Money & Our Faith - Let's Get This Straight...

"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." (Matt 6:24)

I am going to put this passage into full perspective and find out what Jesus meant by saying this - since this is hugely overlooked and mis-interpreted in Christendom. It's a value we need to start setting in it's correct place. This whole chapter from vs. 1 - 34 is tied together by this central theme - money.

Firstly, you have the 3 passages about hypocritical faith and 'reward'. In 'giving to the poor' (vs.2), when you 'pray' (vs.5), and when you 'fast' (vs.16) - do not do these things to be noticed by 'people' - as Jesus states 'they have their reward in full'. What reward? Public attention? Looking holy? Gloating? I actually think that is a piece of it - but it is no small stretch to also see that these same people that 'looked righteous' also did it for public show so people would give to their 'faith structure' (knowing they were 'holy men of God'). It seems their reward is the actual money they recieve from the un-knowing people that think these people are 'doing good' - when all in all - they are not quite what they claim.

Vs.1 sets the actual precedent for the chapter "Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven."
Basically, is it that - God does not care about the amount of wealth we can build? Have at er' - so to speak. No. The people were using their religious system to guarantee they would have money - and likely accumulate quite a bit of it - so as to secure themselves a position in society. They get noticed for doing good - people admire that - they give to that system cause it looks 'godly' (trend keeps going until someone points it out). Jesus is pointing it out! And we wonder why he is hated in his day? Never get between someone and their 'cash cow'.

This is further pointed out in vs.19-24 (so as to hammer the point home). Vs. 19-21 talks about storing treasure in heaven, not on earth (accumulation of wealth) - why? Cause your 'heart' will be tainted by the very thing you admire - at some point God chases 'wealth' or becomes void due to it. Vs. 22-23 talks about the eye and how it see's light (perspective). If the light becomes 'darkness' or 'shaded' then rhetorically - 'how great is this darkness!'. Basically, money can shade people's very views about religion and society - and make them change what is actually being said for personal gain. Vs. 24 wraps it up - you can't serve both money and God (since perspective is skewed in the process). Jesus seems to be stating very clearly - money can jade even the finest religous person - so much so - they betray the very thing they hold dear - God.

Verses 25-34 are passages about 'don't worry' concerning food, clothing, drink, life span, and time - these things God does 'care about' concerning you. This is in complete contrast to the idea of wealth building for personal use/gain. I know it's not the norm in a capital-ist society to think like this but if you read closely it all makes a lot of sense.

See what if the system worked as it should? What if the teachings did not have to badger people about their personal 'love of wealth?'. It's not that far off that these same people (religious folk) would develop a system/society where that wealth is shared with one another (including the poorest of them) - in area's like clothing, shelter, food/drink, and security. We would actually see a faith system something like this in Acts? If you check that Acts passage out you find they are people of faith - devoted to the 'teachings, prayer, and passover/communion'. They 'had all things in common' (shared) - including shelter, possessions (clothing very possibly), food/drink, and friendship. We just might find our anxieties wash away too 'Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe' (the people in this passage hardly look 'worried'). Could this be what Jesus was pointing to in this passage in Matt 6?

So some logic...1 + 1 = 2 - normal math we all know is true. Now if I keep finding passages like this in the gospels and letters - then at some point if the addition keeps adding up (and not subtracting) - then we must have a consistent theme: Matt 19:21, Luke 12:33, Luke 16:1-13, Acts 4:34, Rev 3:16-18, Matt 5:3, I Cor 4:8-14, Mark 4:19, I Tim 6:17-18, Luke 6:24, I Tim 6:9-10, James 5:1-6, James 2:1-9, Luke 12:18-20, Matt 21:12, Luke 16:14, I Tim 3:3, 2 Tim 3:2, Heb 13:5. 3 gospels, a history, 4 letters of Paul (if Hebrews is), and James and John. All of these passages tie into this theme in one way or another concerning wealth and religious hypocrisy (and it's dangers).

My Verdict for the teachings: Capital-ism and faith cannot be partners together to make one believe they are adopting the values of the teachings of Christ - this is contradiction.

Is Jesus' Teachings All That Bad?

"What we cannot do (in my opinion) is disregard the “Jesus bits” we don’t like, simply under the method that we don’t like them. They ARE there." (Dagoods)

I think Dagoods raises a good point - we cannot forget one piece of Jesus teachings when we look at the whole thing - agreed. I have looked through the gospels with my own eyes and I cannot find a single teaching - via Jesus - that seems all that bad. There is the Luke 'hate' passage, I have seen Jesus calling out the 'Pharisee's', and even the lady called a 'dog'. I have actually went into various explanations about each verse on my own blog - hate, pharisee's, and the dog passage (actually I never blogged on this - commented on another site about it).

I actually stand by something I said in other comments - find me one single place where Jesus actually teaches something horribly wrong (that will ruin society)? I have yet to see one single passage as of yet - I can look harder - but what's the use - I have read those gospels at least 50 times each - and nothing about vices as virtues is ever supported. Now this may happen in current society (churches and religious groups) but the texts themselves do not support it.

Things I learned from Jesus' teachings are: love my neighbor (even if he is someone who dislikes me), compassion, treat others how I want to be treated, problems start as thoughts, equality of men and women/everyone, the rich need to care for the poor, we are to be subject to the justice system, seek justice, don't be a hypocrite, forgiveness & mercy, judging my own behavior (or don't judge at all), being a peacemaker vs. a troublemaker, integrity, knowing about religious hypocrisy, freedom, sincerity, fake oaths & lying should not be done, doing something instead of merely believing something, wisdom tempered by peacefulness, charity, an outlook of hope, etc...this list can go on and on.

Just showing that the things Jesus actually taught are meant to result in good ends - peace, compassion, acceptance, forgiveness, honesty, and a belief system that has at it's core value love. That can't be all that bad?

"I agree that there is nothing wrong with borrowing from Jesus’ teaching. I say we can do better than Jesus teaching!" (Dagoods)

I think it is a hopeful outlook to hold onto - when looking at 'we' as 'those involved in the conversation' - but for one side of this convo (myself) - the place I honed my values was from the teachings of Jesus (from my teens even until now). I would like to think I can 'do better' (as you suggest) - but I would be quite mind-boggled to figure out how that might even look - or how I could actually teach a whole new innovative system that reflects values even shades higher than that of Jesus'? I have a tough time figuring out something higher than 'love'?

Maybe it's just me - but the bible's values are quite alright and can help to shift someone's life from a certain destructive pattern to one of peace - it can happen you know.

Big Brother & Faith

Recently I have been watching Big Brother 8 and there are a few people on there that are trying to defend their faith...to someone else on that show (an athiest). There is one obvious problem with the whole thing - it is all theologically biased.

First off, they are playing a game - in which the basis is for each person to compete to win (and only 1 person can win). Am I to believe that God wants the Christian people to win over and above anyone else on there? I am not sure scripture even backs that claim up. Apparently, all things being equal (rain/sunshine) - shows God treats all people equal irregardless of their belief systems.

Secondly, why should God even be concerned with a tv show/game? It's like that old conundrum when two teams pray before the games - should God help one team over the other? Also, with these games meaning very little to the totality of life - just makes no sense that God would be concerned?

Thirdly, I cannot find in Jesus' teachings good reasons for anyone to even so as think he would be concerned with a game-show. We are talking about a national show (watched by millions) for the enjoyment of the watchers - isn't that type of exposure 'reward enough'?

I watch the show and I saw the Christian people do things that run contrary to their very belief systems - as in calling people vicious names (bitch is an example) and outright flaunting of their belief system before others. I sometimes have to stop and wonder if they feel alright by merely 'believing something' and not by 'living something'? All I am saying is theologically speaking - the beliefs they proport as Christian just might not be all that is to be said on the subject.

Presbyterians - Lied On Their 'Outdated' Website

I was going through the Presbyterian of Canada's website and noticed they look horrible in their FAQ page about Aboriginal people - and to be perfectly honest - they lie and seem smug in a few places about their claims. Anyways, I wrote their website and their national Native leaders a few questions - maybe they can answer me - likely not but heck - someone has to do it?

**Note this was sent to the National Presbyterian Church...just trying to see if any church involved in the genocide of Aboriginal people will 'try it's own members for their crimes'.

Hi, I was just reading your FAQ on your National website about Residential Schools and I have some serious questions about the whole thing.

"As at November 2000: Approximately 16, representing about 80 plaintiffs" (came forward and filed suits against the church)

This is an old statistic - has this grown in the past 7 years? I notice you only ran 2 schools in Canada (which would account for the low amount of cases) - but I have to think these numbers have grown. (I have now found out the Presbyterians ran 9 schools across Canada - so this is an 'out and out' lie about their past. Top that off this church worked with the United church and could be even more involved than the 9 schools mentioned).

"None have gone to trial, nor any to pretrial or discovery. Initial statements of defense have been filed in 3 suits...All allege cultural abuse, all are civil suits and a few allege physical and/or sexual abuse. No criminal charges or convictions have been present with respect to these suits, or related to our schools."

Interesting, is this for marketing purposes or is this church trying not to come clean about the things they did to Indian children? How can you guys be paying money out for things that 'no one did'? So if it is found out that members of the Presbyterian church did rape (pedophilia) and beat (physical abuse of a child that is not theirs) - will those people be tried by the laws of Canada and labelled appropriately? What if it is alleged that kids never made it home - are you guys willing to look into that? I am only talking about the church being as Christian as it is supposed to be - no more and no less - even if it can even be said you still represent Christ in Canada? (All in all - they do admit to certain crimes happening but as to there being any people tried - it is this aspect they seem glib about).

PS: My dad attended Birtle - and he came out a very messed up person...was actually the same attributes he recieved while in your school (physically and emotionally abusive). Thank God for your church!

"it is unlikely that the financial viability of the denomination is in jeopardy...The Presbyterian Church in Canada, under the agreement, will see its financial obligation for compensation drop from $2.1M to 1.32M"

Interesting that the gov't settlement would work out in your favor (and why not - they allowed you to exist in the first place). Secondly, finances do not equal actual justice - trying people for their crimes does - or does all your fancy healing ministries with Aboriginals mention this? I couldn't find it anywhere! (Is it just me or do they seem proud that financially they will pay less for crimes they committed?).

"will be cautious about entering unless we are certain that they will be of benefit to the Church, insofar as possible, our relationship with aboriginal people" (with concerns to alternative answers to the school problems afterwards)

Why not to the benefit of justice...God forbid a little of that should actually come out of a 'Christian church' and someone be found guilty for their 'hate'. As for relationships with Aboriginal people - are you sure even have one? How much of that is predicated on them not knowing your history in full detail? If that is possible - can I view the full history of your church with regards to Aboriginals in your schools? If not, what you hiding and who you hiding? (If that statement I bolded don't take the cake and reveal their intentions - I don't know what will).

"Saskatoon Native Circle Ministry"

I will make sure to contact them to with these questions. Maybe he can visit a little website called http://hiddenfromhistory.org/ (along with those jails he goes to) also and get some real perspective on what justice is too. Actually upon further review - I am not sure this dude even is still in Saskatoon...is he?

Are these questions answerable? Either way 'We support healing processes that arise from Aboriginal peoples themselves' (from the national website itself). I propose we seek out any and all clergy that committed sexual, physical, or any other offenses against Aboriginal people and have them tried in a court of law (full disclosure of what happened) - easy enough?

United Church - Beliefs (A Harsh Critique)

1. The Bible: As a source of wisdom, personal prayer, and devotion, we believe the Bible can bring us closer to God...one of our best ways of experiencing God's continuing work of creation and liberation in the world, while offering us forgiveness, healing, and new life in Jesus. We often refer to a passage as "the Word of God." By this we mean the writer was inspired by God.

**I really can't say too much about this - actually I agree.

2. Sacraments: A sacrament is a symbolic action, or ritual, by which people of faith encounter the presence and goodness of God. In a sacrament, ordinary things like water, bread, and wine are used to point us to God and God’s love, reminding us of the sacred in life.

**I slightly disagree - only to say that 'the presence' and a 'reminder' are 2 different things.

3. Baptism: Baptism is a symbolic action that signifies the new life God gives us as we join the church community. Baptism uses water as a symbolic cleansing that signifies the acceptance of new life within the church family. The sacrament of baptism is the single rite of initiation into the Christian community, the church.

**I also agree with the theology here - the symbolism of it. It is used an acceptance ritual - of which most churches are up front about. They do also admit to the baptism of kids and that no baptism in no way assures someone condemnation. The kids thing I am not sure about (but I have very little qualms with it either) and I like their stand on the issue.

4. Communion: A symbolic meal. Communion is celebrated at a table that suggests the dining table in our homes. At the communion table, we acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the host and all are guests.

**I like the inclusion of the meal and that they can recognize it's symbolism in the event. They acknowledge Jesus in this process and it leaves me little room for any serious issues.

5. Inclusiveness: Jesus welcomed everyone, whether they were poor, rich, or just getting by; ill or healthy; self-made or educated; popular or a loner; secure or full of doubts. The United Church of Canada prides itself on welcoming everyone the way Jesus did, regardless of age, race, class, gender, orientation, or physical ability.

**Ha ha...oh man...for a second I thought they were serious when they said this. What I find totally odd about this church making this statement is they still have not taken full responsibility for their crimes against Aboriginal people in Canada and just recently booted out a United minister (Kevin Annett) for his stand on looking into the issue (actually persecuted him over it). They treat gay people as equals but have very little room for the Aboriginal contingent within Canada. I mention this in a previous blog.

6. Children: The church works hard to appreciate people of all ages, from grandparents to newborns.

**Cool - sounds awesome to me!

7. Marriage: We see people as unique, loved creations of God. We also see relationships as living things that require preparation and nurture. The United Church marries: previously divorced people & couples of different religions. We believe God intends loving relationships to be faithful, responsible, just, healing, and sustaining of the couple and those around them. These relationships may be between a woman and a man, or between people of the same gender.

**I could really care less what a church does on this issue - since I am under the current belief that no institution has the official right to either sanctify or grant the rights of something that has always existed - irregardless of said institution. So who cares.

8. Multi-Faith Relations: The United Church of Canada views the religious practice of all people of goodwill with respect and gratitude. We believe the Spirit of God is at work in many different faith communities. For Christians, Jesus is the way we know God. Our understanding is nonetheless limited by human imagination. God is greater still and works in our world by a mysterious Spirit that knows no distinction at the doorway of a Christian chapel; Buddhist, Hindu, or Sikh temple; Aboriginal sweat lodge, Muslim mosque, or Jewish synagogue.

**I like the inclusion aspect of this belief but it fails to represent true honesty - what if those other faith systems have serious holes in them? Do we address that? Do they address that? I am all for all of us working together - but I am also game for the fact each religion has it's own problems to work out also.

9. Social Justice: Caring for one another was central to Jesus' teachings: Feed the hungry, satisfy the thirsty, shelter the homeless, clothe the naked, care for the sick, visit those in prison. To this end, we cooperate with other churches, faith traditions, and people of goodwill to eliminate poverty and protect those who are most vulnerable. Throughout Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean, the United Church works with 143 churches and organizations we call partners by supporting work they see as vital to their well-being.

**I like their theology on this issue and agree 100% - but this church is hypocritical. Look at all the wonderful work they do in 143 other countries meanwhile back in Canada - they have never had a single member of their residential school system pay for the crimes they committed in God's name upon Aboriginal people. These people are even so audacious to say they support Aboriginal people'. When in fact they are trying to cover-up the past abuses they visited upon Aboriginal people - including rape, murder, torture, cultural extermination, etc (no one has been tried and convicted).

Kevin Annett brough this up to them - he was fired, excommunicated, had his divorce paid for, and was stalled at every measure by this church when he simply looked for 'justice' concerning the United Church's past (all this in the mid 1990's - based on crimes ranging from the 1910's - 60's). Is this a church that sounds like it follows Christ or it's own institution now? Either way - I will boycott them until they come clean on the whole issue and quit trying to 'save face' for the sake of membership.

What did Paul say once 'I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.' (I cor 5:5-7). Even this church cannot out-run the very bible and passover they so dearly commend in their faith statement. So I commend their church for destruction/cleaning until they can become 'even again' - and this for the fairness Jesus taught within his teachings - the same teachings (and people) he died for! Now...get me some justice!

Alliance Doctrinal Statement - A Critique

1. There is one God,(1) who is infinitely perfect,(2) existing eternally in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.(3) ([1] Deuteronomy 6:4, [2] Matthew 5:48, [3] Matthew 28:19)

**One God (agreed); Perfect being (I think this is a mis-quote about what Matt 5:48 says); existing in 3 persons (which by logic means 1 = 3 - and 2 of the 3 are Spirit beings). I am not totally sure about the Trinity idea (as of yet) - I have some questions about it - either way I agree - our focus needs to be at least 2-fold (Jesus' teachings which point us towards God).

2. Jesus Christ is the true God & the true man. (4) He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. (5) He died upon the cross, the Just for the unjust, (6) as a substitutionary sacrifice, (7) and all who believe in Him are justified on the ground of His shed blood. (8) He arose from the dead according to the Scriptures. (9) He is now at the right hand of Majesty on high as our great High Priest. (10) He will come again to establish His kingdom, righteousness and peace. (11) ([4] Philippians 2:6–11, [5] Luke 1:34–38, [6] I Peter 3:18, [7] Hebrews 2:9, [8] Romans 5:9, [9] Acts 2:23–24, [10] Hebrews 8:1, [11] Matthew 26:64)

**This is a decent over-view of Jesus' life - actually leaves out his whole ministry while on earth but I am sure that's a simple mistake on their part - actually they go right from birth to death in this statement (just how important is the 'now' exactly? 0% devoted to it in Jesus' life). True God and true man...hmmm...this makes little sense also and most Christians themselves cannot logically figure this out about Jesus (actually they use his god-ness as an excuse to not follow the teachings at times). If he was sharing God and human characteristics at the same time - he was not fully human then (by our standard anyways) - which isn't all that bad and bothers me very little. But what if he was fully man empowered by God's Spirit - thus making him fully man? Either way, this is inconsequential - what is important is the teachings.

3. The Holy Spirit is a divine person, (12) sent to dwell, guide, teach, empower the believer, (13) and convince the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. (14) ([12] John 14:15–18, [13] John 16:13, Acts 1:8, [14] John 16:7–11)

**This is a new twist for me even - spirit = person? So if the spirit dwells in someone that can mean they are 2 people? Why can't they just be honest about this instead of trying to nail down a set belief - no one knows how the spirit truly works (John 3:8) or what it truly is? I am sure we have limited knowledge in this field of study and about God's spirit.

4. The Old & New Testaments, inerrant as originally given, were verbally inspired by God and are a complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men. They constitute the divine and only rule of Christian faith and practice. (15) ([15] 2 Peter 1:20–21, 2 Timothy 3:15–16)

**I actually like the Alliance's verbal wording here about inerrancy and inspiration - they seem to be saying they do not support the idea of 'no errors'. I think I am fairly close to this stand in general and I see very little problem with this statement.

5. Man was originally created in the image and likeness of God:(16) he fell through disobedience, incurring thereby both physical and spiritual death. All men are born with a sinful nature,(17) are separated from the life of God, and can be saved only through the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ.(18) The portion of the unrepentant and unbelieving is existence forever in conscious torment;(19) and that of the believer, in everlasting joy and bliss.(20) ([16] Genesis 1:27, [17] Romans 3:23, [18] 1 Corinthians15:20–23, [19] Revelation 21:8, [20] Revelation 21:1–4)

**Oh brother, where to start here. I think Romans 3:23 is mis-interpreted here to be honest. What does spiritual death mean anyways? The idea of hell is for the unbelieving (which chalks it up to 'what you believe' about Jesus and 'not about living' out his teachings). Man and woman are created by God in Genesis BTW (not just man). I love how the faithful 'believers' are totally rewarded while the 'unbelievers' are totally tormented - now that's justice (lol)! This is long over-due for a re-write.

6. Salvation has been provided through Jesus Christ for all men; and those who repent and believe in Him are born again of the Holy Spirit, receive the gift of eternal life, and become the children of God.(21) ([21] Titus 3:4–7)

**It's Jesus the Christ (Messiah) - this was not his last name. Why not use 'follow him' as the pattern instead of the idea of 'believing' (the idea of believing can be mis-interpretated so easily)? if salvation is 'for all men' (what about women?) - then isn't it their right by birth to be a part of this kingdom and they have to choose to leave it? I am not in disagreeance with the statement so much as I am not sure about the theology.

7. It is the will of God that each believer should be filled with the Holy Spirit and be sanctified wholly,(22) being separated from sin and the world and fully dedicated to the will of God, thereby receiving power for holy living and effective service.(23) This is both a crisis and a progressive experience wrought in the life of the believer subsequent to conversion.24 ([22] 1 Thessalonians 5:23, [23] Acts 1:8, [24] Romans 6:1–14)

**So here's the pattern: conversion, sanctification, and seperation - this can be so easily used in such a way as not to seek God's will (namely how much seperation we talking here and how much in each area of our lives?). This is seen as a 'crisis'? How so? Cause they don't want to say salvation even after recieved is not altogether what it means (saved always)? The progressive idea I am all down with - I think as we go we grow in life - continually refining our faith - but if that's a crisis - then isn't growth a bad thing (wouldn't accepting this statement be good enough and ask no questions about it)?

8. Provision is made in the redemptive work of the Lord Jesus Christ for the healing of the mortal body.(25) Prayer for the sick and anointing with oil are taught in the Scriptures and are privileges for the Church in this present age.(26) ([25] Matthew 8:16–17, [26] James 5:13–16)

**Healing - now there's a slippery issue. What if this is all done and someone does not get healed? Their bad or bad theology? Shouldn't we be pointing people to the hospitals if they are sick 1st (we have this privelege also), then maybe prayer afterwards? I am all for healing but as for this being in the doctrinal statement - this can equal big mistake.

9. The Church consists of all those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, are redeemed through His blood, and are born again of the Holy Spirit. Christ is the Head of the Body, the Church, (27) which has been commissioned by Him to go into all the world as a witness, preaching the gospel to all nations.(28) The local church is a body of believers in Christ who are joined together for the worship of God, for edification through the Word of God, for prayer, fellowship, the proclamation of the gospel, and observance of the ordinances of Baptism & the Lord's Supper.(29) ([27] Ephesians 1:22–23, [28] Matthew 28:19–20, [29] Acts 2:41–47)

**First off, the church in no way resembles that community from Acts and I can name a variety of things but firstly - they were communalists (vs.44 - 45) - not capitalist (tracking numbers and marketing - lol). Secondly, Jesus in Matthew (and even the Acts passage) mentions 'observe all that I commanded you' - and this is spreading the 'gospel'. Oh we are witnesses alright - but why is preaching the main way of witnessing? Isn't living the morals the best witness (which is clearly mentioned by Jesus and the Apostles)? Which church is Christ's church? What if all the things in point #29 are being done but the people in no way represent the teachings they claim to follow...then what? Is that still a church?

10. There shall be a bodily resurrection of the just and of the unjust; for the former, a resurrection unto life;(30) for the latter, a resurrection unto judgment.(31) ([30] 1 Corinthians 15:20–23, [31] John 5:28–29)

**I agree (more or less).

11. The second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ is imminent(32) and will be personal, visible, and premillennial.(33) This is the believer's blessed hope and is a vital truth which is an incentive to holy living and faithful service.(34) ([32] Hebrews 10:37, [33] Luke 21:27, [34] Titus 2:11–14)

**Does imminent mean in the apostles lifetime or just ours? If so I can hardly define imminent as 1900 years of waiting. Why is this an incentive to 'live a better life'? Isn't the idea we are helping our fellow humanity to achieve a better life incentive enough?

This is the church I am a part of and I totally disagree with the scripture pasting they do to form a centralized belief system (isn't that wrong to do?). I think their system is fairly decent but then imagine asking 1/2 the question I did and see what kind of re-writing they might need to do. This is part 1 of an on-going series.

Submissively the times a changed...

Heather got me thinking about a few scriptures about the role of the wife in the Christian realm - and here is what conclusion I have so far come to (again I am open on this one).

"Wives, be subject to your own husbands" (Eph 5:22)
"But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything" (Eph 5:24)

This is where the story begins in this discussion - women being subject to men in marriage. I have no problem with the idea - subject - but I would say the obvious here - men also need to be subject to their wives (in everything). Marriage is about compromise anyways - but we have grown to see it works both ways now. I think back in Paul's days this was not the case - women may not have been as educated as the male populace or part of the working class so much - this has changed dramatically in the 21st century (women and men are partners in all things in the household from bills to child-rearing).

"Husbands, love your wives" (Eph 5:25)
"So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it" (Eph 5:28-29)

Husbands are commanded here to 'love' and 'look out for the best interests' (nourish and cherish) of their wife - as they would for themself. But the idea is to love your wife and not objectify her - or treat her as a 2nd class citizen because she is 'part of you' (even if women were considered lower then men in that society - this was the new norm). It is possible that in this era women were recieving a less than better class than they deserved and I think the writer is pointing to the idea of equality for the woman - or at the least - a huge step up.

"each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband" (Eph 5:33)

I think this sums it up beautifully - love and respect are to be present in the marriage. One can take the stand of inequality on these passages but the summary is quite clear - men are to treat women as themsleves and women should respect their husbands - I think this can put each other on equal footing if the man does what he is supposed to and actually 'loves' his wife. What is love? - see I Cor 13:4-8 but apparently it is kind, patient, not jealous, not arrogant, is prudent, forgiving, not provoked, seeks the interests of the other, rejoices in truth, perseveres, is faithful, hopes all things, endures, and never fails. That sets a good course for both people involved irregardless.

"You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life" (1 Peter 3:7)

I think Peter backs up the point also - even he speaks of the 'subject' idea - but his central point is that of understanding and honor the wife as a 'fellow heir' of life. The idea is equality - since they are 'joint heirs' in this faith and work to the betterment of society around them. Peter even mentions overlooking the 'weakness' of women here - if this means the societal status of the woman or strength I am not sure - but what is clear it is not the focus of the marriage and needs to be set aside for unity.

"However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God." (I Cor 11:11-12)

Again we see Paul talking about men and women in the context that both are equal (in some regards) in this faith. A lot of the stuff in this same chapter seems to point to cultural norms of the day concerning women and what is correct - but Paul's point in the matter seems to suggest men and women are equal - even from a Genesis point of view - they needed each other - and neither is independant from the other.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28)

I think this is the idea behind the majority of the teaching - problem is it is so coded in cultural teachings for certain regions and for establishing a 'norm for the people' it gets lost. But Paul makes it abundantly clear here that male or female is not to be regarded as determining one's status in the faith - they're all equal (one) in the same faith system. This is the ideal I shoot for in my own theology - I am quite aware that Paul was dealing with a whole new system of teachings and needed to lay down some ground rules for the people to treat one another decently - people (gentiles) that were new to this faith system and likely had ideas about women that were not so progressive as Paul's. If Paul doesn't go far enough in the marriage teachings - he does here. And BTW - he also mentions slavery as something not to be considered a status marker of the faith either!

So am I off? Am I on? Just what do you think is being said in the passages?

Boycotting Religion(s) & Dealing w/Genocide

I just finished watching Kevin Anett's documentary called 'Unrepentant' and I must say - bingo! You want some enlightenment on the Aboriginal condition and history of my people group(s) within Canada - watch this video.

Kevin Anett claims the Canadian Government and 3 church groups (Anglican, United, and Catholic) progressively set up to assimilate Indigenous peoples of Canada. This assimilation occured mainly via the residential school system but also included stripping Indigenous lands, killing Indigenous children, subverting justice for Indigenous people, and a continual process of hushing the whole dirty history of church work within Indigenous communities and letting it continue to this day - a genocide. Each of those churches I, along with many Indian nations in Canada, call for a total boycott of - since they will not deal with their 'crimes against humanity'. See Kevin's site for more info on this 'hidden from history'.

I have not a single qualm about what Kevin has said in this video and my mother was also in Residential School as a child - in which she was severely abused and taught not to 'love'. Actually watching the documentary - the lady that dies at the end could very well be the testimony of my own mother (and likely is - she refuses to talk about it due to it's pain). The video is explicit about how this same genocide has also helped to keep the Indigenous population in Canada oppressed and broken - a cycle started since the Indian Act in 1876 - legislation which still exists until this day.

It is absolutely abhorent that a supposed civilized gov't and religious structure could do this to a whole nation of people - and not care. Fact is most problems within Indigenous communities stems back directly to residential schools and the torture this had upon Indigenous families - which was then continued by several abuses by the Canadian Government (including the AIM program - adopting Indian children away from their homes and a slack justice system which see's Indian's get life for vicious crimes and when Indians are victims - people get slapped on the wrist). This inhumanity has to stop.

This is where I come from and where I live - and what I have also had to live through as a Indigenous child of the Cree and Saulteaux (Anishnawbe) nations in Canada - this is part of my history whether I like it or not. I suggest, if you want to find out something about Aboriginal peoples in Canada (or even the USA) - to watch the video...learn something they never teach you in any school.

Hope - The Novel Idea

I was watching some Christian programming the other day when I heard something very interesting about this faith that made me realize something - hope should not die - for no reason whatsoever.

The idea of 'hope' was discussed concerning suicide and how the absence of hope is the pre-cursor to taking one's life. I chewed on that thought for a day or so and I think the program is 'on the money' with that idea. I felt a little ashamed also - I notice becoming so realistic and logical that I began functioning outside the idea of possibilities and hopes. My bad to be honest. Somebody slap me!

What is this Christian faith without the idea of 'hope'? I realize without this notion faith is a failure and useless to all (like salt without taste). In the end of the day, faith should lead to hope - for the now & for the later. I was dealing so in the now that I missed that hope is always possible (now and in the future) - it is the figurative smile of the gospel writings.

Faith without hope is like life without happiness - and this is essentially true. Try live one day in total uncertainty in any area of your life (work, family, faith, sport, etc) and you soon realize none of that is fun - and eventually you just get depressed into apathy. If life is without hope - life soon becomes worth ending - worth not deciding about anymore. Hope is absolutely essential to the gospel - and I think it is the 'selling point' - I think it directs humanity to it's core spirituality and life-blood - 'things do change'.

Life will be better...times will get easier...struggles will disappear...jobs will come your way...friendships can be made whole again...love can be restored and healed...faith can move mountains...promises do come true...etc...this is hope - we all do this - to stop doing this is to not 'believe' anymore - and not believing means you stopped breathing. Humans detoriate without possibility and choice concerning future - so let's help people see something they sometimes cannot - there is hope. This is good news.

Sicko - Policies and Procedure

I watched Moore's new movie 'Sicko' last night and I think it is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen - namely on the universalism of health-care. Here is my take on the movie.

Firstly, universal health care does work and works in a variety of ways in several countries including France, Canada, Britian, and Cuba...and the majority of these countries are not socialist or communist - actually 3 of the 4 have conservative govt's. I think Moore brings up the idea that we see other countries new consumer goods and we buy them (since they are good ideas) - why can't we do this with health care? And 2 of these systems flourish in leaps and bounds - Britain only asks you pay $10.00 for all your perscriptions and France even has doctors who make house-calls (for free). I seen those examples and I was shocked - great ideas.

Secondly, universal health care is an idea that works for the poor and rich alike - it's very Robin Hood-ish indeed - takes from the more wealthy (in taxes) and helps to keep the system going so all can access it - even those without jobs. For me, this is the absolute selling point of the system - no one gets left out of essential care - irregardless of their class status. To me, this is an absolute Christian value and I can't see why any Christian would ever speak against 'helping the less fortunate'.

Thirdly, one example of someone losing their loved one for the sake of not getting essential health care in a progressively rich country is one too many. Moore however does not stop at one story - he has a plethora of examples to choose from (about 30 people) - even Americans in other countries weigh in...even 6000+ e-mails of medical horror stories. Now some Americans may not like Cuba but Che's daughter said some of the most encouraging things I have ever heard - I paraphrase - 'Cubans can not understand how the richest country can even have problems - shouldn't everyone be well taken care of'?' Some examples are: a man having to chose between fingers he cut off in an accident (couldn't afford both), a ladies daughter not getting antibiotics for her daughter (later died), and some victims of the 9/11 disaster not getting adequate medical care for conditions suffered from their volunteer work. Very sad indeed.

Fourthly, a system of health care and insurers that is run 'for profit' is a system in need of serious change. Health care is as essential to the human as the need for food and water is - it is essential to human happiness & life (which I think are mentioned in the constitution). People are getting rich by denying some people the cures to their very ills and this is not only barbaric, it's straight from the pit of evil (apparently some people can be worth less than a dollar sign). No one single person should be denied the right to 'live' - this is an absolute essential to humanity - that to deny it is tantamount to crimes against humanity.

Fifthly, people do not need to fear their government. Ironically, it seems the opposite is what true democracy is - government revering it's own people and listening. France was an overwhelming example of the people speaking out and being heard - and the government listened - including things like standing up for a 35 hour work week, holidays, and their health care system - and they were heard. They do not fear their government but respect that role it should play - and the government listens. I actually find it much scarier when business is in charge since ethically business is not a 'person' nor does it care about people - it's mission is to make a profit. If business can get away with selling your families drugs that will kill them - they will do just that - or have we forgot about the tobacco industry. Just thought I'd remind ourselves of that.

So for me the movie was a contemplative experience - I thought about what humans will take as they are told what to do - that even sometimes ethics can be cleansed from the human conscience if we are told this 'is our job' or 'this is just how it is'. Collectively we are being taken apart and being individualized - we are losing a grip on our collective strengths as a people. We are a democracy and in a free country - just how much more of this are we going to take? Shouldn't accountability start with us and not with lobbyists? I am ranting a bit but honestly - if you knew a better way why wouldn't you ask for it?

"Philosphy Does Not Make Me a Better Person"

The last few weeks I have been having some very deep discussions with a lot of people about aspects of this faith - mainly free will/choice. Funny thing is I learned a lot about myself in the discussion - and who I truly am.

I have noticed (and this needs to be a bumper sticker) 'philosophy does not make me a better person'. Wrangling with some very deep issues and looking at something from every logical angle is good to do - but it in no wise makes me a better person. Actually, thinking deep can draw out new emotions and ideas from within we never deal with very often - sometimes making us a worse person for the moment. I find thinking a great exercise but sometimes we need to get back to real life - and love and care for people in the world we live in (so yes - I suck).

My theology is not 'set in stone' and is open to change - I am not 100% sure of all the things I say - so discussion is good for me - it opens my mind to new thoughts and interpretations I may have never considered before. Truth is not something stagnant - it is open and we are learning as we go - so 'no' I am not a theological expert of any sorts (things are still being shaped). I am alright with that - cause Ninjanun said something that spoke volumnes to me "Doubt is not the opposite of faith, certainty is."

The way we treat others on the internet is a sign of the way we treat others in real life - since this is an aspect of reality. I find nothing wrong with disagreeing about points in a discussion and then working through those ideals (and maybe never coming to a concensus) - but to start talking someone down is rude (ie: calling names or just disregading them altogether). I know I don't like it when I am treated this way (disregarded) and I see no reason to do this to others. Maybe there is still a lot to learn about how we treat others on the internet - which I think Dagoods has pointed me towards in a few of his recent posts.

But all in all - I like discussing tough issues about life and how this all works out - since we have to live with our choices and ideologies. I guess I will always be game for a good discussion - about the finer things in life - and I think I could continually use the refining.

SocietyVs on Choice & Faith - an Excerpt

Slapdash and I have been having some good convo's lately - have made me think about what I believe - this is an excerpt of how I see this faith. I must say - she really is a great person and is asking some awesome questions - thanks!!!

"Parents restrict the negative/bad choices of their children when they will clearly hurt themselves or others." (Slapdash)

Correction - you try to restrict their choices - even as a parent it is impossible to control their minds and choices they will make on a daily basis (ex: run away from you in a supermarket, smoke pot as a 15 year old, go into something even when forbidden, etc). You literally could write a memoir and ask your kids to obey it and demand it of them (of all the things you have taught in your life to them) and they might or might not obey...kinda like this whole choices thing we discuss about God (who also left us some remnant of writings to peruse - I would use Jesus' myself). Interesting parellel for me - at least - this is the way I see the whole thing.

"This is the crux of the matter for me - we act as though for choice to matter, God has to step completely out of the picture" (Slapdash)

I don't think God is out of the picture - this is a viewpoint we adopt when things don't work out - but it's not my perspective. The crisis' we all spoke of in all of these forums have either ended or will end at some point - yet we have a timeline all our own for them (since we play God in that aspect also). Or am I wrong? Will the problems in the Sudan be everlasting? Even dictators get killed, die, or kill themselves. Evil and good work out their own timelines in grudge matches with one another on this planet it would seem - and this is quite common (I am using black n white terms here for no good reason). But maybe things are that simple? Choices come from voices.

"And I still don't get how you can argue free will til you're blue in the face and still PRAY TO GOD to intercede in this world in big or small ways." (Slapdash)

Why not? I am free to make chocies irregardless of what any philosophy says either way - in the present tense.

My example is simple - I want to own a home and their quite a few barriers in the way to that goal. Now I can look at this two ways (both of them choices) - go for it (don't pay homage to doubts) or give up (pay homage to my weaknesses at this point). Now my view of prayer is that God is acting - but he also requires our action in that endeavor - partners of sorts - for what we need (shelter is a neccesity). If I ask, seek, and knock on doors - guess what happens? I get answers to the questions I am asking and helps in removing the barriers to the problem (I ask around about how to solve credit issues, seek out mortgages and financial help, and knock on doors of which people are willing to work with me on this). Then I develop a plan for my goal - let's say 9 months (following through on my asking in prayer). This is a real situation. I am currently doing this process - I'll update on the details and struggles I go through (if need be) - but I believe in the end I will own a house even without the actual means to do so at this point (except I have a job). But that's how this all works for me and I see that as the clear biblical strategy laid down in Jesus teachings. If you ask and recieve nothing - you never asked for something you saw as possible (which is a belief we all hold dear to).

"Of course, you get big kudos, SocVS if you never actually pray for God to intervene in this world...because that would at least be consistent. :)" (Slapdash)

I don't need to pray as much as I need to believe the words that come out of my mouth. This seems to be the problem with the whole dilemma - this 'what is possible' ideal?

100 Posts - Still Losing My Religion...

This is officially my 100th post on this site - although I have authored a few at NorthVU's site (about 10 or so)...but this is my 100th here...almost 2 years of blogging...what have I learned - a lot!

• I have read 1/2 the Quran up to this point (and blogged with people working w/Muslims)
• Discussed many an issue with Atheists - concerning biblical texts, history, and life in general
• Discussed Mormon issues and pondered them
• Learned Evangelicalism might not be altogether correct - in fact - it isn't
• Talked about First Nations culture and my faith - the inter-twining
• Met a variety of Christian people with a variety of theologies - most quite nice
• Blogged with people concerned with the Christian airwaves in Canada
• Blogged with locals from Saskatchewan about life and faith (and Canada)
• Learned and questioned a lot of what I once believed about this faith
• Had an idea abound then levelled it for a future date (ie: Action Group)
• Made a lot of friends and have discussed all kinds of issues with them
• I am still Losing My Religion...

I have learned a lot from all the people I have blogged with and I still have a ways to go - which I am thankful for - lots of people have opened my eyes for me. I would like to thank Bruced for all the people I met via his site and the intro to universalism, To Chris (ledge) for his quirky stories and great spirit, Jim/Cinder/JollyBeggar/Hineini/Ken/Tim/URSA/MyGarden - for all the Saskatchewan flavor and what they have shown is around me - and it is good, HIS for all the great posts he put down and the discussions he got rolling, Dagoods for our disagreeances but also for his knowledge, Jefe/Dorsey/SCP - for all the great church questions they got me involved in, Jim Jordan - for being a long time support and getting me to look into some political stuff, John Schuck for his liberal views - really got me thinking and seeing things in new ways, Gracehead for some of the best discussions I have ever had on the internet, Burning Bush for the blogs and our head-banging on ideas, and Heather for her blog and the way she thinks - got me looking into the more Hebraic ideas within this faith. I am grateful.

In the end of the day I am still losing my religion - questioning it and seeing it re-shape before my eyes. Who knows what will change in the next 100 posts - but I do know I like to learn - and the crew I read right now is making that happen - thanks!

AFN - National Day of Action

Today (June 29) was the National Day of Action as called by the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) in Canada. I was in Regina, SK for the event and I decided (previously) to attend the event they hosted here - a march.

Part 1: March of Solidarity

We did a march from the First Nations University to the Legislation building in Regina - which is a fairly nice walk. Leading the group was a band called 'Red Dog' - a drum group that plays the drum and sings Aboriginal cultural music. They were followed by the dignitaries, the elders, the veterans, and then the crowd. I really enjoyed it - had a great time with everyone else in the march.

Part 2: Legislative Building Speeches and Lunch

After the march we heard from a lot of speakers including the FSIN (Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations) chief, the vice-chiefs, the premier of Saskatchewan, the opposition leader, and a few local Liberal party leaders (no Conservatives attended). Then we had lunch. The whole thing was televised and will hit the airwaves throughout Canada today - and I think I made the local news.

What was it all about? A few issues were discussed but they all focused around the appalling conditions First Nations people are dealing with (thus the need for solidarity) which includes gang problems, suicide issues on reserves, poverty, treaty rights educations, education funding, housing, and employment/economic opportunities. Here are few examples:

(a) Kelowna Accord: Was a bill that was almost passed under the Liberal party that would of seen 6.1 billion dollars go to the solution of poverty within Aboriginal communities - this bill has since been scrapped by the Conservative government and has never passed.

(b) Education Funding Cap: Currently the Canadian Government has a cap on funsing to Aboriginal education funding of 2% (since 1996 and was even lower prior to this) and has not changed even with the rising Aboriginal population. The problem is the Aboriginal population is the youngest in the country and could desperately use that funding to allow for more economic participation - top that off - this is a highly regaded area by Aboriginal communities as a 'treaty right' (a contract from the late 1800's - around 12 of them were signed in Canada).

That is what I did this morning - I showed my solidarity to the movement (a peaceful march in Saskatchewan) since I believe in the actions being called upon - namely with regards to ending poverty in my community...I really have little choice in that matter...it affects me deeply. So I did what I could - support the people around me and the issues at hand that need to be dealt with - in a participative way amongst all communities in Canada (this being an awareness issue). That was my morning today!

Peak Oil - A Change is Gonna Come

The world supply of oil is slowly diminishing - and by 'slowly' I mean within our lifetime...and this could/will get ugly ('end of suburbia' - movie I just saw). We need to wake up and start challenging our gov't to take this plight seriously.

The America's absolutely rely on oil as a way of life and economy. The peak time of the use of oil is actually happening right now - and may even be slowly in decline (ie: this rising gas prices/energy prices). This doesn't seem like much of an issue (except for our cars) but once one considers that oil is used in every aspect of the society we live in - and there is no replacement at this point - we might see an economic crash similar to that of the 1920's.

The problem with the issue is it so overlooked and not taken very seriously - yet financially - this is the worst nightmare any of us can dream of in a capitalistic society. This economic collapse will destroy life as we know at (well the convenience of it). We could be looking at lack of electricity and energy (to heat homes), cars will no longer be the main mode of transportation, housing markets will deplete and lose their value, big business will lose it's ability to transport things so it will eventually 'crash' and 'destabilize', and the value of our money might not be worth a dime.

It's a little gloomy and a little doomy - but hey - we built this city - we have to live with it. The film gives some clues to making life easier in this peak oil crisis. Neighborhoods need to ban together and start working towards viable clothing and food options within their sphere of living (ex: gardens and the return of the local small business owner). Business needs to be localized to make travel to work affordable and possible (no more 1 hour drives). There are small answers to big problems.

But this is a lesson we learned so damn late at the local 'hoe-down's' of big business' profit driving machine - they played and played and we danced and danced - this is a 'pied piper' type thing - in this 'rat race' someone has to pay (drown). Take a good hard look at the reality of life as you know it - see the kingdoms big business has built for us to live in - the convenience - the cities - the infrastructure - the toys - the technology - the happiness. You know I almost think they know we are 'as stupid as we look'.

Who do you think walks away with hope in an economic boom and an economic crash? We needed to start making these businesses accountable for their greed and stripping of the world resources for our happiness - but the media machine and politicians make this impossible (they limit our knowledge). I believe the saying is 'we reap what we sow' - well we live in a country that has effectively undermined the stability of this planet and something strange is going to happen - we are going to realize forms of poverty for the lack of compassion we had on other impoverished nations and for our greed.

But if you think I am yanking your crank - go check it out and see how dependant America is on oil and our viable options for energy (in the future). I had never really thought about this but I knew the 'good times' couldn't last forever (economically). This issue is worth a look into and worth your examination - so you can both condemn the practices of big business (call for accountability) and see what you can do before the oil drains to a screeching halt.

It's only fitting I grew up poor.

Let Me Tell You 'A Secret'

My wife and I finished watching the DVD about 'The Secret'. I thought some of the idea's about positivity work real well in life. Here is my take.

The idea behind the secret is the 'law of attraction' - meaning you attract what you want from life (via thoughts and feelings). I think the basic premise makes a lot of sense - if you think a certain way then those same things you constantly focus upon will likely become you. If you are a very negative person then you will likely draw in negative energy - and vice versa for being positive (based on the premise we are beings of 'energy'). A lot of this stuff also shows up in Quantum Physics, Philosophy, and Religion.

The things I take away from 'the secret' are:

(1) Nothing is impossible - what you think is possible just might be.

(2) Doubt is the biggest enemy between us and the life we seek to live.

(3) Reach for the stars and don't let your dreams by squashed

(4) You control your destiny - and you control your perspective on life - what you want from life is what you will get

(5) We need to learn to see ourselves as very 'worthwhile' people and not undermine that

To be perfectly honest, some of this stuff is just second hand news to me - as I have read the teachings of Jesus for sometime and many of these ideas about 'asking and believing' are within those teachings also.

All the secret is saying is 'life has a spiritual component' to it - I agree. In my culture we are 4 components (physical, spiritual, mental, and emotional) and the sum of all these things provides balance and health to life. What you actually want from life is possible - but this takes a lot of mini-steps before we realize some of those goals we grasp at...but life is a series of ideas we make real.

If your goal is to own a home - and your completely broke...come up with a plan (idea). Go to school to earn a top-rate education or work your way up in a company. Keep your eyes and ears open to the market and build your credit. At some point owning that home just keeps moving closer and closer (step by step). But it all started with a 'dream' an 'idea' and nothing more. This is how life really does work. You had an idea - then believed it - so as to committ actions to the endeavor - then in the end - you realize you got what you 'asked for' (or what you truly believed was possible). That's simple - that's too easy - but that's all we are - an idea (a thought).

Where does God fit into this for me? He is - it all flows under His guidance - and He respects our choices - He wants the best for us - but most of the time we are not sure if we want the best for ourselves. In the end, you are a series of choices/directions - and you can change every single thing about yourself - but it's a step here and step there (there is no giant step for humankind) and things progress accordingly.

There is no secret or 'mystery' to a better life - it's all rather quite simple - we need to take control of our lives and determine what we want from our 'living'. You can ask God for a way out of poverty or depression - but if you just leave it at that - then your missing the essential piece of that puzzle - 'ask and YOU will recieve...'.

Exodus: A Jewish Viewpoint

This article was published in the Spring 1995 issue of Jewish Action (e-mail from rabbi's at JewishAnswers.org)

The Exodus and Ancient Egyptian Records

"And Moses said unto the people: Do not fear! Stand and see the deliverance of Hashem which he shall do for you this day. For as you have seen Egypt this day, never will you see it again." (Exodus 14:13)

When was the Exodus? The Exodus from Egypt was not only the seminal event in the history of the Jewish People, but was an unprecedented and unequaled catastrophe for Egypt. In the course of Pharaoh's stubborn refusal to let us leave and the resultant plagues sent by Hashem, Egypt was devastated. Hail, disease and infestations obliterated Egypt's produce and livestock, while the plague of the first born stripped the land of its elite, leaving inexperienced second sons to cope with the economic disaster. The drowning of the Egyptian armed forces in the Red Sea left Egypt open and vulnerable to foreign invasions.

From the days of Flavius Josephus (c.70 CE) until the present, historians have tried to find some trace of this event in the ancient records of Egypt. They have had little luck.According to biblical chronology, the Exodus took place in the 890th year before the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians in 421 BCE (g.a.d. 587 BCE) [1]. This was 1310 BCE (g.a.d. 1476 BCE). In this year, the greatest warlord Egypt ever knew, Thutmose III, deposed his aunt Hatshepsut and embarked on a series of conquests, extending the Egyptian sphere of influence and tribute over Israel and Syria and crossing the Euphrates into Mesopotamia itself. While it is interesting that this date actually saw the death of an Egyptian ruler - and there have been those who tried to identify Queen Hatshepsut as the Pharaoh of the Exodus - the power and prosperity of Egypt at this time is hard to square with the biblical account of the Exodus.

Some historians have been attracted by the name of the store-city Raamses built by the Israelites before the Exodus. They have drawn connections to the best known Pharaoh of that name, Ramses II, or Ramses the Great, and set the Exodus around his time, roughly 1134 BCE (g.a.d. 1300 BCE [2]). In order to do this, they had to reduce the time between the Exodus and the destruction of the Temple by 180 years, which they did by reinterpreting the 480 years between the Exodus and the building of the Temple (I Kings 6:1) as 12 generations of 40 years. By "correcting" the Bible and setting a generation equal to 25 years, these imaginary 12 generations become 300 years.

Aside from the fact that such "adjustments" of the biblical text imply that the Bible cannot be trusted, in which case there is no reason to accept that there ever was an Exodus, Ramses II was a conqueror second only to Thutmose III. And as in the case of Thutmose III, the Egyptian records make it clear that nothing even remotely resembling the Exodus happened anywhere near his time of history.

We appear to be at a standstill. The only options are to relegate the Exodus to the status of myth, or to conclude that there is something seriously wrong with the generally accepted dates for Egyptian history.

In 1952, Immanuel Velikovsky published Ages in Chaos, the first of a series of books in which he proposed a radical redating of Egyptian history in order to bring the histories of Egypt and Israel into synchronization. Velikovsky's work sparked a wave of new research into ancient history. And while the bulk of Velikovsky's conclusions have not been borne out by this research, his main the-sis has. This is that the apparent conflict between ancient records and the Bible is due to a misdating of those ancient records, and that when these records are dated correctly, all such "conflicts" disappear.

Both Thutmose III and Ramses II date to a period called the Late Bronze Age, which ended with the onset of the Iron Age. Since the Iron Age has been thought to be the time when Israel first arrived in Canaan, the Late Bronze Age has been called "The Canaanite Period," and historians have limited their search for the Exodus to this time. When we break free of this artificial restraint, the picture changes drastically.

According to the midrash [3], the Pharaoh of the Exodus was named Adikam. He had a short reign of 4 years before drowning in the Red Sea. The Pharaoh who preceded him, whose death prompted Moses's return to Egypt (Exodus 2:23, 4:19), was named Malul. Malul, we are told, reigned from the age of 6 to the age of 100. Such a long reign - 94 years! - sounds fantastic, and many people would hesitate to take this midrash literally. As it happens, though, Egyptian records mention a Pharaoh who reigned for 94 years. And not only 94 years, but from the age of 6 to the age of 100! This Pharaoh was known in inscriptions as Pepi (or Phiops) II [4]. The information regarding his reign is known both from the Egyptian historian-priest Manetho, writing in the 3rd century BCE, and from an ancient Egyptian papyrus called the Turin Royal Canon, which was only discovered in the last century.

Egyptologists, unaware of the midrash, have wrestled with the historicity of Pepi II's long reign. One historian wrote: [5]Pepi II...appears to have had the longest reign in Egyptian history and perhaps in all history. The Turin Royal Canon credits him with upwards of 90 years. One version of the Epitome of Manetho indicates that he "began to rule at the age of 6 and continued to a 100." Although modern scholars have questioned this, it remains to be disproved.

While the existence of a 2 kings who reigned a) 94 years, b) in Egypt, and c) from the age of 6, is hard enough to swallow as a coincidence, that is not all. Like Malul, Pepi II was the second to last king of his dynasty. Like Malul, his successor had a short reign of 3-4 four years, after which Egypt fell apart. Pepi II's dynasty was called the 6th Dynasty, and was the last dynasty of the Old Kingdom in Egypt. Following his successor's death, Egypt collapsed, both economically and under foreign invasion. Egypt, which had been so powerful and wealthy only decades before, suddenly could not defend itself against tribes of invading bedouin. No one knows what happened. Some historians have suggested that the long reign of Pepi II resulted in stagnation, and that when he died, it was like pulling the support out from under a rickety building. But there is no evidence to support such a theory.

A papyrus dating from the end of the Old Kingdom was found in the early 19th century in Egypt [6]. It seems to be an eyewitness account of the events preceding the dissolution of the Old Kingdom. Its author, an Egyptian named Ipuwer, writes:
*Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere.
*The river is blood.
*That is our water! That is our happiness! What shall we do in respect thereof? All is ruin!
*Trees are destroyed.
*No fruit or herbs are found...
*Forsooth, gates, columns and walls are consumed by fire.
*Forsooth, grain has perished on every side.
* The land is not light [dark].

Velikovsky recognized this as an eyewitness account of the 10 plagues. Since modern men are not supposed to believe in such things, it has been interpreted figuratively by most historians. The destruction of crops and livestock means an economic depression. The river being blood indicates a breakdown of law an order and a proliferation of violent crime. The lack of light stands for the lack of enlightened leadership. Of course, that's not what it says, but it is more palatable than the alternative, which is that the phenomena described by Ipuwer were literally true.

When the Bible tells us that Egypt would never be the same after the Exodus, it was no exaggeration. With invasions from all directions, virtually all subsequent kings of Egypt were of Ethiopian, Libyan or Asiatic descent. When Chazal tell us that King Solomon was able to marry Pharaoh's daughter despite the ban on marrying Egyptian converts until they have been Jewish for 3 generations because she was not of the original Egyptian nation, there is no reason to be surprised.

In the Wake of the Exodus: It was not only Egypt which felt the birth pangs of the Jewish People. The end of the Old Kingdom in Egypt preceded only slightly the end of the Early Bronze age in the Land of Israel. The end of this period, dated by archeologists to c.2200 BCE (in order to conform to the Egyptian chronology), has long puzzled archeologists. The people living in the Land of Israel during Early Bronze were the first urban dwellers there. They were, by all available evidence, primitive, illiterate and brutal. They built large but crude fortress cities and were constantly at war. At the end of the Early Bronze Age, they were obliterated.

Who destroyed Early Bronze Age Canaan? Some early archeologists, before the vast amount of information we have today had been more than hinted at, suggested that they were Amorites. The time, they thought, was more or less right for Abraham. So why not postulate a great disaster in Mesopotamia, which resulted in people migrated from there to Canaan? Abraham would have been thus one in a great crowd of immigrants (scholars of the late 19th and early 20th centuries often felt compelled to debunk the idea of divine commands).

Today, the picture is different. The invaders of the Early Bronze/Middle Bronze Interchange seem to have appeared out of nowhere in the Sinai and the Negev. Initially, they moved up into the transjordan, and then crossed over north of the Dead Sea, conquering Canaan and wiping out the inhabitants. Of course, since we are dealing with cultural remnants and not written records, we don't know that the previous inhabitants were all killed. Some of them may have remained, but if so, they adopted enough of the newcomers' culture to "disappear" from the archeological record.

2 archeologists have already gone on record identifying the invaders as the Israelites. In an article published in Biblical Archeology Review [7], Israeli archeologist Rudolph Cohen demonstrated that the two invasions match in every detail. Faced with the problem that the 2 are separated in time by some 8 centuries, Cohen backed down a bit: "I do not necessarily mean to equate the MBI people with the Israelites, although an ethnic identification should not be automatically ruled out. But I am suggesting that at the very least the traditions incorporated into the Exodus account may have a very ancient inspiration reaching back to the MBI period."

The Italian archeologist Immanuel Anati has come to similar conclusions [8]. He added other pieces of evidence, such as the fact that Ai, Arad and other cities destroyed by Israel in the invasion of Canaan were destroyed at the end of the Early Bronze Age, but remained uninhabited until the Iron Age. Since the Iron Age is when Israel supposedly invaded Canaan, we have been in the embarrassing position of having the Bible describe the destructions of these cities at the very time that they were being resettled for the first time in almost a millennium. When the conquest is redated to the end of the Early Bronze, history (the Bible) and physical evidence (archeology) are in harmony. Anati goes further than Cohen in that he claims the invaders really were the Israelites. How does he get around the 800 year gap? By inventing a "missing book of the Bible" between Joshua and Judges that originally covered this period.

Both Cohen and Anati are in the unenviable position of having discovered truths which conflict with the accepted wisdom. Their "tricks" to avoid the problem are lame, but the only alternative would be to suggest a radical redating of the archeology of the Land of Israel. And there is good reason to do this. It is not only the period of the Exodus and Conquest which suddenly match the evidence of ancient records and archeology when the dates of the archeological periods are brought down:

1. The Middle Bronze Age invaders, after some centuries of rural settlement, expanded almost overnight into an empire, stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates. This empire has been termed the "Hyksos Empire," after a group of nomads that invaded Egypt, despite the fact that there is no historical evidence for such an identification. History knows of one such empire. Archeology knows of one such empire. The same adjustment which restores the Exodus and Conquest to history does the same to the United Kingdom of David and Solomon.

2. The Empire fell, bringing the Middle Bronze Age to an end. Archeologists and Egyptologists are currently involved in a great debate over whether it was civil war or Egyptian invasions which destroyed the "Hyksos" empire. The biblical accounts of the revolt of the ten northern tribes and the invasion of Shishak king of Egypt make the debate irrelevant.

3. The period following the end of the Empire was one of much unrest, but saw tremendous literary achievements. Since this period, the Late Bronze Age, was the last period before the Iron Age, and since the Iron Age was believed to have been the Israelite Period, the Late Bronze Age was called the Canaanite Period. Strangely, these Canaanites spoke and wrote in beautiful Biblical Hebrew. Semitic Canaanites? Did the Bible get it wrong again? But then, coming after the time of David and Solomon, they weren't really Canaanites. The speakers and writers of Biblical Hebrew were, as might have been guessed - Biblical Hebrews.

4. Finally we get to the Iron Age. This is when Israel supposedly arrived in Canaan. But it has been obvious to archeologists for over a century that the archeology of the Iron Age bears little resemblance to the biblical account of the conquest of Canaan. There were invasions, but they were from the north, from Syria and Mesopotamia, and they came in several waves, unlike the lightning conquest under Joshua. The people who settled the land after the invasions also came from the north, though there is much evidence to suggest that they weren't the invaders, and merely settled an empty land after it had been destroyed by others. The south remained in the hands of the Bronze Age inhabitants, albeit on a lower material level.

The conclusions drawn from this evidence have been devastating. The people in the south, who constituted the kingdom of Judah, from whence came the Jews, has been determined to be of Canaanite descent! If not biologically, then culturally. And the people in the north, the other 10 tribes of Israel, have been determined to have been no relation to the tribes of the south. The idea of 12 tribes descended from the sons of Jacob has been removed from the history books and recatalogued under "Mythology, Jewish."

What is most strange is that multiple waves of invasion followed by northern tribes settling in the north of Israel is not an event which has gone unmentioned in the Bible. The invaders were the Assyrians. The settlers were the northern tribes who eventually became the Samaritans. And if the people in the south were descended from the Late Bronze Age inhabitants of the land, why, that merely means that the kingdom of Judah was a continuation of the kingdom of Judah. The only historical claims which are contradicted by the archeological record are those of the Samaritans, who claim to have been the descendants of the 10 tribes of Israel.

A simple redating of the archeological periods in the Land of Israel brings the entire scope of biblical history into synchronization with the ancient historical record. Only time will tell whether more archeologists will follow Cohen and Anati in their slowly dawning recognition of the historicity of the Bible.

Notes
[1] Contrary to the Jewish historical tradition, the generally accepted date (g.a.d.) is 166 years earlier, or 587 BCE (see "Fixing the History Books - Dr. Chaim Heifetz's Revision of Persian History," in the Spring 1991 issue of Jewish Action). This difference applies to all Mesopotamian and Egyptian history prior to the Persian period. The dates for Egyptian history given in the history books are therefore off by this amount. For our purposes, we will use the corrected date followed by the g.a.d. in parentheses. return to text
[2] Some people have been excited about the generally accepted date for Ramses II coming so close to the traditional date for the Exodus. This is a mistake, as Egyptian and Mesopotamian histories are linked. If Ramses II lived c. 1300 BCE, then the destruction of the Temple was in 587 BCE, and the Exodus was in 1476 BCE. return to text
[3] Sefer HaYashar and The Prayer of Asenath (an ancient pseudepigraphical work) contain this information, though Sefer HaYashar only gives the 94 year reign length without Malul's age. return to text
[4] Egyptian kings had a vast titulary. They generally had at least five official throne names, not to mention their personal name or names, and whatever nicknames their subjects gave them. return to text
[5] William Kelly Simpson in The Ancient Near East: A History, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 1971. return to text
[6] A.H. Gardiner, Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage from a hieratic papyrus in Leiden (1909). Historians are almost unanimous in dating this papyrus to the very beginning of the Middle Kingdom. The events it describes, consequently, deal with the end of the Old Kingdom. return to text
[7] Rudolph Cohen, "The Mysterious MB I People - Does the Exodus Tradition in the Bible Preserve the Memory of Their Entry into Canaan?" in Biblical Archeology Review IX:4 (1983), pp.16ff. return to text[8] Immanuel Anati, The Mountain of God, Rizzoli International Publications, New York 1986. return to text

Feast of Remembrance

This lunch hour I attended my first feast - for a former school teacher who passed away 1 year ago (yesterday). I thought the event was very interesting and fun.

The feast started with approximately 1 hour of prayer and ceremonies - via the elder. All the men sat down by the food (in the middle of the room) and we did 2 things:

(a) Smudged: It was the passing around of the sweetgrass and we motion the smoke over ourselves to 'cleanse ourselves'.

(b) Peace Pipe: They passed the peace pipe to all the men and we took some puffs of it - then smudged with the smoke - and passed it to the next person. This happened 4 times as it circled the room.

We then had the feast - made a plate for the person that passed away 1 year ago - and we served by a few people until all the food was gone (needless to say we all took some home of which we are required not to waste).

What I truly enjoyed about the whole thing was the 'remembrance' aspect of the ceremony - sort of like communion in a way. I found that aspect of it very cool and included all members of the community in the feast. I think this is just another great example of how First Nations ceremonies can be incorporated into the symbolism of the Christian faith - 'do this in remembrance of me'. You really felt a great passion of that feeling in the ceremony. I wonder why we don't do this in 'remembrance' of those who walked and talked with us? Maybe some of the communion we share needs to recognize this aspect of community.

Food for thought.

Laughter - What is the Biblical Ideal?

I would like to thank Burning Bush for bringing this to my attention - this idea of the biblical approach to laughter. It really gave me something to think about.

Luke 6:21-25 mentions laughter as the antithesis of mourning/weeping 2X in a matter of a few verses - making one ponder what ideal is being taught there. Is laughter a bad thing? I don't think so.

I think the verses reitterate an obvious idea about dealing with our pain/hurts in our own lives - so that we can laugh again (have joy in our lives). The teaching is this:

(a) If you do not deal with your pain (and the seriousness thereof) and hide behind laughter - later on you when it all wears down - you will weep/mourn for the state of affairs you might be found in.

(b) If you deal with your pain/hurts (face them head on) at some point you will heal - and later on you will be able to enjoy life and have joy/laughter/gladness.

Laughter is not a bad thing. Actually, I find it one of the greatest human traits we share one with another (can put a smile on our face). I am reminded of a few biblical examples:

(1) In Gen 21:5-7 Sara names her son Isaac (which means laughter). She attributes her laughter to God and thinks people will laugh with her - for this birth at such an age. Sara see's her laughter as a great thing (names her son it).

(2) Psalm 126:1-3 talks about laughter in a similar fashion as I see in the Luke verses. We see the captives are freed and this erupts in ideas of joy, laughter, and gladness. I see this as the same idea about dealing with our pain, getting healed (freed), then we are free to have the joy we desire.

(3) Ecclesiastes 3:4 mentions the idea - where Luke would of framed the teaching from about Jesus - since it so similar. Solomon says there is 'a time to weep and time to laugh' (there is a time for everything). Laughter is not seen as bad here - but in the right context - can be seen as something healthy - a part of normal life. Again weeping is the antithesis of laughter.

I think laughter is a great gift we have been given - and we share it with one another. Yes we must mourn and weep (deal with pain) but we also can heal and have joy - laughter is an expression of that. I think if we laughed a little more and were a little less serious - think of the ramifications on one's life. We might just find we are 'happy' after all?

Theological Retardation - Blood/Body

I got up this morning and as is the usual habit I thought upon a biblical teaching I have heard plenty of times - transubstantiation. I began to wonder - where did this idea really come from?

Transubstantiation really is about the idea of the body of Jesus and the blood of Jesus in the communion service becoming the actual blood and body of Jesus. I think the Catholics still believe this is how it works but it's funny that for many a year in Christendom this was the actual belief about the communion service. Isn't that odd?

I think we have to come to a finer and deeper understanding of the communion service (symbolism and use of the service) and that in looking back we can see the theological weirdness of this old view. It would point to the idea that maybe we are looking a lot deeper into the scriptures and actually viewing them more appropriately - as in interpretation in these days. Maybe as a Christian society we have 'grown up' and are starting to use our ideas about literature when reading the bible - to both scope out literalness and creative symbolism in passages.

This is one of many examples that have been taught as literal at one point but appear to be not quite when done in reality. I cannot imagine actually eating flesh and drinking blood - regardless if it's our Messiah we are doing it to (ie: literal view). It actually makes no sense since the disciples are pretty sure Gentiles should abstain from 'drinking blood or eating it' within Acts. So how can a church become so quick to look at this idea from the disciples yet not use this in regards to communion - simple answer - misunderstanding.

It's really too bad too - since this is only one of the many ideas the church has thrown around as fact and found to be not quite that. One could make a proverbial listing of many of these mis-interpretations that still exist - ex: word of faith ideals, tongues, and judgement to name a few. Let's not move backwards in our understanding of these scriptures - but forward - we know the literature motifs much better now and the use of context - let's apply it. Let's not pretend that something has to be literal to have meaning.