Could we just claim the kingdom to enter? Children had to be claimed in order to have value and be relevant to society. Following that line of thinking, does the kingdom also have to be claimed to be relevant? If the kingdom isn't claimed can it have any actual value?
Its hard to make this connection. Thinking that one only has to be child-like almost seems easier than sorting out the mess that apparently comes with sifting through the technical meanings or what the original text in scripture actually says.
In thinking of the kingdom as one would a child of the time:
Those children who were not claimed were considered non-persons, " a biologically functioning piece of flesh," but nothing more. They were valueless without someone to validate their existence. If we choose not to validate the existence of God's kingdom, is it also valueless? When a child was born, Roman society had the right to determine what the child was worth. Do we as a society also have the right to determine what the kingdom is worth?
It seems like a stretch. It seems a little offensive (maybe? I don't really know). Many people think "Kingdom of God" and it is instantly put on a religious pedestal. There are some things you just don't say in regards to it. BUT, are we, as God's beloved, what makes that kingdom valuable? Almost in a patron-client type relationship, does our stand as "kingdom" or "non-kingdom" people add or detract to the kingdom's value?
Definitely less of a headache to think that Christ wanted us to have child-like faith...
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
#5 - Roman Remedies
In thinking about how to deal with an issue like a Roman, I came to a few conclusions:
- Romans have a very limited concept of defeat and failure. It is simply something that happens to others when a Roman decides what they want. The understanding that a Roman could fail on the battle field or an attempt at something else was difficult to wrap one's head around. They were so confident in their abilities that they offered gods (a seemingly higher power) the chance to defect in order to survive (seem a little cocky?). - Therefore, it would seem that Romans would have one of two opinions in regards to change or issues:
(a) Romans wouldn't have them. Why would one change or have a problem with a strong society that was successful already? Challenging the system wouldn't really make one a good Roman.
(b) They would adopt the same strategy as they do for battle. Completely overwhelm and annihilate any opposition.
- It seems that the actual issue would have very little to do with how it was dealt with. It would be systematic and effective.
- Romans have a very limited concept of defeat and failure. It is simply something that happens to others when a Roman decides what they want. The understanding that a Roman could fail on the battle field or an attempt at something else was difficult to wrap one's head around. They were so confident in their abilities that they offered gods (a seemingly higher power) the chance to defect in order to survive (seem a little cocky?). - Therefore, it would seem that Romans would have one of two opinions in regards to change or issues:
(a) Romans wouldn't have them. Why would one change or have a problem with a strong society that was successful already? Challenging the system wouldn't really make one a good Roman.
(b) They would adopt the same strategy as they do for battle. Completely overwhelm and annihilate any opposition.
- It seems that the actual issue would have very little to do with how it was dealt with. It would be systematic and effective.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
#4 - Great Expectations
Before I walked out the door this morning for class, I put on pants, a shirt, shoes, etc. I didn't do it because they are particularly comfortable or give me a "survival advantage." I put them on because I got fussed at for streaking around the pool one too many times as a toddler and because being dressed when walking out the door is generally a social requirement. Even the most mundane aspects of life are governed by social constraints, selecting "right" from "wrong" and creating separation between people.
Now, how does this relate to Jesus and the Gospels?
In the discussion about the leper, it was brought up that having leprosy was not the man's problem. However, when purity codes were established that placed lepers out of the realm of acceptable social interactions it became an issue. When society saw something as unacceptable, it became sin in their eyes. Where is the connection from "separation from God" that leads to separation from society? Does society view themselves higher than is right?
What would we do if no one was around to segregate people into acceptable and unacceptable? What if we weren't conditioned to partition society into right and wrong as we do?
Now, how does this relate to Jesus and the Gospels?
In the discussion about the leper, it was brought up that having leprosy was not the man's problem. However, when purity codes were established that placed lepers out of the realm of acceptable social interactions it became an issue. When society saw something as unacceptable, it became sin in their eyes. Where is the connection from "separation from God" that leads to separation from society? Does society view themselves higher than is right?
What would we do if no one was around to segregate people into acceptable and unacceptable? What if we weren't conditioned to partition society into right and wrong as we do?
Thursday, September 9, 2010
#3 - Faithing
Even the demons believe, but they do not have faith...
That concept always seemed a bit muddled to me. Growing up in a relatively normal American church, one is usually taught to think that believing in Jesus is almost enough to get you through the pearly gates and definitely enough to convince other people that you're a "christian." Having a walking around knowledge of the scriptures doesn't hurt either. Yeah there's the other requirements like living a good life and yadda yadda yadda, but you don't hear about that until after you get up from the altar.
Faith as a lifestyle, however, sharing in the death of Jesus and living as he did, now that creates a much larger separation between those that believe and those that actively faith.
I wasn't taught to see faith as an action. Faith is a concept or something one names their child, but a verb? No. I repeatedly caught myself during class thinking that "faithing" wasn't right. One doesn't faith. It just doesn't make sense. Trying to think outside my box, I started wondering what the impact of the Christian church could be if more people tried to step out of the box and actively faith instead of just having it.
That concept always seemed a bit muddled to me. Growing up in a relatively normal American church, one is usually taught to think that believing in Jesus is almost enough to get you through the pearly gates and definitely enough to convince other people that you're a "christian." Having a walking around knowledge of the scriptures doesn't hurt either. Yeah there's the other requirements like living a good life and yadda yadda yadda, but you don't hear about that until after you get up from the altar.
Faith as a lifestyle, however, sharing in the death of Jesus and living as he did, now that creates a much larger separation between those that believe and those that actively faith.
I wasn't taught to see faith as an action. Faith is a concept or something one names their child, but a verb? No. I repeatedly caught myself during class thinking that "faithing" wasn't right. One doesn't faith. It just doesn't make sense. Trying to think outside my box, I started wondering what the impact of the Christian church could be if more people tried to step out of the box and actively faith instead of just having it.
Friday, September 3, 2010
#2 - Perspective
What if the problem with TRUTH isn't that we have many perspectives, but that we have difficulty understanding what we see in the perspectives?
This question was asked in class this week and started me thinking about a few ideas.
Example 1 - Crusaders. We generally think of them as doing a good thing, attempting to bring western culture to those who didn't know of Christ. They are viewed as heroes. However, from the perspective of a Muslim, crusaders weren't such awesome characters. The crusaders invaded someone else's civilization in order to claim a "holy land" that they had no right to to begin with.
Example 2 - Jesus: Christ versus Rebel. Many areas of modern society believe that Jesus was the Christ, Messiah, and Savior. They believe by faith. When examined objectively though, it is hard to use faith as a justification for that belief. People believe that Jesus is the Son of God who was sent with a distinct purpose, and not just an ordinary human being who disrupted Roman society for kicks. They are comfortable with that belief. Therefore, the prospect that Jesus was not divine seems blasphemous. It is possible, however, that from an alternate perspective, Jesus may not have been quite the divine hero that scripture paints him as.
Now, I am not arguing either way on these examples. Perspectives to tend to blind people to the reality of a situation. No one wants to believe that their opinions are "wrong," however, at the same time no one really wants to find out what's right and true either. People become comfortable with what they think and believe, and that sense of comfort can often be used as a crutch, making it difficult to adapt their thinking process to understand other perspectives.
This question was asked in class this week and started me thinking about a few ideas.
Example 1 - Crusaders. We generally think of them as doing a good thing, attempting to bring western culture to those who didn't know of Christ. They are viewed as heroes. However, from the perspective of a Muslim, crusaders weren't such awesome characters. The crusaders invaded someone else's civilization in order to claim a "holy land" that they had no right to to begin with.
Example 2 - Jesus: Christ versus Rebel. Many areas of modern society believe that Jesus was the Christ, Messiah, and Savior. They believe by faith. When examined objectively though, it is hard to use faith as a justification for that belief. People believe that Jesus is the Son of God who was sent with a distinct purpose, and not just an ordinary human being who disrupted Roman society for kicks. They are comfortable with that belief. Therefore, the prospect that Jesus was not divine seems blasphemous. It is possible, however, that from an alternate perspective, Jesus may not have been quite the divine hero that scripture paints him as.
Now, I am not arguing either way on these examples. Perspectives to tend to blind people to the reality of a situation. No one wants to believe that their opinions are "wrong," however, at the same time no one really wants to find out what's right and true either. People become comfortable with what they think and believe, and that sense of comfort can often be used as a crutch, making it difficult to adapt their thinking process to understand other perspectives.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)