Weblog

Tuesday, 10 November 2009

  • The first "I love you"

    I met my fiancée when a friend and I crashed a house party for one of those emergent-type, hip churches in LA. She was the hostess. She caught my attention when we started talking about education, health-care, and politics. Hip churches can actually talk about these things, I suppose. Anyway, I was determined to get her number before I left, so I stayed and offered to help clean her dishes. That worked! We've been dating for a little over 13 months now.

    This past weekend, I took her down to wine country to propose. She had no clue. We did a tasting at a particular winery we enjoyed last time we went down there. After the tasting, we walked through their front lawn. She didn't know that I had arranged a private lunch in their gazebo. In fact, she was thinking that we shouldn't be there. That's when I told her the table was for us. I thought she would have noticed the Perrier bottle-turned-vase (her favorite vase).

    It was there, in the middle of wine country, under the blue sky, and just before taking a knee to ask her to marry me, I told her for the first time, "I love you."

    "I love you, too," she happily responded. When I bent to one knee and proposed, she took her time (what she is calling, "taking in the moment," and what felt more like an eternity), then said, "yes."

    Since this all happened this past weekend, I'm still glowing. She's also still glowing, and has new hobby: staring at her ring. It's nice that all of our family and friends are 100% behind us. Not a single person is opposed. There's no drama, just excitement. I couldn't have asked for anything better.

    ::Esteban::

Wednesday, 04 November 2009

Tuesday, 03 November 2009

  • Martin Luther: A Nimble Bull in Heat

    Written by Joel, my best friend and second-favorite theologian

    Paul Ramsey once described the way a Christian handles himself in politics as analogous to how “porcupines make love… carefully.” True to his conviction, Ramsey wrote with a nuanced poignancy, carefully weighing and prudently selecting every word. Martin Luther, on the other hand, brought a different style to political discourse. Luther’s prose is bold and hyperbolic; he makes wide sweeps in as brass of means as possible. His theological works are more comparable to a bull in heat than a porcupine making love. This style of Luther’s leaves him very susceptible to criticism from the modern readers who often value a more sensitive approach to theological and ethical discourses.

    Though Luther’s words are bullish in establishing his arguments, his arguments themselves are nimble. To appreciate the often overlooked nimbleness of Luther’s prose, a deeper analysis is needed, an analysis concerning the nature of the “harmony” articulated in Luther’s claim: “In this way the two propositions (non-resistance and responsibility of protecting the neighbor) are brought into harmony with one another.” Luther’s “harmony” enables the Christian to serve his neighbor through government in a limiting framework.

    Luther’s writing is nimble. He balances the Christian’s willingness to serve with his willingness to suffer. Luther is too shrewd of a thinker to provide a paradigm that would allow a Christian to conform to an unbelieving world through unmitigated devotion to Caesar, which is often a gross misreading of Luther. Therefore, the Christian willingness to suffer which underlines Luther’s harmony often places the Christian at odds with the powers that be.

    When Luther's bull comes out dancing with statements such as, “If you see that there is a lack of hangmen, constables, judges, lords, or princes, and you find that you are qualified, you should offer your services and seek the position,” and, “It is both Christian and an act of love to kill the enemy without hesitation, to plunder and burn and injure him by every method of warfare,” it may seem absurd to propose that the bull is careful not destroy the china shop. Even in these words, Luther provides a highly nuanced and limited account of how a Christian can interact with the governing authorities. Yet the failure to see Luther as offering a vision that limits Christian participation in the politics of power is to completely miss that Luther understands his very act of writing Temporal Authority: To What Extent it Should be Obeyed as an act of civil disobedience in and of itself:
    I can and will no longer just look at my ungracious lords and angry nobles; I shall have to resist them, at least with words. And since I have not been in terror of their idol, the pope, who threatens to deprive me of soul and of heaven, I must show that I am not in terror of his lackeys and bullies who threaten to deprive me of body and of earth.
    The boldness that offends our sensibilities and leads to modern dismissals of Luther’s writings is the same boldness that demands the modern reader give a closer read.

    Ironically, Luther’s boldness provides his ethics both nuance and backbone. Luther’s poignancy is only revealed in a holistic reading of Luther that juxtaposes his boldness in declaring the legitimacy of government with his equally bold realism concerning the "rascality" of governing authorities, the necessity of suffering when government oversteps its bounds, and the bold refusal to negotiate Christian identity with the powers-that-be.

    Though much of Luther’s critique against government occurs when government meddles with articles of faith, it is important to note his paradigm’s effective witness when government commits political vice. This is seen poignantly when a Christian must refuse to participate in a war, rather than enter a fray simply to acquiesce to a Caesar’s whims. “Question: What if a prince is in the wrong [when entering a war]? Are his people duty bound to follow him then too?Answer: No, for its no one’s duty to do wrong.” The agenda for Luther’s paradigm is not how a Christian balances his identity between being a Christian and a citizen of the state. The paradigm of harmony simply addresses the question of how one is to be a Christian; it is the internal claims in Christianity that must be negotiated, because Christians have no interest in compromising their particular identity by negotiating with secular identities.

    Luther provides a paradigm of thought that establishes harmony between Christ’s non-resistance and interest in the neighbor’s well-being in a violent world. The language he employs is appropriately bold for the realities to which he speaks. These words of “harmony,” which balance suffering and service, can only be appropriated by those who have accepted the necessity of losing their lives in order to commune with Christ and his world through suffering.

Monday, 02 November 2009

  • All Saints' Day: A Sermon

    A Sermon for All Saints' Day based on John 11:14-54.

    “If you have ever lost someone very important to you, then you already know how it feels, and if you haven’t, you cannot possibly imagine it.” This quote is from the opening paragraph of the first book of A Series of Unfortunate Events. The author, who writes dark tales for children under the pen name “Lemony Snicket,” explains that this is how the Baudelaire children felt when they became the Baudelaire orphans after both their parents died in a house fire.

    Those words of how difficult it is to convey a sense of loss fit with today’s reading. Martha is hurt when she sees Jesus. She says, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” A little bit later she called for her sister Mary who repeated that same accusation, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.”

    God is often accused for being too late.

    Then Gospel of John tells us in verse 33, “When Jesus saw [Mary] weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, he was greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved. He said, ‘Where have you laid him?’ They said to him, ‘Lord, come and see.’”

    Then we are told in that shortest of verses that “Jesus wept.”

    God, the Great Unmovable, the Great Constant, is moved. Jesus loved Lazarus. He weeps at the grave of his friend. Yes, this makes sense in Jesus’ humanity, but if anyone believed in the resurrection, it should have been Jesus. Why would a person who believes in the resurrection and the glory of the life to come, let alone God himself, weep? How can God, who promises to one day wipe away all tears, weep over this man, Lazarus?

    Grief is not unchristian. It is a sorrow that does not go away. Grief stays with you. In fact, not only can we NOT expect grief to go away completely, we also shouldn’t want it to. For as the person you loved is not returned to you, how can you stop grieving? The loss remains, and so does the sorrow.

    Do you remember Job? Job was the man in the Old Testament who never cursed God even though he lost all he owned and lost all his family, including his wife and children. When Job’s life struggles ended, God gave him a new family and a new life. But do you think that Job never grieved over the loss of his first wife or of his children?

    Grief stays with us, yet it can and does change. And so we pray not for an end to the grief, but for the unbearable sense of loss to be replaced by a sorrow we can bear. We pray that in our grief we can start to pick our heads up and learn from the lives of those who have walked with us and before us.

    Just as Christ wept at the grave of the friend he loved, we too weep over the graves of those we love. And it’s not only that we miss them, it’s also that we don’t want them to be forgotten. We don’t want their names to be erased from the face of this earth. So, in a sense, we find ourselves living for them. We live trying to make sure they are not forgotten. We live to make sure that what they lived for is not forgotten.

    And so on this day we call All Saints Day, we take time not only to remember those whom we loved, but also those in our Christian ancestry. Without the Spirit’s work in their lives, we may have never heard the message of God’s good news through Christ Jesus. In fact, after the sermon, Pastor James and Lydia will come forward and sing us an absolutely beautiful song about remembering. After they sing, I will invite you to come forward to light a candle for a person who has died recently. That’s what these candles are for.

    I would like to share with you about two people, in particular.

    As we gather in this sanctuary, I’m reminded of a man who I wish I could have known. Ray C. was once an elder of this church. He died last year. Ray was a friend to many of you and many others who used to fill this church.

    Ray had a full life. He wasn’t always a believer, but when he finally came to see the promises of God in Christ, he devoted all of him to the Lord’s service. I’ve been told he was creative and artistic. In fact, he designed the stained glass windows here in our sanctuary. These stained glasses remind us of Ray. And as we look at Ray’s life and work, we are reminded of Jesus.

    And that’s how it goes. That’s how it should work. That when we pass, we somehow leave behind not only a legacy of who we were, but a reminder of who God is in Christ.

    And so it also is with the life of a 2nd century martyr named Justin.

    Justin was a philosopher. One day an old man started talking to him about philosophical issues and then told him about Jesus. Through this conversation, Justin became interested in knowing more. So he started learning about the Hebrew prophets from the Old Testament, who lived before the philosophers Justin had studied. He said the prophets spoke “as reliable witnesses of the truth.” They prophesied of the coming of Christ, and their prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus.

    Justin said that afterward “my spirit was immediately set on fire, and an affection for the prophets, and for those who are friends of Christ, took hold of me; while pondering on his words, I discovered that his was the only sure and useful philosophy. . . . it is my wish that everyone would be of the same sentiments as I, and never spurn the Savior's words." Justin sought out Christians who taught him history and Christian doctrine, and then "devoted himself wholly to the spread and vindication of the Christian religion."

    Justin continued to wear the cloak which identified him as a philosopher, and he taught students in Ephesus and later in Rome. An historian notes that "he engaged in debates and disputations with non-Christians of all varieties, pagans, Jews, and heretics."

    Justin's conviction of the truth of Christ was so complete, that he died a martyr's death somewhere around 165 A.D. Justin was beheaded along with six of his students.[1]

    There were tears upon hearing of the death of Ray C. There were tears shed for Justin, his students, and several thousand early church martyrs. There were tears at the grave of Lazarus.

    Yet these deaths had more in common than tears. These deaths were the deaths of those who were friends of Christ Jesus. And the promise which Jesus made at the grave of Lazarus is a promise that can be made at the grave of every friend of Jesus.

    Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.”

    Then he asks, “Do you believe?” Ray believed, Justin Martyr believed, Lazarus believed.

    For those of you who believe, this is the promise we base our lives upon. And if you haven’t yet come to know Jesus, the question still remains, “Will you believe?”

    You see, God has invited everyone to return to Him, trusting in His promises. It may seem that God is delayed, but surely God will deliver.

    The words from Lemony Snicket are true: “If you have ever lost someone very important to you, then you already know how it feels, and if you haven’t, you cannot possibly imagine it.”

    So, yes, we grieve, we cry, we mourn the loss of our loved ones. But we may become a people who can also say with Paul, “Death has been swallowed up in victory." "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?" The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

    To rearrange the words of Lemony Snicket, I believe what’s also true is that “If you have ever known the love of Christ, then you already know how it feels, and if you haven’t, you cannot possibly imagine it.”

    May the lives of those we remember, help us to trust all the more deeply in the promises of Christ Jesus.



    [1] http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/justin.html

Saturday, 31 October 2009

  • Unsolicitied Opinions

    We are a part of a society that likes to talk, talk, talk –- unceasingly expressing unsolicited opinions. We put our opinions out into the world as if the world depends on them, as if people desperately need to hear from us.

    I'm more and more convinced that we talk so much because we hope to be noticed and to see if people will like us. We speak from our insecurities. We hope our unsolicited opinions will be received with praise and acclamation. “How wise you are!” If our opinions are rejected, no worry, we just call everyone who rejected us ignorant. Instead of considering the validity of our opinions we simply forge ahead without modification, judging others for not being as intelligent as us.

    This is a problem. In a society of talking heads on TV and blogs like this one all over the Internet, we rarely take time to listen. We are so busy talking that we rarely slow down enough to seek wisdom.

    I’ve been reminded by one of TheGreatBout's recent posts, which lists many poignant words from the book of Proverbs, to seek God’s wisdom –- to keep my mouth shut longer, my ears open longer, and my temper under control. Check out the verses of wisdom and may they find their way into the core of who you are. May you allow the Spirit to work within you to bear the fruit of wisdom, all for the glory of God in Christ.

    ::Esteban::

Thursday, 29 October 2009

  • Your Favorite Xanga Posts (and Discussions)

    I was just reading an older post from someone on Xanga I recently found. I was very interested in the discussion that ensued from the post. It made me realize that there are so many great conversations happening here that get lost (or are never found by most).

    Have you been a part of some really good discussions on certain posts? What are they? What are some of your favorite or most memorable discussions on Xanga? Drop us the link.

    ::Esteban::

Friday, 23 October 2009

  • Being Duped by Psychotherapy

    For Christians, the therapeutic language and culture of America has superseded the language and culture of the church. That is what I want to address. I will attempt to articulate a few reasons for my growing discomfort that the therapeutic language and culture is more formative for American Christians than the language and culture of the church.

    An article by James D. Hunter (2000) entitled, "When psychotherapy replaces religion," exposes the syncretism woven deeply into the fabric of faith for American Christians. For example, when a Presbyterian youth minister was asked, " 'Do you ever invoke the name or the example of Christ' with your work with kids on moral issues?" he said no, because " 'For these kids, the symbols [of the faith] don't mean anything.' "

    We must ask, how can Christian "symbols" mean anything unless someone, or a community, teaches them, specifically the church? The youth in that church will grow up speaking the language of the therapeutic over and against the language of the Christian faith. Or, even worse, they might believe that the therapeutic language is Christian!

    In other numerous examples, Hunter reveals that Christians are not comfortable with using the languages of their faith, such as sin, and are quick to teach the importance of therapeutic language such as self-esteem to their relationship with God and others. Even conservative Evangelicals, like James Dobson, have done this when it comes to parenting or marriage advice. The selective mixing of languages is not harmless. My concern is that it distorts the language of the Christian faith and morphs it into just another institution for the current configuration of the self.

    The Current Configuration of "The Self"
    With the coming age of postmodern thought in America, the modern views of the self are being critiqued as social constructions of the cultural ideologies and agendas of the United States. How we understand "the self" in America is not based upon science or a universal understanding. It is cultural and as such will fade away. Christians interested in psychology, psychotherapy, or cultural understandings of "the self" would do well to consider the insights of the critiques coming from these historical studies.

    One of the biggest players in this critique of the American self and the current practice of psychotherapy is Philip Cushman. In both his book, Constructing the Self, Constructing America (1990), and article, "Why the self is empty: toward a historically situated psychology" (1990), Cushman applies social contructionist theories to the field of psychotherapy and its subject, the self. Using this method, Cushman argues that the present American configuration of the self is "empty":
    It is empty in part because of the loss of family, community, and tradition. It is a self that seeks the experience of being continually filled up by consuming goods, calories, experiences, politicians, romantic partners, and empathetic therapists in an attempt to combat the growing alienation and fragmentation of its era.
    The empty configuration of the self needs transformation according to Cushman because it inherently leads to self-disappointment. However, the field of psychotherapy is a product (and beneficiary) of the same configuration and its current techniques and theories only perpetuate the problem of the empty self. Essentially, psychotherapy is a process of transmitting and encouraging state-sanctioned cultural values, as opposed to a process of uncovering causation for objective illness within the self-contained individual. It is not a scientific endeavor, but a moral one.

    From Religious Direction to Therapy
    Cushman’s analysis highlights that previously valued community traditions within the United States became fragmented and lost relevancy due to the assumed "scientific" nature of psychology. He is not alone. Many other voices within the world of psychotherapy suggest that the loss of community traditions, specifically the church, as the dominant culture that shaped Americans gave way to the new moral tradition of psychotherapy.

    Victor Frankl (1984), speaking of Western Europeans and Americans, stated that "man has suffered another loss in his more recent development inasmuch as the traditions which buttressed his behavior are now rapidly diminishing," and as a result "people who nowadays call on a psychiatrist would have seen a pastor, priest or rabbi in former days." The role of the psychotherapist, again, due to the scientific appearance of psychology, has trumped the importance and relevancy of the pastor (or other church leaders) for Christians as one who has wisdom regarding the healing of life’s emptiness and inherent dissatisfactions.

    Duped
    Christians, like the youth minister mentioned above, along with the rest of society, have been duped into believing that when we go to see a therapist we will be receiving help that is founded upon reliable science. Thankfully, Christian and non-Christians alike are revealing how false such a perspective is. What we receive when we see a therapist is moral training disguised as "neutral" and "scientific."

    In being duped, Christians have rejected the use of our own moral traditions and instead relied upon the moral tradition of psychotherapy. But now that we can see psychotherapy for what it is, do we still want to use it? Is it too late to return to the traditions of the church? I'm afraid that the Christian tradition has lost so much meaning for Christians as compared to the American therapeutic tradition that we don't know how to return. So, what we'll do is keep trying to convince ourselves that the therapeutic is really the language of the God and the Bible.

    Have you noticed the therapeutic language and culture in your church? How does this analysis shape your understanding of why it is happening? How do you respond to it?

    ::Esteban::

Thursday, 22 October 2009

  • Overthinking "The Three Little Pigs"

    From my second sermon ever delivered (2007).

    If you find that in your life you are not surviving the crashing winds of life and temptation, but you are trying hard to fight against them, let me say that maybe the issue is not your effort, but your material. The first two pigs could have tried as hard as they wanted to build a bigger and better house of straw, but it would never hold up to the wolf. The pigs would need new material to keep the wolf out.

    So the same goes with us. We can keep trying harder to survive the temptations to live outside of God’s ways as revealed in Jesus, but if we are employing the methods and advice of our society, we will never attain it.

    As great as the story of The Three Little Pigs is, its self-stated moral is a lie. It says that simply trying harder to do one’s best will make you survive the wolves of life. The real moral of the story is that trying harder when you’re using the wrong technique or perspective wears you out or makes you susceptible.

    Too many of us are worn out, and we still believe we just need to try harder. Jesus says it's about building a right foundation.

    Three Little Pigs

    Once upon a time there were three little pigs and the time came for them to leave home and seek their fortunes. Before they left, their mother told them, "Whatever you do, do it the best that you can because that's the way to get along in the world.”

    The first little pig built his house out of straw because it was the easiest thing to do.
    The second little pig built his house out of sticks. This was a little bit stronger than a straw house.
    The third little pig built his house out of bricks.

    One night the big bad wolf, who dearly loved to eat little piggies, came along and saw the first little pig in his house of straw. He said, "Let me in, Let me in, little pig, or I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house in!"
    "Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin," said the little pig. But, of course, the wolf did blow the house in and ate the first little pig.

    The wolf then came to the house of sticks.
    "Let me in, Let me in, little pig, or I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house in!"
    "Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin", said the little pig. But the wolf blew that house in too, and ate the second little pig.

    The wolf then came to the house of bricks.
    "Let me in, let me in," cried the wolf, "or I'll huff and I'll puff till I blow your house in!"
    "Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin," said the pig.

    Well, the wolf huffed and puffed but he could not blow down that brick house. But the wolf was a sly old wolf and he climbed up on the roof to look for a way into the brick house.

    The little pig saw the wolf climb up on the roof and lit a roaring fire in the fireplace and placed on it a large kettle of water.

    When the wolf finally found the hole in the chimney he crawled down and KERSPLASH right into that kettle of water and that was the end of his troubles with the big bad wolf.

    The next day the little pig invited his mother over. She said, "You see it is just as I told you. The way to get along in the world is to do things as well as you can." Fortunately, for that little pig, he learned that lesson. And he just lived happily ever after!

Sunday, 18 October 2009

  • Words that remind me why

    I will sing for the meek
    For those who pray with their very lives for peace
    Though they're in chains for a higher call
    Their mourning will change into laughter when the nations fall

    In spirit poor
    In mercy rich
    They hunger for Your righteousness
    Their hearts refined in the purity
    Lord let me shine for them
    Lord let me sing
    Lord let me shine for them
    Lord let me sing


    -Rich Mullins, "I Will Sing"

Friday, 16 October 2009

  • Interracial Coupled Denied Marriage License

    I had to share this. What do you think about the judge's decision? Does the judge have a point about the children? Have you noticed that children from interracial couples are not easily accepted by black and white communities on the whole? Or is that a cover up? I couldn't find substantial research on it. It's a new area of focus.

    (AP) NEW ORLEANS A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

    "I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

    Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said.

    Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

    "There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," Bardwell said. "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."

    If he did an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said. "I try to treat everyone equally," he said.

    Bardwell estimates that he has refused to marry about four couples during his career, all in the past 2 1/2 years.

    Beth Humphrey, 30, and 32-year-old Terence McKay, both of Hammond, say they will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.

    Humphrey, an account manager for a marketing firm, said she and McKay, a welder, just returned to Louisiana. She is white and he is black. She plans to enroll in the University of New Orleans to pursue a masters degree in minority politics.

    "That was one thing that made this so unbelievable," she said. "It's not something you expect in this day and age."

    Humphrey said she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell's wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples. Bardwell suggested the couple go to another justice of the peace in the parish who agreed to marry them.

    "We are looking forward to having children," Humphrey said. "And all our friends and co-workers have been very supportive. Except for this, we're typical happy newlyweds."

    "It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009," said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzmann. She said the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 "that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry."

    The ACLU sent a letter to the Louisiana Judiciary Committee, which oversees the state justices of the peace, asking them to investigate Bardwell and recommending "the most severe sanctions available, because such blatant bigotry poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the administration of justice."

    "He knew he was breaking the law, but continued to do it," Schwartzmann said.

    According to the clerk of court's office, application for a marriage license must be made three days before the ceremony because there is a 72-hour waiting period. The applicants are asked if they have previously been married. If so, they must show how the marriage ended, such as divorce.

    Other than that, all they need is a birth certificate and Social Security card.

    The license fee is $35, and the license must be signed by a Louisiana minister, justice of the peace or judge. The original is returned to the clerk's office.

    "I've been a justice of the peace for 34 years and I don't think I've mistreated anybody," Bardwell said. "I've made some mistakes, but you have to. I didn't tell this couple they couldn't get married. I just told them I wouldn't do it."

soy_esteban

  • Visit soy_esteban's Xanga Site
    • Name: Esteban
    • Gender: Male
    • Member Since: 2/27/2009

Pulse

  • My (friend's) Luther post might be of interest to the church-state junkies out there! :)
  • I've been all out of sorts lately. Apologies for the empty blog and non-responses recently. Life in the flesh is kicking my butt.
  • I don't think I've fully explained my thoughts about psychotherapy and Christianity. I keep modifying my posts. Too much to say...