A Christmas Poem

Plunging from warmth to cold,
seasons turn by the celebration of holidays
Days shorten and as night dominates the cycle of days,
we celebrate the light of our world
Trees covered with netted wire, illuminating like little stars

Contrast is bittersweet
. . . the light of our hearts against the brevity of days
the warmth of our homes against the bitter chill beyond our doors
families brought together against the loneliness of our culture
and I have lost my bearings in this tension

Is light victorious over this darkness?
Does warmth prevail against thie cold?

Or when I lay down at night haunted by cold,
deafened by the lonely silence of my room,
is this the curse for which holidays are merely opiates?

I ask this of God,
and he responds with the subtle swings of emotion that mark our
long strange relationship

I hate him for his mystery, as I hate myself for my own
And, I then realize hate is only the reification of love
. . . love remains itself only in ambiguity
beyond definition, terms, and . . . in terror, beyond expectations

By expectations I am bound
and as expectations defy my best intent at love, I hate
my friends, my self, and God transcending
For love as God's action will never break fidelity to him
to unite with expectancy

Amid the stark contrast of this season
where the crushing sadness of history meets the infant of our hopes
I long for the creative breath to which this disparity cedes
. . . never sensibly, but as paradox and parody . . .
For it seems the breath of God comes as a bellowing laugh
as often as a willful proclamation
Amused perhaps by the absurdity of this quest
an absurdity which is itself the meaning . . .
For my mind seeks to reduce love to a chess piece of interaction
But, love is beyond the mind's possibility of comprehension
beyond our emotion's potential to act

It is more.
and for this its appearance in my actions has always been accidental
even when intended

We speak of love as though we know it
We say it casually regardless of how well we gaurd its sacredness
We kill it by the violence of our expectations
the cruelty of our needs, our desires and plans
is the cross by which love is made a spectacle
while we steal its breath

Every plastic nativity is the contrast of winter
a reminder of God's place in our world
gathering our brokenness arond his humanity
and loving us while we say love in order to hate

I will lay down tonight in the dark
I will sleep alone in the cold of my room
yet tonight is marked by the difference that love is still mysterious
not reduced to vocal precision
its facticity rejects language
its existence remains only as it is lived
and for this we are all just now coming to life



__

Parental Advisory: Explicit Content

There's a guy named Noam Chomsky who is one of the most influential political theorists alive today. His works are widely dissemintated. Funny thing with him is that he was never trained in politics. He earned his name as one of the world's most premeir linguistics professors. Most people I talk to would say this is coincidental. Yet, truth be told, language is political by nature.

Language in many ways controls how people think. It controls how they communicate and relate to one another. This understanding of language has come to a head in the 20th and 21st centuries. Most of the postmodern discussion revolves around language. Most of the leading philosophers of our day are linguists or deal primarily with linguistics as their field of study. Beginning in the 60's Existentialism, Structuralism, and recently Deconstruction have been the most revolutionary of philosophical concepts to hit the scene. Especially in regard to the latter two, they all dealt largely with language and its power over human existence.

Most people are unaware of the way in which politics is a battle over language and meaning. For anyone in high position in government a large portion of money is relegated to "spin artists". One of Chomsky's major themes is the way that American media is sickeningly monopolized by American government and the rich beauracrats by which the government is controlled. Media in America is a joke. That CNN represents the most "liberal" voice in a land marked by its "liberty" is a joke.

American ignorance to the state of our globe is prepetuated by the fact that the media is the source of its worldview, and this worldview is biased in order to benefit the invisible corporate autocrats who pull the strings to their own advantage.

In other words, the evening news is a lie.

And, what are lies? The use of language to construct a reality that does not exist. That people would be concerned to be "living in a lie" reveals how powerful the control of language is.

I thought of all this as I began a book my friend sent to me. In the foreward an author is describing how the just intent of the young evangelicals in the 70's was highjacked by people who were content to make evangelicalism mean consenting to the conservative, Republican ideology. There was a fight over the meaning of the word 'evangelical'. Humans live and die in the war over what words will mean. Once the meaning of evangelical was secured to imply an 'ideological conservative' the war over language continued, except this time more publically.

Soon the 'moral majority' or 'religious Right' began the fight to keep the media decent. The media was up for grabs. Consider with me, why would people spend multiple millions of dollars and countless hours simply to keep specific "four letter" syllables from being uttered on public TV??? At first this appears to be quite an arbitrary thing to be concerned about. After all, there are gang wars going on in most of the big cities, rivers of drugs flowing across the boarders, and we're spending our time to contest someones right to say 'shit' on TV??

Yet, pay attention to who this battle is between. Overall evangelicals tend to be white, married with children, and rich. In light of my last post, what could we assume they are concerned with preserving. More than moral values, could we not assume that control of the media could prove to aid in preservation of privilege and assets for themselves and their 'group'. On the other side are the "others" who do not share their values and don't think that being 'evangelical' warrants any sort of privilege at all. Suddenly 'shit' becomes a good barometer of who is truly in control.

Consider the connotation of the word "homosexual" and the various slurs attatched to it. For a long time these words were said with the connotation of taboo. Yet since the early 90's these words have increasingly been used playfully for a lifestyle that is less and less a mark of shame. Now homosexuals openly call themselves 'queer', 'gay', or any number of other words which were originally used as slurs. This is part of the battle to control language. Conservatives who opposed homosexuality before could use such slurs as a means of keeping homosexuals in an inferior position, but now this tactic has been flipped around. In doing so it is conservatives who suffer, being labeled as 'fundamentalists', 'biggots' and 'homophobes'. Obviously in rural conservative areas this has not yet occured, but if one goes to any major city they will see that homosexuals are no longer at a disadvantage.

As Walter Brueggemann wrote, "the discussion of homosexuality, for the most part, is not about sexuality, but is about the reordering of social power, the fearful effort to maintain conventional forms of power that carry less and less conviction, and the awareness the the old center 'will not hold'".

Homosexuality is a major piece on the chessboard being played out between the conservative, traditional ideology of America and the newer pluralistic ideology. In the conservative eye the nuclear family and Caucasian decent were identities that preserved economic and social privilege. Homosexuality is one of many lifestyles accepted by the new pluralistic ideology that threatens the social privilege of the "all-American" lifestyle.

The battle over language is one of the foremost concerns on both sides. On the popular side it seems that pluralism is winning the battle over culture, though politically conservatives still hold sway.

Pessimism on Politics

Postmodernism has lots of draw-backs. I recently skimmed over some books by self-proclaimed postmodern philosophers. I think I began to realize how fruitless much of the postmodern discussion is. I'm far from being the only one who has come to think such things. Yet, recently I did find one aspect of postmodernism that is deeply ingrained in me and that I think is good. Postmodernism acknowledges that basically everything is political. I repeat: everything.

The truth of the matter is that everyone by the very nature of being human has interests (read assets) that they would like to protect. All of us have a realm of control. We all have a natural aversion to losing that control. If you're a Dalit in India, your only realm of control is your spirit and occasionally your own body. Other than that you own nothing and have no rights. These people live in the severest physical misery, yet many still hold a hopefulness that can't be destroyed. These are the people that Ghandi made sure to call 'children of God'. They are beaten. They are made to perform jobs that no human being should ever be required to perform, and paid nothing for it. They live on the trash of higher castes. Yet, they still find control. In suburban America we have slightly more than that. We have mansions. We have families. We have more possessions than we could count. We have established rights. We have calculated futures. We have control over more than we can control. We displace God by default, and too often, on purpose.

All people feel some need to fight to maintain control over what they have. And, essentially this is all that politics is: fighting to preserve privileges and assets. We can dress it up any number of ways, but it basically remains the same. If we go before the cheif of our clan, or if we work our way through the exhausting beauracracy of American government, it is the same. Basically we are only looking out for ourselves and the party that is looking out for us.

This is why I think our bipartisan American mindset is extremely stupid. You can be a Democrat or a Republican, but basically either way you're concern remains the same. Both sides represent people vying for control; be that continued control of what they have, or extending control of what they desire.

There's a funny legacy that America is built on: that of the American Indians. I've often heard it pointed out that had even a small percentage of the Indians unified and not fought each other they could have easily destroyed the European colonizers. It was their dividedness that gave Europeans the ability to destroy them. Honestly, I find this to be the great tactic of the American corporate oligarchy. In America there are very very rich men. The system is basically set up now for them to get richer while most of the world plunges deeper into poverty. It is the very thing that the God of the Old Testament despised. The very thing that Jesus sought to combat. I find that most Americans fluctuate between disgust at the richest of the rich and a deep lust to be the richest of the rich. We think it boils down to political policies that are swayed by one of the reigning political parties. We get involved in a polemical debate over which party is better, which is moral, which is right. We divide. Rich people conquer.

Democrats are funded by rich men who would like to protect their interests. Republicans are funded by rich men who would like to protect their interests. Whoever wins calls the shots based largely on who paid for them to get there. Lobbyists and blackmail agents run our government. Lobbyists and blackmail agents are typically funded by people with large sums of capital. Either way, our "representatives" have significant influence to represent people other than me and you. Generally, they are significantly persuaded by people who keep them in office via campaign contributions.

Yet, on the street most people seem to think that there is this cosmic battle between the GOP and the Dem's. The people who influence our country the most don't care which party wins. Either way, they most likely maintain their control and likely are putting policies in place to extend it.

So, bring it back around to postmodernism. Postmodernism realizes there is no one who does not have an agenda. There are no "noble" parties, only parties seeking to protect assets and gain further control. People can bring morality into it. Perhaps the Republicans are the more moral party. Unless your agenda is to care for the poor and disadvantaged, and provide them with EQUAL opportunity. Are the Democrats better? Not if you place some value on the traditional Western concept of family. Do the extremely wealthy care? No, they have money controlling both sides. So, in the end I can vote for whatever party I think is right, and rich people will still systemically place policies that make me poorer and them richer.

There is such a thing as power in numbers, until the numbers are divided up neatly against each other. We spend all our time declaring each other to be the problem, failing to acknowledge the problem of greed that all are sick with, yet some in their sickness have decided to go out with a bang . . . a bang which kills all the others around them.

Unfortunately postmodernism does little to nothing to offer up any solutions or new options. It only points out that no one is innocent. Were I a billionaire, I would do what is necessary to preserve my fortune for my own sake, and slightly more nobly, for my kids sake. Yet, around the world poverty would increase.

Maybe that's what Christians have failed to learn. Jesus doesn't want us to vote for him. He wouldn't run in the first place because he is not out to protect his own interests. He gave up his interests for the sake of the worst society had to offer. He sought his Father's interests . . . , but! what were those, except the interests of humanity as a whole???

Let's make no mistake: Jesus was a Jew. I imagine he wanted Rome out of his home pretty bad. Did he fight for this?? Actually he did quite the opposite, because he realized that if the Jews won over Rome, Humanity lost. God lost. Jesus forsake his own religious/political law to touch the untouchable. That's right he went against his own country and helped out foreigners. He did this to the spite of his own countries immigration policy. Did this mean less jobs for Jews in their own homeland? Who the hell cares!! Jesus considered himself nothing. Rights were wrong in his eyes. He did not seek privilage, but a restored humanity.

I believe more and more that Christianity is not apolitical, but anti-political. It is seeking what very well might be the opposite of what is good for yourself. It doesn't matter who is right or better. It matters who will set the world right and better those other than himself. This extends beyond the countries own citizens, which sucks . . . if you're a citizen. Citizenship: a political means of securing one's own interests.

No, this is not practical. Dying on a cross to better the world is not really practical either, which I guess is why myself and basically few others who call on his name actually live up the glory of the one we claim.

What the heck are we talking about . . . . part 2

"Radical"

Note the similarity to the word "radish". The word means 'root'. We've made the radical a synonym for extreme, but this isn't really the case. It carries the connotation of starting over from the beginning; taking whatever it is back to its 'roots'. A radical change in government would mean we start over beginning with a revision of even the philosophy that brought us to where we are at. It means leaving no structure unquestioned or untouched. Few changes we make are actually radical. Possibly extreme, but rarely radical. We rarely return to the beginning and revise everything that has brought us to the point we are at. Churches of Christ for example preport to have been a 'radical' movement. Supposedly, we went back to the start and returned to the practices of first century Christianity. Supposedly. Truthfully, we made an extreme move toward congregational autonomy, but otherwise maintained all the presuppositions and practices we could from Catholicism and Protestant tradition. We continue to support a professional ministry, we meet in buildings, we kept the 'sacramental' character of baptism, communion, and Sunday gathering. All in all we did very little that was radical.

"Called"

I say this all the time uncritically. It's strange (and cool) the way we have not specified what this means. Is it a verbal calling? Possibly, though this is more rare. Is it an inclination of personality? Could be. What form does this take, to be called?

In Hebrew the word for prophet is 'nabi'. This most easily translates into . . . you guessed it . . . 'one who is called'. In turn of being called, the prophet proceeds with a specific call to the people of God.

For the purpose of clarification a prophet is not someone who predicts the future. Historically it appears that most of the specific predictions of OT prophets we put in the mouths of the Prophets retrospectively. Not that the prophets did not give predictions at all. One can easily assume they were preaching the downfall of the unrepentant city. This is historically certain, but it is doubtful that they guessed the manner of such catastrophies. These were most likely included in such books years later after the events had gone down.

So what does that imply? Should you throw your Bible away? No. The value of prophets is not their ability to tell the future. Their value is that they speak truth. Their value is that they are called by God to communicate God's truth. Thus they are given the title "called one": nabi.

This is why I find it odd that we so casually will say we are called. Yet, I don't think this is wrong at all. We belong to one of the three prophetic religions. The very nature of our faith is best described as a 'calling'. In essence all who believe in YHWH/God/Allah are thus called, and therefore prophetic. In knowing God we know the ultimate reality. We know truth. We have a relationship to the Ultimate, the Eternal. We are given the ability to discern his will, and are so called to communicate this to the world. We are called for the purpose of calling the world into the intended order. Like my friend Jonathan explained, the synagogue/church/mosque serves the purpose of restoring Eden in the world we touch. This is because we know God, and in knowing him CAN listen to/experience his "call". In essence we are all prophetic because prophecy is the very essence of our faith. Consider that next time you read 1 Cor. 14 (esp. v.18-19). As we learn to speak truth, we embody what we are ultimately "called" to be. We need not concern ourselves with predictions or insight into the secrets of mens hearts. We only need to communicate God's heart, and in that we have achieved the highest form of prophecy. It is something that 5 year olds can do. There is no need for special training. Only humility and openness are required.

"Raised"

I'll leave this mostly as food for thought. What is the ascension? Would the ascension be properly described by saying that God RAISED Jesus to his right hand in heaven? So, when Paul, who offers the earliest account of the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15, says Christ was raised by God, what type of resurrection does Paul describe?

The way Paul speaks of it through the course of the chapter, resurrection does not seem to imply that the body we are in during life continues after death. We inherit a new body when we, like Christ, are raised from death by God. So, therefore do we believe that Jesus' body came back to life, or instead was his presence described at the beginning of chapter 15 in the form of a non-earthly body?

Could Jesus being raised exclude the resuscitation of his corpse?

Natural?

Consider with me, what do we mean when we call things "natural", "unnatural", or "supernatural"?? I've heard more people than I can count lately speaking of miraculous occurances. They always attatch the phrase "supernatural". As though a "natural" miracle would not count . . . for some reason it has to be beyond nature's capacity. Why? The funny thing is, that nature, at least in the sense we're speaking of here, is a modern category. Before the Enlightenment, nature was not an entity that the miraculous had to go beyond.

Martin Buber says there are two ways to approach reality. Objectively where all becomes an object which is limited and subject to manipulation. Or, relationally where all things are unbounded and free. Objectively we call all things "It". Relationally we call them "You". In pre-Enlightenment culture, and still in many Easter cultures today, the tendency was to refer to most things relationally. Especially Nature was understood this way. In modern thought we have objectified Nature. Now Nature is an enclosed sphere of chemical reactions and laws that make life predictable and explanable.

The only way to refer to God is relationally. He cannot be objectified: that would be the essence of idolatry. So, it is totally understandable from this standpoint why people of faith would attack the concept of "nature" to prove that God is not contained by its laws and expectations. But, this goes back to the fact that we're taking up the inferior perception of nature and attacking it.

Truthfully, Nature is much more that we know. It is much more that science can rationalize. The details of nature are so subtle, that they refute any reduction to a chemical formula. All people eventually come to the vast difference between a scientific reduction of a sunset explaining the refraction of light rays by atmospheric particals, and the indescribable experience of the human senses at dusk. (and I imply more senses than the 5 we discuss in Biology classes) Ultimately objectification can be wonderful in its usefulness, but death when it substitutes for relationships.

Nature when unbounded by objectivity need not exclude God, in fact it can't. God is the prevading presence by which nature becomes more than nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen cycling through the heavier elements. It is God's very breath causes the order which we have categorized into the laws and interpretations of nature. They were God's laws first. This God also breaths into us his very presence which causes our nature to relate, and so experience the unlimited potential of all life experiences. And, for this the realm of the miraculous IS natural, and more. Miracles are not against nature, and they are above it (meaning supernatural) only as far as we have reduced nature to a lifeless chemistry set.

I don't think the world we live in needs testimony that there is a realm outside of our own that is above nature. I think we desperately cannot live without the realization that nature is in fact more than we understand. We need to know that God is in nature, and therefore nature is free from our laws.

When we experience a healing, a connection to the spiritual world, a liberation of the soul, we are experiencing what Nature truly is: the unbounded realm in which God moves and in which, relationally, all things are possible.

One problem I have is how people of faith down natural healing. I'm a nurse so maybe its a vested interest. Here's my question: My friend Marcos found an article about fasting which revealed that long fasts can actually cure cancer. Eventually your body's process of purification will attack unhealthy cells. This is a "natural" process, so does that exclude God? The fact that our bodies appear to be geared towards this activity, does that mean God was any the less responsible?

Here's another question: when someone is 90 and has achieved peace with their life, is death natural? I agree 5 year olds should not die. I agree fathers should live to see their grandchildren. Yet, is death a part of God's will, ever? I'm interested to hear what people think. Personally, I think death in it's proper place is natural, and by that I mean that it is not God's will that we live eternally in this earthly existence. I believe that death is the course of nature for those who have lived fully and achieve God's purpose in their lives. Yet, for a child, death is un-natural. Therefore I have no problem with Jesus raising the child, or Lazarus. Both died in circumstances which I can understand as unnatural.

I've been listening to this preacher named Bill Johnson. He feels the need to point that all sickness is from the Devil. I can follow to a certain extent. I agree that "Health" is the will of God. Health is natural. It is the way things are meant to be. But, health is relative also. There is a different standard for "health" depending on if a person is 20 or 80. I wish this would be recognized.

We studied hospice care in nursing school. Hospice care is a matter of being with people as they walk through the reality of death. Hospice is a process of helping people close the final chapters of their life. They must make ammends, say goodbyes, find peace with their actions. As an outsider the process is sad, but surprisingly normal as well. To me this seems to be part of nature, as they pass on to what lies beyond this existence.

I can't wrap this one up neatly. Furthermore, it needs to be a conversations anyway. I can say nothing definitive of Nature and what is natural. I can only say that it is much more than we know, or will ever know. Responses are welcomed.