you will likewise perish” (Luke 13:3) the need for confession and repentance to God is acknowledged, but the way in which this is conducted is in question. Still, the bible says, “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:7-8) This verse mentions nothing about how to receive this forgiveness except directly through Jesus. So, why would the church suggest that we need to go through someone else to get to Jesus, when we can go to him ourselves?
Having been raised in the Catholic Church myself, I have asked this question to countless people. I still have yet to receive an answer that points to anything beyond tradition of the church as the basis for truth, and until I do I will look to scripture to having authority on this topic.

Amanda: Luther, Calvin, and Predestination

Building off of the verse, “No one comes to the father except through me,” (John 14:6) Luther preached that although Jesus was the only way to attain salvation, this salvation was not limited, and could be attained by anyone. Luther rejected the notion of predestination, and instead focused on the importance of grace over works. Calvin on the other hand, said that there is an elect group of people chosen by God that will go to heaven. He did not entertain the possibility for a person to choose to turn to God to be saved, rather that if God chose someone, they had absolutely no possibility of turning away.

If one acknowledges that God is good, and that when he created the world He said it was good, how then could one claim that only the chosen will be redeemed? Doesn’t this belief suggest that Jesus died on the cross only for these specific, selected individuals?
If someone truly believes in the infinite, all-knowing, merciful, just, compassionate, loving God characterized in the bible, why then would they think that He would create humans in his own image, and put them on earth, just to sentence them to eternal damnation? Do believers in Calvinism think that God has to prove his power by making an example out of those sent to hell?

Beyond all of these questions about the nature of the Christian God, predestination also contradicts the pivotal aspect of free will. Without free will faith in Jesus can be boiled down nothing more than forced control.

The idea of Calvinism absolutely blows my mind. I can not wrap my head around how someone can call themselves a follower of Jesus and yet believe in predestination. In my opinion, Calvinism limits not only the power of God to save everyone, but also His love, compassion, and essential good nature

Communion

As we took communion last Wednesday in chapel, I tried to reflect on what I’ve been learning about the bread and wine and how we are taking Christ in us, engaging in a “sacred energy exchange” and should now ensure his life goes on by living for him, and I knew that I should leave that time truly loving people as Christ would, since that would be the biggest consequence of him in my life. Man it’s hard, though.

As I looked around, however, I noticed that everyone in the circle was taking communion (obviously) and therefore everyone was partaking of Christ’s body and should therefore live for him and love like him. I realize that probably no one else in the chapel was thinking about communion quite like I was, and probably most of them were going through the motions rather mindlessly, but I thought of how powerful communion has the potential to be.

If everyone who took communion together had the expectation that they were partaking of Christ’s body to allow him to live in them in order to live for him and act just like him, then what love should flow in the group! It would be so much easier to love one another if everyone was conscious of loving like Christ. If I think of the power I receive when I take communion multiplied by everyone in the circle, because the same Christ is living in each of us, it’s incredible. Maybe that’s a little bit closer to what Jesus wanted when he broke the bread in the upper room.

eks