Tao Te Ching 66

Why do the hundred rivers turn and rush toward the sea?

Because it naturally stays below them

He who wishes to rule over the people must speak as if below them

He who wishes to lead the people must walk as if behind them

So the Sage rules over the people but he does not weigh them down

He leads the people but he does not block their way

The Sage stays low so the world never tires of exalting him

He remains a servant so the world never tires of making him its king

 

Program Seeks to Rehabilitate Sex Offenders

Click on “listen.”

 

Theological Skeleton (Part 3)

So how does omnipotent and benevolent God react to opposition if and when it occurs? There are, in my understanding, only two broad alternatives: either continue being benevolent or quit. There is no way to rule out the possibility that God just gets tired of the whole mess and withdraws benevolence. This is in fact what certain Hebrew traditions claim did happen in some instances, most notably the composite flood account in Genesis. But here omnipotence again plays a key role.

Our proposed omnipotent being, God, would have known of the possibility of opposition before creation. While it is possible for such a being to a bring forth distinct creation and only sustain as long as it is not too ‘frustrating,’ it is also possible that to choose to take the good with the bad and endure the potentially ‘frustrating’ consequences of such creation.

We can define this endurance of frustration with the term ‘long-suffering’ or ‘forbearance.’ This endurance is in effect God’s subjection of God’s own ‘comfort’ to the harming-to-God will(s) of creation. Such endurance is not motivated by fear or external oppression. If it is in fact done, it is done with the confidence of an omnipotent being. Thus the reaction of an omnipotent being, who chooses to remain benevolent to opposition, is confident endurance.

 

Disturbing the Poverty

MIAMI (Reuters) - Police in Florida have arrested an activist for feeding the homeless in downtown Orlando.

Eric Montanez, 21, of the charity group Food Not Bombs, was charged with violating a controversial law against feeding large groups of destitute people in the city center, police said on Thursday.

Montanez was filmed by undercover officers on Wednesday as he served “30 unidentified persons food from a large pot utilizing a ladle,” according to an arrest affidavit. The Orlando area is home to Disney World and Universal Studios Florida.

The Orlando law, which is supported by local business owners who say the homeless drive away customers but has been challenged in court by civil rights groups, allows charities to feed more than 25 people at a time within two miles of Orlando city hall only if they have a special permit. They can get two permits a year.

Police collected a vial of the stew Montanez was serving as evidence.

Police spokeswoman Barbara Jones said in an e-mail it was the first time anyone had been arrested under the feeding ban.

Montanez was charged with a misdemeanor.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0517193520070405

 

Theological Skeleton (Part 2)

So, very broadly, I’m defining benevolence as acting in an other’s interest. And for someone to be genuinely other, he or she must have some measure of a self-determining will, that is, a certain amount of power is wielded outside of the omnipotent being’s control. (I’m not sure, but I think this is where I officially leave Western orthodoxy behind.)

So far I’ve referred to an omnipotent being but not God. This is because the label ‘God’ for many is taken to mean a being with all sorts of characteristics and qualities many of which I am unwilling to attribute to God and nearly all of which I am not convinced are essential or foundational to God. So far all I am claiming about God is omnipotence and benevolence. An omnipotent but non-benevolent ‘God’ is quite conceivable, but such a ‘God’ is choosing not to use any of this unlimited power in a meaningful way.

According to my conception of meaning the only meaningful thing for the omnipotent being to do is create some other willful being(s). Since this other will is not determined by the omnipotent, there is the possibility that this other will not choose to do what the omnipotent being chooses. So not only does the omnipotent being create ‘uncontrolled’ power, it also creates the potential for conflict. Benevolence implies the potential for both harmony and conflict. If and when conflict does occur, the omnipotent being has a choice: continue to allow other power or discontinue that power. In other words, not only is initial benevolence a choice, as the omnipotent being relates to the other, benevolence very possibly must be (repeatedly) renewed or stopped.

 

Theological Skeleton (Part 1)

Let’s start with omnipotence and benevolence. These are two characteristics of God that describe different categories. Omnipotence is the answer to the question what is God. Benevolence is the answer to the question who is God. I’m going to try to start with just these two assumptions and see if I can make a case for some striking similarities between the ethic taught by Jesus and what we should expect from this starting place.

But first I want to explore the idea that benevolence actually follows from omnipotence. An omnipotent being existing by itself has nothing interesting to do except share power. Any possible creation without the sharing of power is merely an extension of the omnipotent being. It is simply the omnipotent being essentially remaining in isolation. Omnipotence becomes trivial if the omnipotent being does not allow at least provisional power outside of its control. But if provisional power is taken away arbitrarily, omnipotence remains trivial and uninteresting. Only the allowance of at least potentially opposing power creates a meaningful ‘other,’ and only the creation of a meaningful other is anything more than an extension of the omnipotent being. So the omnipotent being is left with two basic choices: no creation (or a controlled creation) with no meaningful others or a creation of an other or others given the ability to act in opposition to the omnipotent being. This is acting in the interest of another rather than oneself. This is benevolence.

 

Some more quotes from Apostles’ Creed

We inoculate the world with a mild form of Christianity so that it will be immune from the real thing. -E. Stanley Jones

Christians have never killed as willingly as when they have been asked to do so for “freedom.” I take it, therefore, that one of the most important challenges facing Christians today is to remember that the democratic state is still a state that would ask us to qualify our loyalty to God in the name of some lesser loyalty. -Stanley Hauerwas

When it comes to the point where the majority decides what constitutes truth, it will not be long before they take to deciding it with their fists. -Søren Kierkegaard

Christianity is the story of how the rightful King has landed in disguise, and is calling us all to take part in a great campaign of sabotage. -C. S. Lewis

 

Compare and Contrast

Just think about the context of these passages. Goverment will always say that it is doing good while it takes on authority - even while destoying the people it conquers.

And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called ‘Benefactors.’ But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant.”

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

 

Believer’s Pledge

One thing about Baptists that I like a lot is their idea that each individual can and must come to their own decision about relationship with Jesus. One thing that has grown frustrating to me about Baptists is how an American flag is displayed in nearly every Baptist church in America. So let’s conduct a little thought experiment.

What if America was perfect? What if it was perfectly just, strong, safe, and free? Let’s call this perfect government the kingdom of God. Even with respect to this perfect government shouldn’t we expect Baptists to allow their children to come to their own decision about their allegiance?

If participation in the perfect kingdom of God described by Jesus is only to be accepted by the free choice of the individual, then allegiance to the far less perfect government of America should be voluntary as well. But I still have vivid memories of the Fourth of July, Memorial Day, and Vacation Bible School when children were told to repeat the Pledge of Allegiance.

Interestingly, the original pledge (without “under God) was written by a socialist Baptist minister as part of an advertising campaign.  Here’s the Wikipedia page.

 

Søren on Judas

“You will get a deep insight into the state of Christianity in each age by seeing how it treats Judas.” -Søren Aabye Kierkegaard

How did Jesus treat Judas? Was Judas lost forever? Wouldn’t some straightforwardness avoided the pain in Judas’ future? What are we to learn from Judas?

I don’t know. I’m in more of an asking mood than answering one.