I have been trying to blog for days and I'm seriously REGRETTING my no bad words semi-policy.  So Zoodom, feel free to say a few for me.  Xanga has refused to post my entries since Wednesday, and not just my journalling, I haven't been able to comment on your blogs either.

I'm still trying to get caught up on the Xanga posts I missed out on from last week.  I'm having great fun working my way through your posts, but it's looking like it's gonna take me all week to make it through my SIR list.  Ths last time I had this much fun was when I set the goal of eating my way through the entire Baker's Square Pie menu (that took months).

From Monday_ I should have noted that Nebula award-winning Robert Sawyer has authored numerous books that explore the connections between science, philosophy and theology.  His latest book, Calculating God, uses a conversation between an alien theologian and an atheistic paleontologist from Earth to explore the "Big Questions."

Big Questions

I was listening to NPR yesterday (I admit it, almost anytime I'm in the van I'm listening to Public Radio - it's one of my 101 addictions) and I heard an interview with author, Robert Sawyer.  The subject was science fiction and what sets it apart from other genre fiction. 

Science fiction authors explore the "big" questions.  Mr. Sawyer commented that most people don't ever think or talk about the "big" questions outside of the one hour a week that some of us go to some type of religious service.  "Who are we?  What does it mean to be human?  Where do we come from?  What constitutes ethical behavior?  Where does God fit into the picture?  Is there such a thing as a soul?  Is the outlook for the future positive or negative?" 

I was astonished.  I talk about those things all the time.  I'm under no illusion that I have the final answer to any of them, but I'm fascinated by the process of searching for the answers.  So what does that say about me?  Is my preoccupation with these questions abnormal?  Am I so different from everyone else? 

Then, I wondered, who are these "most people" that he's talking about.  I don't think I've ever met one of that group.  My circle of friends in the real world isn't that wide, so maybe I've unconsciously chosen to form relationships with members of the thinking fringe.  But, none of my friends here on Xanga fall outside the thinking category either, and there are a lot of you.  We all talk about the big questions all the time.  I don't read every site on Xanga by a LONG shot.  So maybe the SIR are just a little eddy in the river that has collected all the thin minority of people who think. 

But, maybe not.  Maybe, Mr. Sawyer doesn't realize that at the bottom of every conversation a "BIG" question lurks, waiting for the opportunity to raise its head and scare us like the monster from the swamp. 

Yesterday, I wrote a few words about literal truth.  Zoodom asked about my statement "I'm saddened by people who come to the Bible looking for verses to support their preconceived ideas for or against God, Christianity, Judaism, or religion in general."  She wanted to know how is that different from what I did in my Submission post because I quoted a lot of scripture to support my statements.

The difference is between reading to prove an argument verus reading for understanding.  Everyone who reads any text including this Xanga post interprets.  A person with the preset idea that I don't read very many other Xanga sites could read over my comments here and pull out one sentence "I don't read every site on Xanga by a LONG shot."  If he is trying to prove something about my reading habits that one sentence could seem very revealing.  But, in the context of my entire blog, my reading behavior, and the number of comments I leave around Xanga, that sentence might not prove anything.  A person who read this blog and took away that one sentence, didn't gain much understanding. 

If I have any hope of understanding, I have to interpret with integrity whether I'm reading the Bible, the Mahabharata, the I Ching, or the journals of Malcolm X.  Because in the end of it all, proof is about a little question, "am I right?" with a short answer.  I'm in the game to wrestle with the big questions that have infinite answers.

Literal Truth

Often times we ask the wrong questions.  As a result, the answers we receive frustrate or confuse us.  I've noticed that there is a question that often comes whenever there is a post that mentions spirituality or Christianity.  "Is the Bible the Word of God?"  I think this is the wrong question.  The attempt to answer that question forces people to take extreme positions.  Soon anyone with an opinion one way or the other on this question is challenged to defend the indefensible.  By which I mean that the "for" person is pushed to try to prove that every word of the Bible is literally true, or the "against" person is challenged to prove that each word is literally false.

I think the better question is 'How is the Bible the Word of God?'* The Bible isn't one book.  It is a collection of books and letters written over a span of approximately 1200 years.  Some of the documents have a certain provenance, such as the letters of Paul which can be placed within a very narrow timeframe, in specific places, and known historical circumstances.  Some of the books are of far less certain origin, such as the book of Job which isn't a history but a dramatic narrative used to teach truths of God's character..

Some books of the Bible are collections of poems and songs.  Some are history, some are law, and some are mixtures of different types of writings.  Through the centuries that encompass the construction of Biblical documents, a particular people in a particular culture recorded their particular experiences with God.  Some of the Biblical documents contain rich vocabulary and a polished style.  Other documents are simple contructs with limited vocabulary.  Each bears the distinctive marks of the human personalities who put their pen to paper (or dictated their words to a scribe.) 

It is difficult for anyone holding a modern English translation of the Bible to grasp the distinctive characteristics of these individual documents.  The translators' work has homogenized the text to such a degree that it is difficult if not impossible to discern that the Gospel of Matthew, for example, is atrocious in terms of its use of grammar and syntax, whereas the Gospel of Luke is the work of an educated Greek.

With this in mind, it becomes a far more interesting question to ask 'HOW is the Bible the Word of God'?  I think that this question not only forces each person to engage the text personally, but makes it difficult to base an understanding of God on a few proof texts.  I'm saddened by people who come to the Bible looking for verses to support their preconceived ideas for or against God, Christianity, Judaism, or religion in general.  Any person opening the Bible in search of these proofs will find them.  But, in finding their proofs, they have lost their opportunity to find the truth.

*This question isn't original with me.  My friend Darrel pointed me to G E Ladd who asked this question in his book, The New Testament and Criticism.   

I'm Baaaaccccck!!!!!

Praise be to God from whom all good things flow - there is a new modem in my computer.  Tim installed it last night and its wonderful.  Pages load twice as fast as with the old one.  I'm still limited to the best that can be done with a phone line (I'm the rural population that Arlen Specter - praises upon his curly head -mentioned to Congress as an example of consumers who would be harmed if those satellite companies merge.)  See what sad shape I've been in?  I even took time to listen to NEWS last week.

Where was I?  Oh, yes, I'm BAACCCKKK!  I'm a little giddy with the rush of it all.  Kind of like that first deep breath of air after you've been swimming underwater for a while . . .

I can't wait to get around and see what you've all been up to this week. 

(Oh, and FUGITIVE - thanks for informing everyone about my 'puter problems.  If I only could have run away to live nekkid with the pygmy's - I'm sure I would have had a much more entertaining week than the one I just spent.)

I have taken over Terri's website!  (MMMWWWAAAahhhhhh  haaa haa haaa haaa!  - that was supposed to be an evil laugh but I am not sure how to spell it!)

The fact that she has no internet service seems to have opened a wide door of opportunity for me!  I can come here and post ANYTHING I want and she can't stop me!!  (She may never again give me her password but at least she can't stop me today!)

Let me know what you guys would most like to see/hear about Quiltnmomi and I will do my best to provide ~ I have a nice selection of 'blackmail' photos from when we were kids.

Have a good Day!

signed ~ Fugitive

Good Morning fellow Xanganites!!!

Quiltnmomi called me last night and asked that I post this message to her Xanga Account: "My husband and I have decided to abandon our 'Yuppie suburban lifestyle' and go live nekkid and free among the Pygmy tribes of Australia!"

Ok - that wasn't exactly what she said - her real message was :

"We have spent considerable money this weekend upgrading our computer only to find that our motem is shot.  It may be a few days before I can get back online (depending on the price of a motem it may be until next payday).  Please don't worry - my absence isn't a sign of any sort of problem (other than a crappy motem) - things are well here and I hope to rejoin you guys soon."

So if you guys who normally read my sister find yourselves with nothing to do - feel free to come read me!

signed ~ Fugitive

Submission

DISCLAIMER:  Some may object that what I have to say about submission is not orthodox.  My answer: Having a great number of people convinced of a particular interpretation, doesn't mean that interpretation is true.  The commonly accepted doctrines of any institution are the orthodoxy.  Anyone holding a minority opinion is flirting with heterodoxy.  Outright rejection of the orthodox opinion is a heresy.  150 years ago my opinions would have been nothing short of heresy.  Nowadays, there is enough discussion and rethinking going on that I'm probably only mildly heterodox.  (Don't worry, I retain my heretical badge in multiple other areas.)

If you've hung around a church of any Christian demonination, or even if you just happened to catch the news of the Southern Baptist Convention's statements on women and children, you've probably heard the quote "Wives submit to your husbands."  Because that's a quote from the Bible, some claim that their statements regarding men and women in marriage relationship represent God's view.  Most of us have had experiences with people like these who equate the term submission with obedience inside an ordained hierarchical relationship.  We respond by either accepting that deformed teaching and adopting a posture of self-hatred.  Or we reject any form of submission and are caught in the web of pride and self-centeredness.

The longest passage in the Bible on the concept of submission is found in Ephesians Chapters 4-5.  I'm not going to quote it all, but I'd like to point out key ideas.

• Be completely humble and gentle, be patient, bear one another in love.
  
• Don't be a baby! Grow up supporting each other in love.
  
• Don't live as the unenlightened, cultivate sensitivity.
  
• Be kind and compassionate, forgive one another as Christ forgave you.
  
• Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

You might notice that there is nothing in the above that implies that any of us are expected to give up our selfhood in obedience to another.  In each statement the assumption is that we retain the right to determine our own response to the people around us.  The doctrine of submission has nothing to do with obeying another person, it is cultivating a spiritual freedom in our response to people.

One of the greatest bondages in my life and the lives of those I love, is the obssessive need to have everything go our way.  In spite of our having been raised on Sesame Street's golden rule, "COOPERATE!", we don't cooperate.  Far more often the attitude is, "I'd rather see this project fail than have it succeed any way other than the way I want it to go."  The Spiritual Discipline of Submission gives us freedom from this burden.

The Bible doesn't endorse ordained hierarchical relationships.  The central teaching of Jesus is that the greatest in the Kingdom of God serves others.  It is impossible to overstate the revolutionary character of Jesus' life and teaching on this point.  It did away with all claims to privileged position and status.  It called into being a whole new order of leadership based on service.  (In my opinion, it is the use of biblical terms in a nonbiblical way that has resulted in so many sincere people going so far wrong in this doctrine of submission.  Bibical leadership is a place of service and sacrifice, not ruling authority.)

It is the principle of submission that transforms an act of service into an example of spiritual strength and dignity.  Does anyone think that Mother Teresa was a doormat to anyone?  She lived the premier 20th century life of service, working with poor, sick people who lived in horrible dehumanizing circumstances.  She didn't do it because she was obeying orders from a superior, she did it because she cultivated the discipline of submission and service was the natural outworking of her spiritual lifeview.

In submission we are free to value other people.  Their plans and dreams become important to us.  We give away the infantile demand that those we love must love us in return, in other words, we refuse to be manipulative in our relationships.  We love unconditionally.  We rejoice in their successes and genuinely sorrow in their failures.  We know that it is better to love them through the steps of their own success or failure than to try to control circumstances to force them to succeed. 

The corresponding psychological principle to the spiritual discipline of submission is Assertiveness.  But, while submission has been perverted by some to be obedience, assertiveness is easily misunderstood as primarily a means to achieve self-centered goals.  In completely non-spiritual terms, good assertiveness training covers the same territory that is learned in the doctrine of submission.  There is great practical value in the application of assertiveness training as it crosses the bridge between the abstract teaching into concrete situations. 

Submission/assertiveness is not the magical middle ground between subservient/passivity and aggressive/domination.  Submission is the path away from hierarchy and conflict into freedom within relationship.