Isn't communion supposed to be communal?

So, as requested here are my thoughts on communion . . .

I imagine a church/gathering/assembly/congregation in the first centuries of Christianity rarely exceeded 100 people. It wouldn't have been wise, seeing as all it would take is one Roman centurion diagnosing the situation as an uprising which would probably result in the deaths of most who were present. I also think that early churches were patterened after synagogues which typically never grew much past 100-200. At least that's the impression I am under, correct me if I'm in error. When you're dealing with 100 people it's a lot easier to make baptism a big deal. A lot easier to celebrate it. A lot easier to devote a meeting to it or prolong a meeting to display baptism's importance. It's a whole lot easier for a church leader to justify keeping 100 people a few minutes late to witness a baptism, keeping 1500 such as the church that I attend, well . . . then the majority's voice about time constraints grows louder. This is the problem with baptism, it has never been a spectator-friendly activity. The intent was to allow the audience to experience Christ's death and exaltation all over again. This image that is self-definition to all who claim Christ as their own is one that is renewed and reexperienced by all believers. I think it is ultimately impossible to cater baptism, in all it's power and glory, to an audience of thousands. (That's a blanket statement, meaning mostly true with obvious occasional exceptions)

I think the Lord's Supper shares this attribute.

Seriously look at the way churches "do" the Lord's Supper right now, and this is definitely not limited to churches of Christ. Our churches are arranged in such a way that we stare forward. Typically central is the pulpit, often with a baptistry and a "Lord's Supper table" shadowed somewhere in the background. Sad. Because we value downloading others with information, doctrine, and stories to aid in application we seat everyone in such a way that preaching is central. (Many Catholic and mainline churches do have the pulpit off to the side with the table in the middle, to which I say Amen. Though I beginning to think I would most advocate having a baptistry in the middle, if we insist on traditional ampitheater style buildings) The consequences of this are obvious: the focus is on the preacher, or whosoever would temporarily depose him of his throne. So long as this is the case, the focus is off of . . . . that's right, each other. Isn't one of the greatest sins in church to not keep absolute silence during the Lord's Supper or the sermon? If one is fortunate enough to go to a church with "soul", then one can be expected to speak out in agreement, but only in agreement.

Suppose a family invited you over for dinner. You think you're going to get to know the family. Then the set a plate down at the end of the couch and proceed to turn the TV on. You turn to the father sitting next to you to ask him something and he frowns disapprovingly and refuses eye contact. The mother gives a crass look and a firm "SHHHHHH!!" You attempt to talk to the son of the family, but he knows better and quickly tries to hush you up. For a full hour you stare at the TV listening to whatever boring show happens to be on, arranged in a strait line on the couch. At one point they pass you your dinner, which you are expected to eat in reverent silence. Later, your friend who invited you tells you that their meals are always that way, and always have been. They may be plesent people outside of that hour, but the next time they invite you to dinner it is doubtful that you will eagerly accept.

Where have we gone wrong? And, how on earth do we dare call our Sunday quatershot of grape juice and flake of stale cracker "COMMUNION"?????

Community, Communal, Communicate: it's all the same root word. Yet what we call the Lord's Supper or Communion now has nothing of the idea that gave it life left in it. We stare forward in silent reverence that the coldest of Pharisees would be appalled at, and still manage to say we are "eating together".

Let me offer the two greatest things that are achieved by the Lord's Supper (idealized):
1) The Fellowship of the Community of Love. That is what communion is. I don't think God is impressed by a meal that holds silent reverence as the absolute norm. Meals are times of communicating and sharing together the wide range of life experience that are present around a table. Needs are met together, AT the table. It you are not touching the table, you are not AT it, so lets not pretend the guy on row 35 in our assembly is really gathered around the table with us, I find that is a gross "loophole tradition" of Scripture. (How can we follow this verse without really following it?) It's a funny thing that many preachers dog members for leaving early to go to lunch on Sunday, when I think Jesus might often rebuke the preacher from keeping the members from the closest thing to Communion they will have all week. (or month depending on one's denomination) I think the truest communion is typically at Wendy's or Chili's. Rarely church. Now, churches are made up of a wide variety of people. The demographics of the true Church are astounding, and in this, the Lord's Supper achieves something that is desperately needed in our churches . . . .
2) Equality and Unity. A middle class, white drug-dealer, a lower class African-American family, a blue-collar Hispanic family, and a rich white family sit down around a table with their Lord's body and blood in the middle, and realize that at the center of the table is the substance that sustains them all. Without it, all of them are nothing. Without it, they all die. This same Lord loves them equally, without favoritism. They may have stereotypes when they sit down, and pride. If they do not reject the Spirit's leading, when they get up their notions will be shattered and their pride will melt. Issues are worked out at the table. Needs are discussed, and met. Pain and sickness are healed at the table. Truth is discovered and rediscovered. Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, church of Christ, and "non-denominational" denominations all realize they share the Lord as their center, even in they share nothing else. That being true, they have no option but to listen, and no option but to love. To hate one's brother across the table is to hate one's self, and to hate the Lord who dies for both. We are one. We are equal.

I go to a church that's 95% white. They aren't proud of that, and that's not they way they want to keep it, Praise God! But, that's the way it is. I think of all the plans we have at that church to try to bridge the racial gap, God has already given us the primary means of doing this. I don't think by staring forward at a pulpit we will employ this gift.

Israel remembered God as a nation. The church should "do this in remembrance" as a family, not as isolated, reverent individuals beneath dimmed lights.

If Communion was done communally it would change the face of the Church. It would radically challenge every stronghold of pride and hate that dwells in us, because it would require us to face those who we have already labeled as inferior. Facing them we would have little choice but to be humbled to a level of equality and in being humbled also get a better grasp of the grace which dies for and redeems such racist, self-centered, and ethnocentric hearts as our own. Then as community, maybe we could finally share the stories of the amazing things which Jesus is doing every moment to bring his Kingdom, and love his People.

Extreme Makeover: Baptism Edition

(What follows is directed at people who are aquainted or affiliated with the denomination known as churches of Christ, if it makes no sense to you, don't worry about it)

Baptism is the least spiritual act a person could perform.

I was talking with my friend who is a college minister at a mega-church. . . . a mega church that is very modern. Being a paid minister at this church he is expected to earn at least 40 spiritual points a year. Here's the system:

preach a service - 2 points
get published in a newletter or magazine - 1 point
earn a degree - 1 point
lead a traditional gospel meeting - 1 point
baptize someone - 4 points

since basically the others are hand me downs, he has to meet a baptism quota of aroung 10 a year to satisfy the upper management. He hasn't been coming through, and the pressure has been on. I could be more cynical and criticize the upper management's motives, but I know better. I know they truly do want people to come to the Lord, and baptism is a quantifiable method of knowing that is happening.

I don't really think it serves any good purpose to rehash the same arguments about discipleship being better, or try and solve the same tired argument over the necessity of baptism for faith and salvation. I think those arguments are worn out. If an answer can be acheived, I quit caring what it was a long time ago.

But here's the reason I wanted to talk about this: chatting with my friend today he lamented his predicament since no one our age really wants to get baptized. That is about when I replied with my shock-value statement written above. Baptism is the most unspiritual activity in our churches today. People who might be baptized would surely reject it after witnessing one in any church of Christ throughout the United States.

Imagine: you're an unbeliever. You study with a committed Christian, possibly for months or years. In the course of study you begin to believe, you begin to make a connection to the Lord. You decide to follow him, but somewhere in this process you sit through a stale assembly in the church you've come to be a part of. One night you watch as someone else on a journey similar to your own walks to the front to "make a statement of faith". But, as it turns out this statement is not a statement at all. What is billed as a "statement" is actually a clause tacked on to the end of a prescripted statement that the minister makes for you. It is not a statement of your faith, but a statement of the faith that is being fed to you!

What about the spirituality of the event? After all this is your "wedding ceremony to the Lord". It is your public witness. Your act of dying and coming to new life, in Jesus. Yet do we talk to Jesus in our baptismal ceremonies? No. How about God? Not really. Do we in any way speak to the God who we claim is doing the act? Nope. What we do is present the "lost" person to the assembly. Tell the assembly a pathetic shadow of the persons story, after all they are incapable of telling it themselves because they are still lost (what a difference wet hair makes). Then we feed them a bunch of lines about what the faith they now believe is, they tack on a "yes I do" and the deed is done. Notice in this whole process no one talks to God. He is sufficiently cut out. It's a sad thing when the stagelight at a wedding fails to illuminate the groom!!!!

What about the life significance of baptism. We often fill the air beforehand with the promise that this is the most important decision you will ever make. Yet the whole thing fills up the span of 5 minutes. What is the five minutes followed by? Well . . . ummm . . . . if we're going to be honest . . . a lack of prayer, celebration, or anything to back up the claim that this is the most important decision of one's life. In fact with the overall way we treat it, it would appear that it is a very insignificant choice in one's life. A choice that is actually only worth dedicating about 5 minutes to bask in its significance . . . . (tangent: this is why I am in favor of baptismal 'classes', at least they could celebrate together when the older members deem it to not be that big of a deal).

One more thing. The center of Christian faith is the death, burial, and ressurection of Jesus. Now somewhere we got thing really jacked up and thought that this was best displayed by (drumroll), preaching. Sad. So this explains why baptisms are a 5 minute addendum to a 45 minute sermon. . . . . HELLO, WHAT THE CRAP IS THAT ABOUT??? If baptism is what we say it is, then it is the center of our faith. Not the act, but the reality it represents. When someone gets baptized, who cares about the metaphysical, ontological crap that we've been myopically staring at for far too long. We are seeing Jesus die and raise in that person! We are re-witnessing the passion and power of our Lord . . . . or at least that's the idea. See, it's easy to say that, but if one looks at the way we do baptism right now, it has little to nothing of our Lord's glory present in it. I imagine all the "lost" person in our assembly sees is a very scientific, human-centered act, where Jesus, who it's really all about, is not addressed, and is barely mentioned.

So, here's the suggestion: Change baptism or get used to people not caring about it.

Remember it's their faith. So let them tell it. Let's quit giving them only a cameo in their own baptism, and start letting them play the role they should play. Let them tell their story. Let them explain what it is that they believe about Jesus and what they think about him. Also, let's remember that Jesus is alive!!!! And he is present in that event. It's his wedding! He would like to at least be acknowledged in it, and who knows he might even affirm and reaffirm some vows to individuals and the community that all would benefit greatly to hear. Baptism is spiritual, NOT MECHANIC! Include God and he will bless it.

If baptism is as significant as we claim it to be, then there IS NO EXCUSE to make it a 5 minute addendum to a sermon. Cut the sermon short. Listen to the testimony of a lost son or daughter who is coming home. Pray over them. Pray over them! . . . . PRAY OVER THEM!!! I don't think we can let ourselves forget, no sermon or song will ever display the message of Jesus the way baptism does. Baptism is the message. It is a privalege to witness. It is the gospel before our eyes. That being the case, why is it not celebrated? Celebration is a good thermometer for how important an event is. We know that Christmas, Thanksgiving and Birthdays are important because we celebrate them. We know anniverseries are important because we celebrate them. We know that new jobs, pay raises, new houses, babies, and graduations are important because we celebrate them. If we don't celebrate baptisms, then why do we waste our breath asking why less people seem to value it these days?

The way we have done baptism for too long has made a mockery of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. It has cut him out of his own wedding. It has been stale, and pejorative to the person coming to faith. It has become sadly irrelevant and unspiritual, and as it is, I don't think it is worth morning the loss of. Instead we should mourn what has already been lost, repent, and get back to what is a central aspect of the Christian faith.

my free will needs exercise

hmmmmm, basically to sum things up I'm confused right now. The deal is I'm 23. A quarter of my stay here on earth is passed. The crappiness of my situation is the fact that I'm still in a position of being a child . . . sort of. I'm financially dependent on my parents, and have come to truly hate being in this situation. I'm ready to make my own decisions, and call the shots on my life since, Lord willing, I've only got 3/4s of it left.

Of course there are always things we want to do, that we'll never have the chance to do. Right now though, I'm in a position where I can't really do any of the things that I would like to do. I would like to have vacation time where I determine where and how I will spend that time. Right now my vacations are limited to the DFW area because I am not financially capable of leaving (I'm a bird stuck in a house, flying into windows hoping one might be open). Right now my parents have the right to determine when I need to come home, because they are paying for everything right now (gratefulness is my only option, free will is bypassed). When I explain my life situation to people right now, they all look at me with that pejorative kinda pity that tells me I am a 12 year old stuck in a 23 year old's body.

I've been attempting to spit the silver spoon out of my mouth for a year now, and the world just won't let me.

I don't know why I ended up in this place. Maybe it's my fault. Maybe it's cosmic forces that determined my fate. Maybe it's God's will. Maybe it's God's way of telling me to take charge and pull myself out of it. Maybe I think too much. Maybe I'll emerge victorious from this subtle hell and be the man God wants me to be. Maybe I should be patient. Or, maybe it's a prison . . . and if so I'm tempted to burn it all down, on the outside 1% chance that I might be able to escape and find freedom.

Sometimes dreams are prisons. Sometimes dreams are all that keep me going. Both are true, so what am I supposed to do about that? I've come up with all kinds of dreams in my life. My friends and I have dreamed together. All of these have given me hope. All of these have held me back. Cage or life raft, cage or life raft . . . . ? What am I supposed to do with them? . . . . one day I'm singing 'don't worry be happy' imagining myself escaping from my own plans like a action hero in a muscle car driving away from a building he just imploded, other days I feel I should act responsibly (whatever that means) even though that seems to imply the next years will blessed with a spectacular coating of mediocrity.

I expressed this feeling to my friend last night. He understood my situation. I needed him to listen without an agenda. He did. That was really cool. He said he would understand if I chose freedom. He encouraged me to stick with my dreams. I don't know . . .

I think I lost my mind last week. Minds are expensive pets to keep. I'm low on money; I had to let it go. Maybe it'll find a new home and be happy there.

My life is on pause.

a renaissance of randomness

Recently my friend wrote this extremely random 'stream of conciousness - like' post on his blog. It made me smile. I wrote back the most random, funny stuff I could think of. I laughed really hard (I've determined I'm ok with laughing at my own jokes). And, I've realized something because of this exchange: life is random, and is more enjoyable when we respect it as such.

I have spent far too much of the last year trying to dileniate the shape of my own life, and it has led to it feeling very stagnant and boring. It's not that I've been miserable, but I have been consistently discontented. I feel like I'm always waiting to feel alive. It's like I'm watching all my friends live their lives, kinda like cheap reality shows, but my own life feels like I'm waiting for someone to press play. It's an irritating feeling. And, it's been underlying for a long time.

I think society puts to much pressure on college-age kids. There's this subtle but relentless attitude that we've had enough time to figure everything out by now, and now we need to start letting all the pieces fall into place. It's a load of crap.

I'm 23, and all I've figured out is that I've got nothing figured out, least of all, myself. So, if one expects me to live based on what I've realized at this point in my life, it would probably look like a total incoherent mess. Hallelujah! i'm on the the right path!

So here comes the epiphany, all the stuff I've said I'm gonna do with my life, I said those things as an idiot who knew nothing. I'm free!! . . . . . . oh the joy is mine! I no longer have anything to live up to.

Since I have now arrived at gnosis, I now declare the rest of my life to be random. (which means i'm not changing anything except for maybe my attitude) So, to all my friends, family, and groupies, I warn you to expect nothing I do to make sense . . . ever again. I hope from here on out to live as a proponent of chaos, and in doing so, rediscover the thing I once knew as "laughter".

Discipline

I'll admit, it's been a long time since I've read my Bible. I haven't been very good at keeping that as a discipline. Truthfully I've stopped feeling guilty about that. I found that in forcing myself to read it, I didn't get much out of it. I would scan a page, realize I had heard all the stories before and heard six different, conflicting sermons on the same passage. I've been over-indoctinated, and for a long time I've found it impossible to read my Bible without reading all the varying historical-critical interpretations I've been told for so long.

I've actually been on this hiatus for a few months now. Of course I would read a few pages scattered over a month, but I just haven't had any hunger to read consistently. I've gotten a lot of Bible through various other books I've read. I would read someone else's interpretation. Sometimes in doing so, I would get really excited about what they said, and enthusiastically pick up my Bible to start again. . . a few paragraphs later I would realize why I haven't read it much on its own. Maybe I should be more worried about this than I am, but I'm not.

Last week I went to UTD to worship with some friends I hadn't gotten to see in a long time. It was cool. These friends are all charismatic/Spirit-filled. It's cool being around them. I always leave refreshed. I used to be uncomfortable around them, now I love it. All the things that used to make me cautious were mostly because of misunderstandings I had. We prayed for each other like we had done before. I told them before that I had felt like I was spiritually anorexic; I just hadn't been very hungry for God in a while. They prayed for that. One girl Anita, said she got this vision of me asking for a candle and getting a furnace: I want that hunger, I'll be overwhelmed by it. I hope so.

I'm not there yet, but I think I'm starting to at least get an appetite back. I started reading Luke through. It's been cool. I've been getting some more vivid pictures of Jesus and the people he's around. For the past months I would read and didn't picture a thing. Now it's like the characters are actually developing a bit.

Discipline is life or it is death. It will bring you one or the other. Dallas Willard poinst out that Jesus calls his way easy. Jesus led the most disciplined life of all, but he claimed in doing so we would be releaved of our burdens. I'm not really that disciplined of a person, no matter what others may think. I think the only way I will be is if the things that I view as religious burdens all become connecting points to God. I've always thought I need to read more, fast more, pray more, do something. I don't think that now. I think that attitude is one that turns discipline into a way of death. Now, I'm increasingly of the opinion that I need God more, and if/when I find religious practices help out to that end I'll do them. That's discipline that brings life.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I used to think that discipline was a way to get close to God. I would read my Bible as a means to connect with him, and feel disappointed when it didn't really help me feel any closer. I think that's wrong. I'm starting to understand that I am close to him. That fact is not contingent on my discipline, nor proved/disproved by my feelings. God's presence is not the goal of discipline it is the foundation of it. If I read to be with God, then reading will always be stale and leave me more burdened, confused, and hungry than when I opened up my Bible. I am with God, so I read, and in doing so become (painfully slowly) who I have wanted to be. God remains who he has been all along.

loving mainstream music while skipping starbucks

- As I take a break from drawing out diagrams of the respiratory and urinary systems, I have realized one sad fact about my life, I never have fun when I skip school. I typically skip school to work on school. It's pathetic how much more work I can get done when I don't sacrifice 60% of my waking ours to listening to teachers read a book at me. It's just sad that while most other people would skip to go do something fun, I'm skipping so that I can get ahead and be lazy in the coming week.

- I have realized my own hypocrisy over the past week. If anyone ever talks politics with me, I'm sure I will decry capitalism as the greatest evil of our society to them at some point. I realized yesterday I have gotten Starbucks about five times this last week. It's sad. I hate their coffee, I think it's poor quality, especially for the price. I do live in Tarrant County though which means I have no other option. To boycott Starbucks here is to boycott coffee altogether. The real reason I go is because I hate being stuck alone in my apartment. I've realized I go to Starbucks to fill in that need for community itch that all of us get. The sad thing is, it's not real community. I'll pay $4 to feel like I've been in community when in reality I haven't at all. Anyway, I'm going to do my best to limit that urge to once a week again. I had been doing good for a while, but I relapsed.

- A few weeks ago I was playing guitar with these guys. They were really good, but we didn't really appreciate the same artists. I like Jack Johnson a lot. I think his stuff is ridiculously easy to play, but that's not why I listen to him. I mentioned this to these guys I was playing with, and they go on to make fun of how easy all his songs are. I was kinda doing the facebook thing for the past couple weeks too (it's appeal is fading fast though), and saw another of my old friends was affiliated with a group named "I think Dave Matthews and Jack Johnson suck" or something like that. The thing all these guys shared in common was they are all music snobs. They evaluate music based on how unique and 'ground-breaking' it is, or how difficult it is to play, or any number of other criteria. But, I've found most of the arguments against Dave and Jack are missing the point. I think with both, most people listen for reasons that aren't totally music related. I think on some level they encompass a lifestyle/worldview/spirit (?) that lots of people want these days. If you go to a Dave concert you participate in an experience. 95% of the people there don't know a thing about music, but it's almost like the crowd gets to create the music with the band. That's kinda the attitude I see with all people who follow jam bands. Its like a modern continuation of the Greatful Dead phenomenon, just a lot more commercial. DMB spontaneously creates music on stage, it's never exactly the same as the time before. I think spontaneous creativity is more "real" as far as lots of people today are concerned. I think all of us want to feel something, like DMB feels music. We want that same spirit flowing through us. As far as Jack goes. I'd say just look at his lifestyle. He has the "no worries" attitude toward life, that I imagine most people wish they had. He's definitely not a jam-band kinda guitar player, but he's also a heck of a lot more than just a musician. More than any other artist, he really comes across like he doesn't give a crap if people buy his stuff or not. He's not that attatched to fame. He lives life a little bit freer than the average person. His music carries that attitude, which is a huge part of why I like it so much, regardless of how easy and simplistic it is.

Fatalism

The thing that Bosch says is that Christianity more than any other religion is a world-centered religion. As Christians we proclaim a Lord who doesn't step back saying, "ha! I made it to heaven to watch everything I left behind go to hell." Instead we proclaim Jesus who makes all things new. Jonathan, my friend who is the college minister at our church, has been attempting to drill that into people over the last few months. Sadly the hardest concept for most Christians I run into to get is the idea that eternal life starts now. It is not something that is pending until we die, hopefully having said the Lord's Prayer and begged forgiveness one more time before we slip out of coherence. Everything Jesus promised starts now. When we spout off the verse "for God so loved the world . . .", we typically do so with this attitude that we just have to convince ourselves of its factuality until it's time for us to leave this place, then maybe, just maybe it might be true.

Christianity on the whole has given up to dualism. We see this world as hopeless, so we attempt to hold on to micro-ethical standards to assure our own salvation which starts when our final breath exits our mouth. Micro-ethics are the standard expectations: don't cuss, don't drink, smoke, do drugs, have sex or speak of it outside of marriage, and especially don't stir anything up. Our attitude becomes one of maintenence. Somehow, the church has learned how to read the Bible perfectly and through that has acheived a stash of holiness, that we must horde to assure that members of our congregation can dole it out at the pearly gates and gain admission. Kind of like a trust fund for a really big theme park.

Here is the thing about dualism: it is best friends with fatalism. If you are a dualist, there's a 99% chance you are a fatalist as well. As most Christians in America are secretly dualistic, they are fatalistic too. In my last post I pointed out that I think dualism is wrong. Let me state that I think fatalism is a step beyond that. Fatalism is evil.

Here's why: fatalism is reason for the vast majority of oppression and injustice that goes on in the world. Nothing is done about it, because fatalism convinces both the oppressor and the oppressed that the way things are is the way they should be. In India (back to our discussion of Eastern religions), tens of millions of people are treated as less valuable than feces because they were born "untouchable". The Indian economy is largely dependend on the slave labor of these people. Though in modern day it is beginning to be challenged, it has been supported in the past by the untouchables themselves. Why? Hinduism has dualism & fatalism inherently built into its system. They are untouchable. This is their fate. Which is why it is seen as ok to rape them, kill them, and enslave them to jobs that no human should ever stoop to perform.

What Bosch points out is that the movement Jesus started is thoroughly anti-fatalistic. In this man God touched earth. Through this man God renewed the defiled things. He doesn't just teach his disciples, he cleanses their hearts of sin and sets their hearts on the Kingdom of God! And, citizens of God's Kingdom never tolerate evil. Where evil is present Jesus' disciples declare war. The way we wage war is different from the world. It is theocentric. It is humble. But, never assume that means it is not bold. It is more than bold, it knows that victory has already occured. This means that we relentlessly attack the lies of evil with Jesus' truth. We with the confidence of being backed by millions of Christian martyrs, share their Spirit and stand confidently against the systemic evils present in every society, especially those in our own.

That's where it gets hard. In America we have fallen prey to the thinking that the biggest battles we face are those of alcoholism and sexual purity. Behind these decoys lies a world of other demons that we are totally blinded to. Occasionally we can wander into a foreign part of town and smell their aroma. Occasionally a liberal reporter will call our attention to them. And, it is at those time that I think to myself, "what on earth could we (I) ever do about that." I am a fatalist. But, hopefully not for much longer.

Jesus' faith is ethical to the core. Not just on a micro level either. Jesus calls his followers to be superhuman, like he is. He encourages a faith in God so perfect that it will look it's own evils in the face and attack them. The personal level always funnels into the social level, so the evils we speak of are not just our own issues. We are called to attack even our own country and culture when we see oppression and injustice incorperated into its system. On every level we are expected to show fate to be a lie.

Dualism

So, I finished Bosch this last weekend, and surprisingly I don't have many comments about the last 80 pages. But, one of the main points of the whole book was brought to mind tonight when I was reading some stuff about eastern religions.

Eastern thought sees the world purely dualistically. If that word is vague to you, think of a ying-yang. To the eastern mind, light is counter balanced with dark, night with day, pain with joy, and ultimately good with evil. To the Eastern mind good is co-dependent on evil. Without evil we would not know what "good" is. We are born into a world of contrasts where opposite extremes are always battling, but not battling to win. They battle "just because". That's the way things are. We may not like it when evil wins out, but if evil never won out we would be incapable of discerning good. This is the gist of the philosophy of good and evil held by Hinduism, Buddhism, and many traditional religions of the East. It is also a major undercurrent of postmodern thinking that is silently creeping in around us right here at home.

Truthfully I think on a philosophical level, the Eastern view is right. We're talking about a philosophy that outdates Greek philosophy by a few thousand years. In Eastern thought we have people who hundreds of years before Jesus was born, realized the futility of knowledge of the empirical world and moved on. Western history has unfolded for hundreds of years now, seeking desperately after objective reality that Easterners gave up on long ago. Now as we sit on the rubble of the modern paradigm many are realizing what gurus and buddhist monks have known for millennia. But, I am speaking only of philosophy.

On a theological level I think Eastern thought is wrong. Not inferior. Not simply differing because of culture or worldview, or anything like that. I think it's inherently wrong. I'll get to why in a second.

I think one of the problems Christians have faced as Eastern religions intermingle with ours, is that we attempt to prove ourselves philosophically. Our message to those who practice Eastern religions is one in which we rely on categories of "good and evil", or "sin", etc. This runs us into a dead end with Eastern thought. For them, good needs evil. Which, taking that to the next step would imply that God needs Satan. It would imply that somehow without evil, God would cease to be God. Ultimately that God's character is only determined as it is contrasted with evil. However good God is, Satan must be equally as bad. In the end, God and Satan are equal in opposition.

One can see in this how easy it is to fall into Eastern philosophy, which as I've already said, is a superior philosophy to the modern nonsense that we rely on so heavily. C.S. Lewis does a great job of explaining how dualism doesn't really work. At least not in regards to Christian thought. The truth is that Christianity leaves no room for dualism. It states that good is not good because we like it, but because God prescribed everything to be a certain way and when it is that way, it is good. It is good because God says so. Evil is not evil because it scares us and works against our preferences. Evil is a perversion of what God has prescribed. Yet, it seems we never speak of good and evil this way. When Christians talk of good and evil they rarely think of it theocentrically (God-centered). Most often, we speak of good and evil anthropocentrically (human centered). We speak against evil because it's bad for us, and speak for good because, well, it's just good. When we approach this topic with a human-centered attitude, we eventually have to admit to the dualism prevelent in the East. We've fallen. We now require contrast to choose the light. Sin and evil have become our crutch to determine what is good, to determine who God is!!!

Praise God that we are not left to our own capabilities to know him or his ethics.

I didn't really get to the stuff from Bosch, but I have homework, so I'll write the rest tomorrow.