Politics in Religious Communities

A nation's politics take root even in religious communities. For Christians, we can say that the Church fails to be her own politics. I have been quite guilty of this myself. So, as part of of the guilty, let me caricature for a moment. After disagreeing, the Right end up insulting the Left and the Left end up praying for the Right. I have been prayed for and have insulted many times. Last week I was insulted and today I am praying for someone.

What is the Bible for?

Crusty Guy sent me a lecture yesterday by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, which is the highest position in the Anglican worldwide communion. Williams says that the Bible is first and foremost a public document, read to and for communities, calling them together, shaping them, and connecting them with the communities it has previously called, shaped, and connected. This community is most deeply shaped as a Eucharistic community: a community united in the remembrance of Jesus' death and the celebration of his resurrection. It was an insightful lecture.

It led me to ask another question: What is the Bible for? Does Williams' suggestion capture the whole of the Bible's purpose without remainder?

Let me also ask this, perhaps unrelated, question. I have heard from two people now, one a journalist, that if more people carried handguns the tragedy at Virginia Tech would not have happened. This is possibly true. What it does not prove, however, is that deterring such acts of violence would lessen violence altogether and make for a safer society, which is obviously of greater importance. The argument would have to go something like this:

1. Acts of violence are deterred by reciprocal threat of violence.
2. More people carrying handguns increases reciprocal threat of violence.
3. Therefore, an increased number of people carrying handguns at all times would deter acts of violence.

The irony, of course, is that in an effort to lessen violence, one has argued for an increase in the means, opportunity, and threat of violence. Methinks that rather counterintuitive.

Links....

So many good links today.

First, the Jesus Tomb story is unraveling. Some have wanted serious discussion around the possibility of the Tomb found in the Talpiot region to have been the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth, and they have received their wish. Unfortunately for some, it turns out that the audacious claims of some authors and bloggers are proving to be just so. Critical thinking really does go a long way. Let's hope this isn't slander! Thanks to Crusty Guy for sending me the link. I have said plenty about this issue and don't need to repeat my criticisms.

Second, Switchfoot's new video has Buster (Tony Hale) from Arrested Development in it. How awesome.

Third, like 'em or hate 'em, the Tories work with those some other Canadian leaders just wanted to be mad at. The Tories have broken some promises (taxing income trusts), delivered poorly on others (wait times and hospitals), and done backroom stuff (David Emerson), but at least they govern. Politics is about getting done what can be done and this is good news for environment.

Fourth, two party leaders, Stephane Dion and Elizabeth May, have agreed not to have their parties run candidates in the other's riding. Seriously? Give me a break. If you have to have so much strategery (and that's what it is) to get elected, then get in another area of public service.
Good for Jack Layton to call them out on it. Bad for Dion and May to call a press conference to announce their tricks.

Fifth, I like this song--Mad World by Gary Jules.

Sixth, if Don Imus getting fired is appropriate, which it might be, why in this weird world does rap music go uncriticized? If you want to hear the most offensive material for women, African American women especially, read rap lyrics--by both men and women.

The Futility of Gossip

For relationships to exist, there must be communication. To be related to someone means to share something (a last name, a set of experiences, a piece of land) and to communicate literally means to hold in common. As a result, where there is no sharing, nothing held in common, there is no relationship. One of the most powerful, but ordinary practices held in common is speech. We communicate, we hold in common, we share by speaking and listening to the speech of others. Your closest friends are almost invariably the ones with whom you speak most deeply. Your levels of conversation reveal the level of friendship.

One of the cruelest forms of communication in speech form is gossip. Another's expense becomes the source of sharing for (at least two) others and a new relationships is built on the back of someone else. The person who is talked about is sacrificed for the sake of relationship between the gossipers. You see this all the time: inter-office politics, schools, administrations, and churches.

The amazing thing about gossip is that it will generate new and sustain old friendships. There are friendships that hold in common the practice of sacrificing another person. Sacrifices will allow (small and large) communities to live in peace, at least temporarily. There is one significant problem, though. The New Testament is clear that only one sacrifice is of eternal efficacy: that of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. His is the only back on which a lasting community will be built; all other relationships built on sacrifice other than his will not last: they stand condemned and should be repented of.

A Consideration of Original Sin

The doctrine of original sin considers how every human being is born with an unnaturally natural bent to selfishness and sin. (By this I mean that it wasn't always and will not always be this way; being human only entails this sin nature in our current state of unrighteousness, or imperfect righteousness. So, Adam and Eve would not have had this sin nature pre-Fall.)

I believe that all humans are born into sin and that the sin nature is relationally constructed. That is, I believe both that babies will be selfish, no matter how sanctified their parents, siblings, etc., and I also believe that this bent is relationally constructed. How is this the case?

It is indubitable that human genetics impact who we are. It is also indubitable that humans are more than their genetics and that genetics can change over time. Human relationships, falling short of perfection, required certain levels of selfishness from their participants for survival. Over time, this selfishness literally became ingrained and bred into the genetics of offspring. So, original sin is both genetic and relational. But that's just a temporary opinion. I'm sure my mind could be changed on it.

What does it matter? It matters in that modeling healthier and more loving relationships for children limits the amount of effect original sin may have on them. It also means that your grandchildren may be slightly less selfish if your kids suffer less from this virus of sin.