finding Monsuun | est. 2005

“For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes. But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course that’s Moses, not Jesus. I haven’t heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere.”

ht to my good friend Jeff at Sharoute

According to my interpretation of the scriptures he did not. In fact, he stated quite the opposite as recorded in Matthew 5:43-48 and in Luke 6:27-30. Do these statements relate to torture specifically. Absolutely not. However, they do relate to our relationships with our enemies. Deductively I reason the following: If terror is conducted by our enemies, then our role as Christians (followers of Christ, not the neo-political religious affiliation) is not to war with, to torture, to slander, to prejudice against, but to love our enemies — to love those that conduct terror.

But “America is not a Christian nation anymore” one might argue, and I would agree. We never have been, nor are now, a Christian nation. Founded on a smattering of Christian and masonic principles? - Yes. Looked upon by the rest of the world as a “Christian nation”? - Yes. But Christian we are? - No (see above argument alone for support - or take a moment and look around at the culture we live in). So then, if we are not a Christian nation one could argue that we are not bound by these statements made by Jesus, and I would agree. However, our country is currently headed by a President that very explicitly stamps himself with the Christian moniker. And though President of the United States he may be, his relationship with Jesus Christ should take precident over his role as Chief of State. As our relationship with the Christ should take precident over our role as citizens of the United States.

Do we live in the United States? - Yes. Are we safe and secure because of our government’s current war on terror? - We can believe so, yes. However, those of us who call Jesus our Lord, must follow the example laid before us–even if that means risking alienation and ridicule for our stance against torture. We are Christian Americans, not American Christians (more on that later).

Zach at Finding Rhythm has a great commentary on the recent torture legalization issue and provides a link to the website of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT) with the hope that his readers will sign their Statement of Conscience:

Torture violates the basic dignity of the human person that all religions hold dear. It degrades everyone involved –policy-makers, perpetrators and victims. It contradicts our nation’s most cherished ideals. Any policies that permit torture and inhumane treatment are shocking and morally intolerable.

Torture and inhumane treatment have long been banned by U.S. treaty obligations, and are punishable by criminal statute. Recent developments, however, have created new uncertainties. By reaffirming the ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as well as torture, the McCain amendment, now signed into law, is a step in the right direction. Yet its implementation remains unclear.

The President’s signing statement, which he issued when he signed the McCain Amendment into law, implies that the President does not believe he is bound by the amendment in his role as commander in chief. The possibility remains open that inhumane methods of interrogation will continue.

Furthermore, in a troubling development, for the first time in our nation’s history, legislation has now been signed into law that effectively permits evidence obtained by torture to be used in a court of law. The military tribunals that are trying some terrorist suspects are now expressly permitted to consider information obtained under coercive interrogation techniques, including degrading and inhumane techniques and torture.

We urge Congress and the President to remove all ambiguities by prohibiting:

• Exemptions from the human rights standards of international law for any arm of our government.
• The practice of extraordinary rendition, whereby suspects are apprehended and flown to countries that use torture as a means of interrogation.
• Any disconnection of “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” from the ban against “torture” so as to permit inhumane interrogation.
• The existence of secret U.S. prisons around the world.
• Any denial of Red Cross access to detainees held by our government overseas.

We also call for an independent investigation of the severe human rights abuses at U.S. installations like Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan.

Nothing less is at stake in the torture abuse crisis than the soul of our nation. What does it signify if torture is condemned in word but allowed in deed? Let America abolish torture now –without exceptions.

I have signed my name to this and if their Statement so moves you, I encourage you to do the same as well. Torture in most religions/cultures is perceived inhumane and it sickens me to know that our “Christian” legislators and President would endorse anything that goes against the love of our enemies that Jesus Christ taught while on this Earth–even under the guise of national security.

An article titled “Pilgrim’s Progress” occupies some serious space in the middle of Newsweek’s August issue. The title is fitting, if you’ve read the book, as Billy Graham “shares what he’s learned in reflecting on politics and Scripture, old age and death, mysteries and moderation.”

This article was touching and cast a humble light onto the man who “was consumed with preaching and with presidents” and how age, experience, and wisdom have changed his perspective on life and faith. The author quotes his daughter:

The lesson of age, Anne says, is this: “When you get older, secondary things, like politics, begin to fall away, and the primary thing becomes primary again—and for Daddy, the primary thing is, as Jesus said, to try to love God totally, and to love our neighbor as ourselves.”

May we learn this lesson before we reach our twilight. May we learn from his experience, placing secondary things far from those that truly matter.

Read the article here.

I recently read the article Are Churches Good Neighbors in the East Valley Tribune and it brought to memory a scrap that I scribbled while on my Pacific Northwest roadtrip with my wife. The basis comes from a conversation with an old friend regarding a quote from one of the authors of the book, The Shaping of Things to Come:

Would your community grieve your loss?

Or to expound, is your church so entrenched in its surrounding culture, that if it were to disappear it would leave a gaping hole of need–that the surrounding community would truly desire for the church to return because of the loving, compassionate, creative, faith-driven influence that the church had on it. Sadly, this is not the case for many metropolitan churches. Instead we find churches suing city governments and neighbors rallying against multi-use permit requests (see above article).

The problem and the solution comes down to love. Do neighbors complain when the church feeds the homeless? When it takes care of widows, the elderly, orphans? No. Neighbors complain when the church begins to assume a position of superiority–that the people in the surrounding community should have to bow to its whims and wishes. But if I remember the scripture properly, Jesus’ second greatest commandment is to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 22:39). And since so many churches love themselves so much, then there should be plenty of neighborly love to go around. That is, if those same churches are wholeheartedly following Jesus’ commandments.

So the next time you or your church decides to pursue an avenue of ministry, I implore you to discern whether your community would grieve the potential loss of your ministry or celebrate it.

And on an unrelated note and in my usual rant style:

Please do not wear the One Campaign bracelet (*note the yuppy reverend in the center) unless you truly support the movement either physically, monetarily, foundationally. Because if you only wear it because it’s the trendy, hip, Christiany, I-care-about-social-justice-issues thing to do, you would do more good to the actual cause (i.e. the thousands that die from AIDS every day) if you were to cut off your hand at the wrist and donate it for AIDS research. And yes, we can smell your bleeding insincerity from miles away.

I’ve already posted this at Inbreaking, but I thought I’d post the link to this article here as well.

“An early Christian manuscript, including the only known text of what is known as the Gospel of Judas, has surfaced after 1,700 years. The text gives new insights into the relationship of Jesus and the disciple who betrayed him, scholars reported today. In this version, Jesus asked Judas, as a close friend, to sell him out to the authorities, telling Judas he will “exceed” the other disciples by doing so.”

This is pretty big news and could potentially be the source of some intense debate in the semi-near future. The Gnostic tradition (of which the gospel of Judas is believed to have belonged to) was viewed as heretical by early Christian scholars and that continues today, albeit less intensely. I’m less inclined to be in opposition to the insights provided in this new document since I’ve already believed, for some time, that Judas was acting as an allowed part of God’s master plan. Does it matter if Judas betrayed Jesus at His own request? I really don’t believe so. What matters is that the Son of Man needed to be handed over to the officials in order that He be crucified. And that happened — whether that be at Jesus’ personal request, out of monetary greed, or out of Satanic possession is not essential to the Gospel.

I am excited to take a closer look at the entire codex, though, to gain a better understanding of the writings. You can check out the codex here.

quote via New York Times

As I learn and study and pray and grow, the defining line that has traditionally divided sacred from secular in my life is slowly, but consistently diminishing.

At first assumption, some may fret at this astonishing realization and fear that I am becoming worldy, compromising, overly secularized, or even overtly relevant. If that is the case, let me offer some clarification. While the line that separates sacred from secular grows thinner, the line that separates sin from righteousness is undoubtedly growing thicker. By thinking outside of currently accepted paradigms, I find I am no longer able to distinctly associate sinfulness with the secular and righteousness with the sacred. For you see, every day I find sin in that which has been called sacred and I find righteousness in that which has been deemed secular.

However, while sin and righteousness claim elements of both the sacred and secular, they cannot overlap. They cannot coexist. They are polar opposites. They are as Yin and Yang. They are of two seperate desires — one born of selfishness, the other of selflessness.

Sin is a permanent quality of this world as it currently exists — a world tainted by the Morning Star’s self-love and Adam & Eve’s desire for a knowledge equal to that of their Creator. Righteousness, while always vividly visible through the elements of nature and the relationship between God and His Chosen, was publicly and humanly embraced in the human/divine form of Jesus Christ and now continues in the human/spiritual form of the Church.

No longer can I place sacred and secular on opposite scales — for both are cultural gauges set within the bounds of this world and of this age. At the same time I am unable to allow sin to taint that which is righteous. I am a citizen of this world — born of this Earth and thus both elementally sacred and secular — but I am also a citizen of another world — born as a child of God and as such cannot be both sinful and righteous.

Thus if the righteous and sinful cannot co-exist, and if I am a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Kingdom is the dwelling place of the righteousness, then I must embrace all that is righteous and cast off all that is sinful. And if I am also a citizen of Earth then I must embrace all that is righteous within the sacred and secular — henceforth disavowing any segregation between the two and embracing all of the righteous qualities of sacred and secular humanity.