What’s Up? 06/03/10

Sooo, it’s Thursday, and you know what that means! Oh, maybe you don’t? Well, it means the weekend is only a coupla days away. That used to be the only thing I frankly lived for.

Now, not so much. Being REtired ( not more tired mind ya) but, as in not working a formal gig meaning job, I don’t pay as much attention to the humpy Wednesday, maudlin Monday kinda thing any more. But it’s hard to shake, cuz the rest of the world seems to, so well, I succumb to public pressure.

Which all means nothing whatsoever. But as usual, I aim to dazzle you with my wordy abilities.

Saying that, hey, ever wondered where all the smart people are? Other that moi and Contrarian here, well, things are probably a little intellectually bereft here in the hinterlands of northern Linn county Iowa. Not to cast aspersions upon my fellow Iowans or nuttin’ . I am not a caster, having no rod and reel, nor a bean to save my soul. Should those things work at saving one’s soul that is. Anyway, The Atlantic has a kinda weird story and charts about where all the smart people live. Take a look.

Oh I got a new word for ya from Dr. McGrath over at Exploring our Matrix. It’s sarchasm. Meaning those who are unable to grasp the sarcasm of what you said. I thought it was a good one. He had a couple of others. It was one of yesterday’s posts I believe. He’s a multiple poster, which might be sexually deviant, or maybe just an addiction. I don’t know for sure.

Apparently while I was a sleepin’ the dang old fundies have been at it again, here in I-O-WA. It seems 834 “pastors” of “churches” in Iowa have sent letters to all candidates informing them of hellfire and damnation opposition, should they not push for a constitutional amendment redefining marriage as between only a man and a woman. It will require that to pass muster before the Iowa Supreme Court. Ain’t these idiots got anything better to do? Like feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and such? This comes by way of Rightwing Watch.

Well, dintcha just know he would? Disgraced fundie gay blade, Ted Haggard and his stand by yer man wifey, are planning on starting their own church. I don’t think the New Life Church of which he was the head honcho before the, err, scandal, wanted him back. So, because of public demand he is baaakk. Shall we all say a prayer for the poor souls who will become his newest victims?

Speaking of fraudulent stuff (we were weren’t we?) the Bible and Interpretation has a great article on some folks penchant for stuff that “proves” faith. We are talking about shrouds and pieces of the cross, and other such stuff. If you are religiousy, you might enjoy it.

If you want some heavy duty reading about mind-body issues–how does our brain relate to our our mind–then read a thoughtful post from Robert Lawrence Kuhn, at Science and Religion Today. It’s fascinating if a bit complicated to untangle. Best I can discern is that there is no real consensus among the experts. Are we reproducible or is there something about us that is, well, not biological?

It’s long been my contention that having the ability to acquire most anything, leaves one with little enjoyment of much of any commodity so obtained. (If you can afford a 100 cashmere sweaters, how much do you enjoy wearing or looking at one of yours?) Psychology Today reports on some findings. (Hint: I’m sorta vindicated, sorta.)

Anybody notice? That old Dick “THE DICK” Cheney has been silent during this BP disaster? Mr. Bigmouth warning us how Obama was destroying Merika for the whitey man, has shut his pie hole tight as of late. I shouldn’t wonder since, Halliburton is busy lining the coffers of all those Rethugs up for election who just happen to sit on committees that will be investigating the oil spew. These asswipes have NO shame. Did I just manage to waste time stating the obvious? Sure did.

That’s it for today. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Use yours today!

Searching for God Knows What

This was for me one of the most maddening books I’ve read in a good while. There were times I was convinced it was utterly silly and wanted to pitch it in the trash, and then I would read something that was indeed profound and I would continue on.

Donald Miller has authored Searching for God Knows What in a style that has been described as hilarious, easy going, conversational and provocative. It may be, but honestly it’s not my style of writing at all.

I found it childish, silly and simplistic in such an extreme, that as I said, at times I wondered if I could continue. An example from the beginning is where Mr. Miller contends he was attending a writer’s workshop. He cornered the speaker after a session and ended up asking her to explain to him the difference between fiction and non-fiction. I would think that a nine-year-old might know the answer.

I found many of his illustrative stories much like this, silly, and not particularly helpful. Things only get worse when he turns to biblical scholarship. He uses words like “some” scholars and “many” experts when to those who are well-trained in biblical exegesis, he clearly means “a few” and “evangelical fundamentalists.” An example is his claim that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, something that is clearly not true if you are looking at the consensus opinion. And I don’t mean “many” scholars, I mean MOST. He as well has Moses composing Job and that being the first writing of the Hebrew Testament. Neither is likely true. Job was likely an ancient legend, it was not constructed into any written form until around the 5th century BCE.

This all led me to ask the question: Just who is Miller’s intended audience? I concluded that he surely was not addressing progressive Christians, for indeed his ultimate message is one that they have come to long ago. No, his message is directed toward evangelicals, particularly fundamentalists who not only read the bible literally as the inerrant word of God, but also, seemingly contradictorily, have very conservative notions on social justice issues.

This is where Miller shines in my estimation. For he makes a very slow, careful, and 2+2=4 argument that hopefully leads to a return to a sane social justice policy on the part of such evangelicals.

Miller argues, rightly I believe, that the main theme of the bible is relational. Above all God wishes to interact with us as human beings. He created us for that purpose. Formulas, creeds, and dogmas are not what faith is about. If you meet a fundamentalist and a conversation ensues about faith, fairly quickly you will be asked: Do you believe that Jesus died for your sins? Do you believe that you are a sinner? It is only by answering these questions and perhaps others, “correctly,” that you can be defined as Christian.

Miller suggests that all this is deeply flawed. Not that the questions are not important, but rather than they miss the point. The point is that God alone, as he believes, is the only One who can validate us as humans. He is the only One whose opinion matters. We are loved because God loves us, not because our spouses, friends, or followers do.

He calls his readers to read the bible for the relationships espoused. While he may indeed believe that a real Adam and a real Eve lived in a garden called Eden, you don’t need to, to get his point. By eating of the tree, the two broke the connection with God by choice, and we as humanity have been struggling to reconnect ever since.

Miller urges that the way to reconnect is not to do so by church doctrines and recitations of patterned prayer. Again, not because these are intrinsically wrong, but because they don’t have a thing much to do with relating to God. We have lost the spirituality, if you will, of the great mystery of God by confining him to a moral agenda of anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality coupled with a bizarre notion that free enterprise economics reflect God’s kingdom.

He points to an excerpt of Al Franken’s book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, to point this out dramatically. This piece alone is worth reading the book! In it Franken refers to a comic strip which introduces us to “supply-side Jesus” who encourages his followers to acquire as much wealth as possible and cautions against giving directly to the poor since it will encourage them in their laziness. Better that trickle down stuff!

Jesus he claims is not to be understood through conservative economic theory. I agree. He challenges fundamentalists, calling them in reality theologically liberal!

The person who believes the sum of his morality involves gay marriage and abortion alone, and neglects health care and world trade and the environment and loving his neighbor and feeding the poor, is by definition, a theological liberal, because he takes what he wants from Scripture and ignores the rest.

In a word, God is relational and we live out our calling to worship by being relational as well, with God, and with Jesus and with each other, in the same loving manner as has been exampled to us by them.

If you are a progressive Christian, then, nothing new here. If you are a troubled evangelical, with a willingness to explore your faith foundations, then read this please. It might just make all the difference to you and to the rest of us as well.

**This book was provided free of charge by Booksneeze. There are no agreements as to the contents of this review.