Dogma Blender

2 Peter 1:19-21 (New King James Version)
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Verse 20, above, is rendered in the NIV this way:

20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation.

As I meditated on this, I was thinking about the problems of interpretation down through history and to the present day. Our own -- or our "private" -- interpretations often become dogma.

Here is the dictionary.com explanation of dogma:

1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

Above, the NIV translation makes the most sense, that Peter is trying to say that the Word of God is not man-made. But I also like the King James rendering because it suggests that prophecy and biblical mystery is enigmatic and not subject to human interpretation -- that is, it does not or should not yield intractable dogmas.

The history of the church is one of trying to establish reliable dogma:
There were the early arguments over the identity and deity of Christ that led to the establishment of the Trinity doctrine; there was the huge split between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox; there was the later Protestant Reformation that led to schisms of all kinds and establishment of new dogmas; the ideas that became dogmas like Arminius' and Calvin's teachings; and the rise of dogmatic movements within Pentecostalism, Fundamentalism, and even Evangelicalism -- including the prophecy dialogs that rose from John Nelson Darby. The list of the establishment of competing dogmas is enormous.

In the Wiki article, it says of dogma: The term derives from Greek δόγμα "that which seems to one, opinion or belief" and that from δοκέω (dokeo), "to think, to suppose, to imagine"

Basically, dogma is our suppositions raised to absolutes. These become organization-foundations that are more immovable than God Himself.

But the church is moving into a new milieu ahead: a world of disintegration and reintegration.

I thought of this illustration: If you take a blender and put in various ingredients, then turn it on slowly, the pieces begin to disintegrate before they reintegrate into something else. At the close of the Modern Age, the blender was beginning to be ratcheted up and absolutes began disintegrating. The future -- what we now call post-Modern because we don't know what it will be -- looks to be a reintegrating into a new concoction.

With regard to church dogmas, this pressure places them under intense examination and a resulting disintegration into something else. These dogmata may have institutions behind them, but the dogmas themselves are breaking down. What will emerge is not a new dogma, but an integration of what the faith is, what it really means. It doesn't mean the dissolution of what was past, but a reconstitution that points to what it really is.

We have interpreted scripture until we are blue in the face, so to speak. We have strained it through various grids, tweaking as we went, and even going to war over it. In fact, often, our goal was to establish the complete credibility of our suppositions about the message of Jesus Christ. That would make us secure, and security is not actually faith. What we need more now is the ability to adapt.

The Modern Age was about nationalism and nation-states: the post-Modern world is about globalism. The mindset of the Modern Age was redux and "we-they" thinking: but the new world is "both-and". The blender is a-stirrin'.

Idiot Winds

The tale of Markopolos vs. Madoff doesn't bode well for
future regulation of financial industries, but it may yield
clues as to how to make the SEC (and others like it) more
effective. Larry Kudlow thinks this guy should head the
SEC -- and I say why not? That would be a very Lincoln-
like thing to do. Here, SEC, is your new boss, your former
biggest nightmare. He is the Eliot Ness of the New
Untouchables.

That said, the dude could become just as frustrated as the
head of such an organization because, though Madoff
should have been obvious, nobody flat cared that much.
He seemed to be making green. He was impregnable.
Still, yes, whoever appoints such people, I'd say Markopolos
is your man.

Where's the Madoff money? At present, 950 million has been
found. That should ease the gobs of investors who used
Madoff a bit. Also, the total lost may be more like 25B, not
the 50B he told his sons.

Markopolos, though, is saying there are 14 more Madoffs out
hiding in the weeds in Europe. Be careful, scammers, there
are also terrorists in them thar hills. Financial terrorists and
human bombs hiding out together -- now that's a potential
threat.

Meanwhile, we're finding out that some of our legislators
are above the law and are exempt from paying the taxes
they exact from us. Shades of Rome in decline!

Apparently, the only thing anybody can agree on in this
new stimulus is to tackle the infrastructure. Then do it!
Get it started. You don't have to start big, especially if it's
all fluff -- a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying
nothing.

Idiot Wind -- Dylan

Someones got it in for me, they're planting stories in the press

Whoever it is I wish theyd cut it out quick, but when they will I can only guess.

They say I shot a man named gray and took his wife to Italy,

She inherited a million bucks and when she died it came to me.

I cant help it if I'm lucky.

People see me all the time and they just can't remember how to act

Their minds are filled with big ideas, images and distorted facts.

Even you, yesterday you had to ask me where it was at,

I couldnt believe after all these years, you didnt know me any better than that

Sweet lady.

Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your mouth,

Blowing down the backroads headin south.

Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth,

Youre an idiot, babe.

Its a wonder that you still know how to breathe.

I ran into the fortune-teller, who said beware of lightning

that might strike

I haven't known peace and quiet for so long

I cant remember what its like.

Theres a lone soldier on the cross,

smoke pourin out of a boxcar door,

You didnt know it, you didnt think it could be done,

in the final end he won the wars

After losin every battle.

I woke up on the roadside,

daydreaming bout the way things sometimes are

Visions of your chestnut mare shoot through my head

and are makin me see stars.

You hurt the ones that I love best

and cover up the truth with lies.

One day youll be in the ditch, flies buzzin around your eyes,

Blood on your saddle.

Idiot wind, blowing through the flowers on your tomb,

Blowing through the curtains in your room.

Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth,

You're an idiot, babe.

Its a wonder that you still know how to breathe.

It was gravity which pulled us down and destiny

which broke us apart

You tamed the lion in my cage

but it just wasnt enough to change my heart.

Now everythings a little upside down,

as a matter of fact the wheels have stopped,

Whats good is bad, whats bad is good,

you'll find out when you reach the top

Youre on the bottom.

I noticed at the ceremony, your corrupt ways

had finally made you blind

I cant remember your face anymore,

your mouth has changed,

your eyesDont look into mine.

The priest wore black on the seventh day

and sat stone-faced while the building burned.

I waited for you on the running boards,

near the cypress trees, while the springtime

Turned slowly into autumn.

Idiot wind, blowing like a circle around my skull,

From the Grand Coulee dam to the capitol.

Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth,

You're an idiot, babe.

Its a wonder that you still know how to breathe.

I cant feel you anymore,

I can't even touch the books you've read

Every time I crawl past your door,

I been wishin I was somebody else instead.

Down the highway, down the tracks,

down the road to ecstasy,

I followed you beneath the stars,

hounded by your memory

And all your raging glory.

I been double-crossed now for the very last time

and now I'm finally free,

I kissed goodbye the howling beast

on the borderline which separated you from me.

Youll never know the hurt I suffered

nor the pain I rise above,

And Ill never know the same about you,

your holiness or your kind of love,

And it makes me feel so sorry.

Idiot wind, blowing through the buttons of our coats,

Blowing through the letters that we wrote.

Idiot wind, blowing through the dust upon our shelves,

We're idiots, babe.

Its a wonder we can even feed ourselves.

BTW, the best version of this song, by far, was the live
performance by Dylan with the Rolling Thunder Review

(click on the purple)
on the album "Hard Rain".

Christophobes vs. Homophobes

You might want to view this video of Rick Warren (click here) for some clarification of his views on the sanctity of heterosexual monogamy. Of course, I agree with him. I also agree that he has the freedom of speech to state his beliefs. What is glaringly absent here (and in much of the heat coming from gays and liberals) is a discussion of the real issue, civil rights. Warren says he loves gays, so his problem is not "homophobia." It is a civil problem. The pressing issue is the question: Do gays have the right to the same civil protections and advantages governing and given to monogamous hetero couples?

Most evangelicals say no, because they are afraid we are redefining marriage and giving state sanction to it, thus offending God. But no state can redefine what God has set in place. The problem we have here is our concept of equality under the law. "Equality" doesn't favor Christians or anybody else, in the civil sense. If people are law-abiding and commit no obvious crimes, they can do what they want under constitutional protection, and should enjoy the rights given them in our secular, pluralist society. That's where the real debate is here. It is not theological, it is political and social.

I don't know if Rick Warren has thoroughly vetted this angle of the debate. It wouldn't seem so. I think many evangelicals entertain the myth that we live in a Christianized society and all laws should be dictated by theological principles. Warren says he loves everybody. I'm sure he does. But actions speak louder than words, and, in this case, the problem is about justice more than biblical morality. Can you have true justice in this world when you create a legally mandated caste system of preferred people and pariahs? Aren't you saying, "I love them, but I don't want to give them any rights?" Isn't that an Old Testament system of sequestering people? Maybe God says, "I don't agree with this, but under the present systems, treat one another with fairness." Is the way to lead gays to Christ to persecute them and place them in leper colonies?

The other problem here is the evidence of science. Christians have branded homosexuality as purely a behavioral problem (free will). Science seems to be finding that they tend to be born that way (predestination). The argument then is resolved, for many, by saying you are genetically predispositioned to have gay preferences and can't help it. Thus, you are a minority that enjoys all civil rights afforded anyone in a democratic/pluralistic society. Theology, in our society, generally fails to trump science, since science is objective (hopefully) and theology is more subjective. We can believe something, but we can't force that belief on everyone else. We Christians need to "deal with it" and focus our attentions on doing the business we are commissioned to do: love our neighbor as ourself.

Thy Will Is Complex

If It Be Your Will by L. Cohen

If it be your will

That I speak no more

And my voice be still

As it was before

I will speak no more

I shall abide until

I am spoken for

If it be your will

If it be your will

That a voice be true

From this broken hill

I will sing to you

From this broken hill

All your praises they shall ring

If it be your will

To let me sing

If it be your will

If there is a choice

Let the rivers fill

Let the hills rejoice

Let your mercy spill

On all these burning hearts in hell

If it be your will

To make us well

And draw us near

And bind us tight

All your children here

In their rags of light

In our rags of light

All dressed to kill

And end this night

If it be your will

If it be your will.

Comment: No question, Leonard Cohen was one of the great singer-
songwriter poets. He often wrote, actually, scathing commentaries on
religious belief, particularly Christian. This one seems to plumb the
depths of the problem of predestination. Paul said, "Who has resisted
His will?"

Romans 9:
18 So God does what he wants to do. He shows mercy to one person and makes another stubborn.
19 One of you will say to me, "Then why does God still blame us? Who can oppose what he wants to do?" 20 But you are a mere man. So who are you to talk back to God? Scripture says, "Can what is made say to the one who made it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "—(Isaiah 29:16; 45:9)

So even a skeptic like Cohen can see the problem.

Saving Little Richard

"If God can save an old homosexual like me, He can save anybody."
~ Little Richard


No doubt what Little Richard is saying here means a lot to him. He is kind of saying, "I've been one bad dude, folks, and God has saved me."

The question that bugged me for a long time was, "What exactly do we mean by the word saved?" I began to notice that what people meant by "being saved" was in the eye of the beholder. The line between the "saved" and the "unsaved" was not easy to find. In the eyes of some, there are not many saved at all. In their eyes, often, the vast majority of the human race is headed for everlasting hellfire and brimstone, and that would likely include poor Little Richard here who has deluded himself. In other words, it was hard for me to pin down what exactly being saved meant.

I finally reconciled this, in my own mind, by observing that, according to scripture, salvation comes by faith and it is a gift of God. But the actual arbiter of this condition was confession: "No man can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit." That is, our confession is what identifies that we are followers of Jesus no matter what anybody ~ including other Jesus followers ~ thinks of us. I am not judged by you. My confession, like Little Richard's, is that Jesus has saved me.

But that doesn't go far enough. We've seen the signs in our lifetime that say "Jesus saves." And we saw the graffiti that said He saves green stamps (which nobody saves any more.) The point is, to say "Jesus saves" is an open-ended question: what does He save?

The answer is, He saves or is saving the world. He is in the process of saving this whole thing that has been, like Little Richard, polluted and destroyed. But Christians have tended to deny this. We sift this good news through a screen that says, "Only the righteous will be saved." Yet, there is none righteous, no, not one. That includes you and me and Little Richard too.

So is Jesus saving a part or the whole? And if He is the savior of the whole shebang, what difference does it make if we follow Him? Because, in following Him, we are way ahead of the curve and we are in on a secret. But it is not to remain a secret. The truth is, "Jesus saves it all." We were ruined and Jesus is the savior: that's the good news (or the gospel, if you will.)

The salvation issue becomes uncomplicated and not up to the arbitrary criteria that various persons and leaders might construct from their "private interpretations." This also frees us, as believers, to love our neighbors, our fellow human beings. We are no longer bringing a message of condemnation to the world, condemning everyone who doesn't fit our worldview. What we are really saying is, "Do you see this world? It is passing away. God is replacing it, through Jesus Christ, with a far superior system."

This is fabulous, and hard for many to grasp. In fact, for many it sounds like heresy (a belief that offends God.) I wasn't comfortable with it either. But now I can say to Little Richard: "You're right, bro. God can save anyone. In fact, He has."

I have long said that it was not the birth of Christ but the cross that was the crux of history. Whatever happened before, it all changed when Christ died and rose again. How radically did it change? We don't see it all yet. But, like Paul said, "Every knee shall bow." Wow.

Confessions of a Riffaholic

Indulge me here (or not): I was thinking about my weaknesses. It mystifies me that people can endure Swing. He don't give a damn about any trumpet-playing band/ It ain't what he calls rock'n'roll...We're the Sultans/ Play Creole... ~ Dire Straits

I don't know whether it was the Kinks or the Who that finally defined, for me, what music was. I still watch the British bands to see if anybody still gets it. I watched The Who documentary the other day about the tragedy that was their journey. But it was defined, for me, in those first four chords of "Can't Explain" or the odd two-chord riff of "You Really Got Me." It was all jellin' at that point back in '65. Even more minimal was the three-note mantra of "Satisfaction." That song was number 1 around the world for a year. It's still on the radio every other day, though it is almost mindless. But that, for me, was the definition of why God made the electric guitar. It seemed like there was no limit to what you could do, and I think Keith Richards has been proof. Even today, one of the best things going has been The White Stripes, with Meg White's monotone thud and Jack's one guitar at gutter-level distortion, working riffs under his tortured singing (Jack works with Loretta Lynn, by the way, famous friends). There is a market for this called "garage band." Jack White is very rich.

I wanted to see it in Christian music, but never did (with the exception of X-Sinner). That kind of energy was somehow considered ungodly. God likes boring. But that approach to music still gets my head banging. It just doesn't seem to get any better.

The other side of the coin was Bob Dylan who was really working a different field (from anybody). He single-handedly revolutionized the lyric and no-one ever topped him. He opened up a whole new world, though, and his copycats are still legion (I'm one of them). He made it possible, lyrically, to go where no man had gone before.

Of course, concerning guitar genius, who was more influential than Hendrix? His acid-influenced blues extravaganzas launched the electric guitar into a new nirvana.

I realize there is greatness outside of rock, but I am still stuck inside of that Mobile. I still listen for that certain something that hit us all back in '65. I didn't mention The Beatles because I think they were actually a rare chemistry that channeled it all into something quite astounding. There are umpteen big rock acts today that are still "Beatleesque" like Jet, the Foo Fighters, The Shins, Panic At The Disco, British Sea Power, and on and on. Lennon, for me, was the hinge-pin, but McCartney is the total genius as was their producer, George Martin. Lennon-McCartney was really the Rodgers and Hammerstein of the rock age.

I don't think it is just some nostalgic yearning for my youth: it was a defining moment in musical evolution. It was an injection of creativity into the musical spectrum that I don't think was rivalled before or has been realized since. I even hear extensions of it in today's Country music. I think we now worship to it. And the anointing landed on those lads and lasses back in '65. Or, as Kiss once sang: "God gave rock 'n' roll to you..." It was amazing to have been there. Thank you, Lord.

So, yes, I am a weak man. I got a rock-hard boogie on my finger and I can't shake it off. The other day I was in the store and I heard the opening chords to "You Really Got Me" and the Chuck Berry solo by Dave Davies and I was transported. I always think: "That's it!" So I am still on that musical quest ~ the search for the next riff exploding into a glorious train-wreck. There is probably something better up ahead somewhere, but I ain't heard it yet.

A few weeks ago, a Kansas rock station sponsored a battle of the bands to see who Kansans thought was the best rock band ever. The laurels finally went to AC/DC. Why? Because they got it. They single-mindedly devoted themselves to THE RIFF. They never backed down. They could hear, from down in Australia, the echoes of The Who and The Kinks, and they threw themselves totally into that zone, really only producing one endless song that reverberates to the ground of the soul, the growling chord that expands into an orchestra of tone and hangs there like a sonic Aurora Borealis.

Historic Population Wipe-outs

"I'll be right back, Eve. I need to use the restroom."

A recent AP article says this:

Wells is director of the Genographic Project, launched in 2005 to study anthropology using genetics. The report was published in the American Journal of Human Genetics.
Previous studies using mitochondrial DNA — which is passed down through mothers — have traced modern humans to a single "mitochondrial Eve," who lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago.
The migrations of humans out of Africa to populate the rest of the world appear to have begun about 60,000 years ago, but little has been known about humans between Eve and that dispersal.
The new study looks at the mitochondrial DNA of the Khoi and San people in South Africa which appear to have diverged from other people between 90,000 and 150,000 years ago.
The researchers led by Doron Behar of Rambam Medical Center in Haifa, Israel and Saharon Rosset of IBM T.J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, N.Y., and Tel Aviv University concluded that humans separated into small populations prior to the Stone Age, when they came back together and began to increase in numbers and spread to other areas.
Eastern Africa experienced a series of severe droughts between 135,000 and 90,000 years ago and the researchers said this climatological shift may have contributed to the population changes, dividing into small, isolated groups which developed independently.
Paleontologist Meave Leakey, a Genographic adviser, commented: "Who would have thought that as recently as 70,000 years ago, extremes of climate had reduced our population to such small numbers that we were on the very edge of extinction."

My comment is this: The Genesis text does not easily jibe with these kinds of numbers. We have a biblical chronology in two ancient texts that veers considerably from this scientific speculation. Who is correct, then: ancient scribes who wrote down what they learned from oral tradition or modern scientists skrying the contents of the DNA puzzle? Neither method of dating the human prehistory would seem to be completely accurate; but the emergence of DNA information is certainly intriguing and plays with our assumptions about these things.

What we do have here is the possibility of fluctuations in populations of the developing homo sapien. This means that there were possible near wipe-outs in that long and arduous journey of man. Further, it would be possible that a real flesh-and-blood man named Adam could have come on the scene in one of those population dearths. He would then have provided us with both a symbol of all humanity as embodied in one man and as an actual person whose existence was passed on by oral tradition.

The rest of the story gets a bit murky back there. We can't really count on "facts" at that point, so we are left to speculate. Still, Adam need not be dismissed as a fairy tale.