Righteous Pagans

I was struck by a comment that Morganna made yesterday, and I'm not looking at it so I'm not going to try to quote her directly, but the gist of it was that when people find out that she's a Pagan, they assume that means she's an aethist.

So I thought that I'd take a moment today to talk about the way that the Bible discusses Pagans.  In the first place, everyone in the Bible pre-Abraham is a Pagan.  The term Pagan has come to have the meaning "non-believer" in contemporary discussion, but in fact the word originally refered to the location of the believer - the pagans were the country people. 

In Jewish-Christian theology, Pagans are 'God-fearers'.  People who worship God according to their understanding outside the Biblical covenant.  Famous Pagans in the Bible include Noah, Job, Rahab (who is listed in the New Testament in the Genealogy of Jesus), Enoch (one of two people in the Bible whom God took to heaven immediately, he didn't die), and Cornelius who's prayer to God resulted in God sending Peter to him.

According again to Christian theology, all persons who are outside the Abrahamic or New Covenant have access to God through the Noahide Covenant.  The very first split in the early Jesus movement came over whether or not "pagans" (those outside Judaism with it's ritual and law) could enter into a salvation relationship with God.  There was a council held in Jerusalem with the orginal disciples in attendence, James the Brother of Jesus presiding.  At that time it was concluded "pagans" (or Gentiles in the vernacular of the New Testament) were certainly a part of the wider family of God.

If you take a peek into the 11th chapter of Acts you will note that in Peter's report to the council, he doesn't say that these persons have agreed to a specific theology, he doesn't say that they perform certain rituals, he doesn't say that they obey the law.  What he says is that Jesus promised that instead of baptism by water, the mark of membership in the family of God is baptism by the Holy Spirit.  Wherever the Spirit of God is found there is salvation, there is repentance, and there is relationship between man and God.

Since I know of no chapter and verse that suggests that the Holy Spirit is bounded by geography, langauge, doctrine or ritual - it's only reasonable (see I'm using one of yesterday's words to prove that I actually read what I write ) to conclude that pagans are most certainly eligible for membership in God's family.  If God considers them family shouldn't we stop acting like they don't have a place at the table?

You might also notice if you peek at Acts 15 that James' judgment is: "that we do not hinder those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and by fornications and from what is strangled and from blood (murder)" in other words, James upholds the Noahide Covenant as sufficient.

Many of the Pagans I meet have turned from what they understand to be a woman-hating theology of a male god to worship of the Goddess.  I hold the Church through the centuries responsible for setting up a terrible obstacle to women (and men who respect women) in that Church Doctrine has undeniably contained anti-woman elements.  Rather than condemn those who have expressed their inability to worship a God associated with the painful and degrading aspects of official church doctrine, perhaps it's time for the Church to set aside the unBiblical and outdated rules that it imported from Roman society almost 2000 years ago in favor of the principle that "there is neither Jew nor Greek (insider nor outsider), slave or free (wage earner or captialist), male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).

Do you want to know whether or not God considers a person to be righteous?  (I warn you that this is a dangerous path because no one can know another person's heart.  Sitting in judgment of another person invites judgment upon yourself.)  When God is working in and through a person of whatever religious background and orientation, you can be fairly certain that person is righteous before God. 

The God of the Bible is a God of all people and all nations.  The God of the Bible is neither male nor female and specifically forbade the manufacture of anthropomorphic representations that would depict God's form as one or the other.  The God of the Bible is called by both male and female pronouns throughout the texts.

The good news of the Bible is that anyone at anytime in anyplace can have a relationship with the Almighty Creator of the Universe without intermediation by any human being.  God doesn't ask that we set aside our intellect, instead we are invited to love God with our mind and to reason together.  God doesn't require us to dress up and kneel in a specific place on a specific day (good thing for all those people in the Bible who didn't have any kind of church to kneel in, eh?) God doesn't require ritual.

Someone with more time on their hands may want to run one of those Bible programs that will count how many times it says that anyone who seeks God will find God.  I can think of at least four off the top of my head.  And not one of those texts says that God is found through theological content, ritual, denial of individuality, or mental suicide.  The only thing any of those texts says is that the person seeking God has to have an open heart.  The righteous live by faith alone.

You wanna please God?  Believe that God exists and rewards those who seek Him.  (Hebrews 11:6)  You might notice that it doesn't say that God will reward only a few people who seek in a narrow corridor - it says that anyone who seeks is rewarded.

My Jewish friends are Mother and Father.  I consider my Buddhist friends to be my Aunts and Uncles.  I consider my Pagan friends to be my spiritual Brothers and Sisters.    And in all love I ask my Christian friends who are disturbed by the thought of righteous Pagans, that if you can believe that Jesus died on their behalf, why can't you believe that God loves them and meets them where they are in the same way that you are loved where you are?

Okay, I'm done preaching. 

Reason to Believe

Tim just kept on being good to me yesterday.  After he took the kids to church yesterday morning, he took them out to lunch.  Then last night we all went back to church for a special closed circuit broadcast of a debate between Dr. Michael Newdow (the atheist who challenged the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance before the 9th Circuit Court) and Chris Knechtle, a Christian apologist.

I had been hoping they would debate the issue of the Pledge of Allegiance phrase, but instead they debated the existence of God.  Since Dr. Newdow proclaimed himself to be an atheist, he was invited to offer the reasons that supported his belief with equal time given to Knechtle to answer the evidence it was assumed that Dr. Newdow would offer.  Instead, he offered no evidence and the debate turned into a debacle.  Newdow proclaimed that because he couldn't find persuasive evidence for the existence of God, he could only assume that Theists believed because they had been conditioned from childhood to believe without questioning.

After a short time, it became obvious that he was doing the thing he accused theists of - defining as evidence only that which would fit his hypothesis.  Instead of responding to his opponent's arguments, he characterized the evidence offered by Knechtle as "gobbledygook."  In philosopohical circles this is known by it's technical name "intellectual dishonesty."

Dr. Newdow resorted to the old and snide arguement - if God exists why doesn't He show up to prove Himself at my demand?  He asked all members of the audience to pray that God would appear and then declared that God had not done so and therefore did not exist.  That was the end of his argument.  From that point he behaved like a small child with his fingers in his ears saying "I can't hear you."

Next time such a debate is sponsored, I hope they find a better atheist.  The audience members who questioned the men after the debate did a better job of raising tough questions regarding God and Christianity than Dr. Newdow did.  We all need to ask ourselves the hard question - What constitutes a "reason to believe?"  A good debate can be a excellent springboard into examination of beliefs.

Sound reasons for belief include such things as:

X is reasonable.  There is nothing odd or inappropriate about believing propositions which seem reasonable to us.  For example, I have experienced human beings as both loving and hateful.  So when I hear the claim made by some that human beings are basically good, my doubt mechanism is triggered.  A person making such a claim will have to have solid evidence to demonstrate that my belief that humans are a complex mixture of good and bad is mistaken.

X is logical.  Laws of logic stated briefly and simply are
    1. X is X (law of identity)
    2. X is not both X and non-X (law of noncontradiction)
    3. Every declarative sentence is either true or false (law of the excluded middle.)

     For example, A lead pencil is a lead pencil.  A lead pencil is not both a lead pencil and not a lead pencil (crayon, computer or some other object.)  The object touching my hand either is a lead pencil or it isn't.

Logic serves as a rational check on one's reason.  If certain elements of a person's belief, when elaborated, are found to be contradictory, then one or more of those elements are untrue.  Logic does not tell which of any two or three elements are false, it merely locates the problem.  Its function is vital, nonetheless.  Violation of the laws of logic constitute intellectual dishonesty and delusion.

There is empirical evidence for X.  Empirical evidence is that which can be discerned with the five senses.  Empirical evidence may point toward the existence of God but still say nothing about the character of God.  The claim that the evidence is not evidence (Dr. Newdow's position) because it does not answer every question is simply silly.  There is no single piece of evidence for any phenomena that will answer every question that may be related to that object or event.  For example you may see in my refrigerator a styrofoam box containing the remnants of a TexMex dinner, find in Tim's wallet a receipt from Tumbleweed dated Dec 8, and you may note that the gastro-intestinal systems of the members of my family contain matter than is consistent with a burrito consumed 12 hours ago.

Empirical evidence will not answer the questions, did you enjoy the meal, was there anyone present other than your family, was the cook married, did the server need a haircut, was the dinner served in a timely manner, did you get exactly what you ordered, was the temperature of the restaurant comfortable etc.  The fact that the empirical evidence fails to answer all these questions does not mean that the questions have no answer.  Some answers may be unavailable to us, marital status of the cook, some answers may be available per my testimony, we had a guest at dinner, and some questions may be unanswerable because they are subjective in nature, the temperature of the restaurant was comfortable to me but not to my husband. 

Application of the law of noncontradiction answers Dr. Newdow's objection.  Data is data.  Data is not both data and non-data.  Confusion exists not because it is data to one person and non-data to another, but because the data simply is, it doesn't become non-data if it fails to address every question that might be raised.

I have experienced X.  Some types of experience are repeatable, conditions underwhich the experience occurs are controlled and may be duplicated.  Most types of experience are non-repeatable they are unique.  Anyone who has ever given birth can testify that the birth process happens within certain parameters of possibility, but every experience of birth is unique, not merely from individual to individual but from birth to birth.  Statistically a woman labors with her first child for 14 hours.  The second child is statistically born within 8 hours.  But, it would be a foolish birth assistant who chose to schedule a half hour appearance from 13 hours 45 minutes to 14 hours 15 minutes into a first labor and expect to be present for the birth.

I may have dinner many many times with the same people, and the experience of our dinner may consistently occur within set parameters of possibility, but each meal we share will be unique.

I may have many conversations with a friend, but while the conversation may be consistent within the parameters of the langauge we both speak each conversation will be unique in most respects.  Even if we both held a script of a previous conversation and read it back to each other, the second experience would differ from the first in tone, inflection, and pace. 

Individual experience even when it is non-repeatable (not subject to scientific experiment) may be a valid reason to believe.

X gives the best explanation.  Rather than standing alone, this reason attempts to put together all the other "good" reasons into one all encompassing "best" reason.  THe characteristics of a "best explanation" include:
    * accounts for all data we hold to be relevant - historical, scientific, personally "experiential"
    * is internally consistent
    * is consistent with all the other matters we hold to be true
    * provides along with our other beliefs a more coherent picture of the world, ourselves and others than any alternative.

Two things are obvious about these criteria.  First, they are intended to be exhaustive.  A "best explanation" must meet a very high standard.  Second, it may be difficult to discern just when this standard has been met.  Some aspects of the standard are more easily met than others.  Self-consistency, for example, is more likely than accounting for all the data or even having all the relevant data at hand.

Maintaining a healthy skepiticism guards us against delusion and deception.  What I heard last night from Dr. Newdow was not skepticism, but cynicism.  Rather than offering evidence to support his proposition, there is no God.  Dr. Newdow retreated behind a mask of sarcasm, illogic and refusal to reason about the topic at hand.  It would be wrong to conclude that because Dr. Newdow's performance was so weak reasonable people cannot doubt the existence of God.  But, he certainly demonstrated that the ability to hold to an untested belief is not a trait limited to religious fundamentalists.

A Tail of Two Seats

I'm Back.  I made the drive yesterday from Arkansas to Indiana in almost exactly 12 hours.  Whew!  Talk about your basic flattened behind.  I swear I had to walk around for an hour before the feeling came back into my butt.

The kids had a good trip.  My Aunt gave them a little black and white television that you plug into the cigarette lighter.  So they were able to watch a few shows and mostly just be thrilled that they had it to play with.  By the time we got into the "I" states (Illinois/Indiana) we were too far away from any broadcasting centers to pick up stations, so we switched to kid music cd's.  They were happy. 

My days of driving the whole distance in one long day are  numbered.  I'm thinking the number is either 4 or 6 depending on the level of family crisis that might prompt me to do it.  My body has decided enough is enough.  By the time I got here last night, my feet were swollen to the size of shoe boxes and my individual toes looked like cherry tomatoes.  So, while I may be able to make these trips if I have another person so share the driving, I'm ready to hang up my spurs on this solo thing. 

My husband earned major points with me last night and this morning.  He had dinner hot and ready when we got here, complete with fresh baked bread and dessert.  Then this morning, he let me sleep in.  He got up with the kids, bathed them, cooked them pancakes, and kept things quiet in my room until I woke up about 10:15.  Then because I was still feeling tired and achey from the drive, he took the kids to church and left me to take a hot bubble bath.  (Remind me to put book in the bathroom, if I'd had something to read, I could have stayed in there all day.)

Now, I'm going to put my feet up and play "pamper me" for a while, humming to myself a little song that I like to call "I'm back, I'm back, I'm back, I'm back, I'm back, I'm back, I'm back, I'm back, I'm back..."

Making a list, Checking it Twice

No, not Santa, it's me.  I've packed the school, I've packed my books, I've packed the snacks we'll need for the road trip.  I have the last load of clothes in the dryer as we speak.  We have a few odds an ends of errands to wrap up and then i'll load the van.  Whoooo Hoooooo! 

In spite of all the dysfunctional dynamic, I enjoy my visits to Arkansas.  Having a crazy family gives me lots to write about.  I never get enough time with Fugitive.  If I could order the world as I wish it to be, she and I would live next door to each other.  I usually make out like a Bandit in some way or another.  This trip it was clothes. 

I'm known for travelling with everything that I might possibly want to have or use.  It takes a van to load me up.  I've been known to show up at Mom's house with my sewing machine and wheat grinder in addition to the normal suitcases, bookbags, toys for the kids, the dog and her suitcase, and my portable stereo with bags of disks.  This time Mom "suggested" that since she has a washer and dryer right on the premises, there was no need for me to bring more than three changes of clothing.  Let's be clear, my Mom is not a subtle woman.  This was her opening salvo in the long list of "things you won't need on this trip."

I've been here a month.  In that month I've worn the same three sweatshirts over and over and over.  This week my Mom bought me clothes.  I'm going home with almost three times as many things as I brought.  I also got a lecture on the need to take more pride in my appearance and the virtues of a classic wardrobe. 

Now I'm on my way out to pick up pecans.  My Mom's neighbor has huge trees and has already gathered 35 gallons for himself.  So he wants Mom to come and pick up a few.  Mom isn't letting any grass grow under my feet on that one.  So my kids and I are headed next door to gather nuts.

Not Yet

Over lunch we adults embarrassed my children by quoting some of the things they've said over the years.  We all get the biggest chuckle over my son Michael.  Tucker is always a card, so it's not surprising when he say's something funny.  Michael tends to be more serious and he's almost always polite.

It's the politeness that creates the best remarks.  Last night we decided to drive around the Lake DeGray Marina which does a marvelous display of lights in conjunction with the Make-a-Wish foundation.  We were running around gathering socks, shoes and car keys when Michael made his announcement.  "I've reconsidered and I suppose I'll go with you to see the lights."  None of us were aware that he was supposing he wouldn't go.

A few nights back we had an early supper and then the kids were up rather late.  So before bed they requested a snack.  I made them peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.  My Mom walked through a few minutes later and said, "You kids are eating me out of house and home."  Tucker responded, "Oh, no, Aamaw.  There's not a hole in your house."

All of these giggle sessions end with the same story.  One afternoon Tucker had irritated Michael to the point that we were all in sympathy with poor Mike.  They were out of sight when we heard Tucker start to cry.  Mom called out, "Michael, did you hit your brother?"  Michael's calm polite voice came back. "Not yet."

Near Life Experience

Every year I start a little earlier thinking about my New Year's Resolutions.  I'm too dysfunctional to just enjoy the holiday season so I preempt the guilt that comes every January 1st for a bit of balance to get me safely through the month of December.  I really have a hard time with that whole "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" thing.  I've looked back over resolutions of the past several years and it seems that if nothing else, I'm consistent.  For at least the past five in a row, I've made a vow to live in a way that is "true to me", "my authentic self", "honest about my feelings." 

But, the truth is that every year along about January 2 or 3, I have one of those opportunities to either be myself, or say what the other person wants to hear.   Through ths recurring failure to live up to my commitment I've figured out that Real Character isn't something that is decided one day as a matter of will, it's what I do in the moment of decision.  And it isn't what I do in that one big moment when all the lights are on and the microphone is live.  Character happens day in and day out when no one but me is looking.

I've been looking lately and not caring so much for the reflection I see in the mirror.  I had a conversation with my Aunt whom I really love but don't get to see very often.  We were talking about the sour disposition of my Grandmother.  Aunt Janice is 75 years old now and she testifies that Grandma has been sour for at least that long.  All I could say was that I hoped when I was old that I wasn't "that kind of" old.  Aunt Janice laughed and said she could never imagine me being anything but young at heart - that I was the most playful of all her many nieces and nephews.  My jaw dropped.

See I've been feeling rather old lately.  I've been looking around at the things that I haven't done, the places I haven't been, and well, (here comes the whiny part) I've been feeling too tired to make up for lost time.  Isn't it funny how a chance remark can redefine your focus?  I feel young and playful when I talk with Aunt Janice.  She expects me to be that way and voila - it happens.  So I got wondering what would happen if I expected me to be young and playful.  I've been trying it on for size.

Dang, but this whole visualization thing really works!  I get up in the morning and instead of moaning to myself about my aching back, I do the thing that strikes me as fun in the moment.  Last night I stuck out my tongue and blew a raspberry at my Mom.

You have to understand that at almost 40 years old, I'm still more intimidated by my Mom than any other human I can imagine on the face of the earth.  Tim never saw the Divine Secrets of YaYa Sisterhood last summer, but I'm buying the DVD.  He will recognize Vivianne Walker.  Oh, my Mom doesn't drink, but she could give the YaYa Queen lessons in keeping kids off balance.  Too many of those scenes are straight out of my very southern life for me to view it as fiction.

Seconds after I stuck my tongue out at Mom, I realized what I had done and froze.  I moved away from my kids so that when the lightening struck they'd be out of harm's way.  But, you know what?  This is the really weird part.  Mom laughed.  I didn't want to push my luck so I didn't take her temperature, blood pressure, or check her reflexes for neurological damage.  I don't quite know what I think about it all in the cold light of today.  The moment came and I didn't think about it, I just acted.  And it was fun.  And I survived.

I think it may have been a near life experience.  Having gotten close to the fire, I find that I like it.  I'm looking around for my opportunity to be spontaneous again (yes, I'm planning to be spontaneous and I know exactly how contradictory that is but it's working for me.)  While I'm waiting for that next live moment, I'm packing my bags and loading my van because there is still the chance that the only reason God didn't strike me dead last time is that even HE couldn't believe I did it.

(The weather is looking like it will hold for me to get home on Saturday, lets all pray that it happens.)

Counting Down the Days

Well folks, we're in the final stretch.  Just a few more days and I'll be back in Indiana.  I hope you still have me on your SIR list.  I'm afraid to peek and see how many people have dropped me in the past month.  I'd like to be all high minded and write here merely for the love of writing and the joy of journaling, but I don't.  I write here because I know that there are wonderful people who read here.

There is a winter storm happening in Northern Arkansas tonight.  (At least I think that's what they said on the weather channel - it's hard to know over the squeals and laughter of little boys who a reduced to playing indoors and have nothing better to do than out volumize the television.)  I've also heard of snow and ice in Southern Missouri, Illinois, Kentucky and Tennessee.  In other words there is NO route from here to home that isn't treacherous at the moment.  So I'm hanging out, hoping for a freak warming spell that will send temps into the 50's and 60's when they are only predicted to hit 30. 

I read a good book the other day.  It wasn't my usual faire and some of you may have already read it years back because it first came out in hardback about 6 years ago.  Neil Stephenson's Diamond Age was a rare treat.  He begins with life in the late 21st century and his fascination with nanotechnology inspires creative applications of future possibilities.  But, inspite of the technical bent and the obscure terminology he employs the book takes as its subject an old and enduring question.  (Right up my alley.  )  It opens with a meeting between two unlikely gentlemen, an obscenely wealthy older man and a programming genius.  They each have a child in their lives for whom they have great hopes of future glory.  They conspire to create a book.  Using nanotechnology the book will interact with the child and create a story as it goes.  interwoven in the tale will be lessons in reading, writing, self-defense, logic, and ultimately the book will lead it's owner into a life of subversive noncompliance with the societal pressure to follow the path of least resistance. 

Through a series of convolutions, three copies of the book are produced.  The first destined for the granddaughter of the wealthy industrialist.  The second surreptitiously produced for the daughter of the programmer is stolen by a street gang who mug him.  A final third copy produced to replace the stolen version and given to the daughter of the programmer.

The story follows the little girl who winds up with the stolen copy.  From original curcumstances of abuse and neglect she gradually rises through the various levels of a future society in which a persons membership in an organization based on ethnicity overcomes national and geographical demarcations.  Through her trials and tribulations questions about the nature of education and society are constantly raised explored.

Some of the obscure language is so obscure that it would be off-putting to a reader who couldn't bring herself to either look 'em up or skip over the terms.  I alternated between the two.  On one page I had to look up three words in three consecutive sentences.  They turned out to be real words, but it distracted from the story and eventually I stopped looking them up.  Technology buffs will love the discussion of gadgetry and process.  Philosophers will be enthralled by the way contemporary educational ideals are worked out in the story.  I was reminded both of Mark Twain's Huck Finn and Rouseau's Emile, but only in a superficial way as Mr. Stephenson ultimately argues for an educational philosophy that is almost diametrically opposed to Rouseau and Twain's depiction of the innate goodness of man as a starting point.

A book that works on multiple levels never fails to please me and Diamond Age is no exception to this rule. 

Recipe of the day -
Southern Cornbread Dressing

Start with a large dishpan.  Crumble cornbread and leftover bicuits - approximately enough to fill two gallon buckets.  Add cooked, diced chicken (3 lbs), two diced onions, and three diced celery sticks, four cans cream of mushroom soup, one gallon of chicken broth and six eggs.  Pour into two large roasting pans and bake at 375 until firm and lightly browned on top.

Yes, my Mom made this much dressing last week.  Yes, I'm STILL eating dressing.  It's not tasting as good these days as it did last Thursday, but I have been sneakily putting huge helpings on the kids plates and then scraping them into the garbage after dinner so I'm pretty sure the last of the dressing will be gone after tomorrow.  I can highly recommend Momma's recipe, but I'll be honest when I make it, I cut it down to about 1/5 of the ingedient list - enough to make a 9x12 pan of dressing is plenty for my family.