What are we to do with Christians wanting to do something about Islam?

"What are we to do about Islam?" is a question Mike Licona asked in this morning's Baptist Press News. By 'we', Mike is referring to Christians. His talk presupposes that 'we' are a corporate actor, an agent, with the capacity to 'do' something. It ignores the fact that Christians are divided into many different sects--there are Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Universalists, etc. But this forgetting of the sectarian differences that constitute late modern Christianity, is a move made possible by the figure of 'Islam.' In other words, in Mike's talk, it is the face of difference that helps solidify 'we' against them. And it is most certainly a 'we' versus them mentality that organizes Mike's thoughts. This becomes clear when he says:

The objective of many Muslims is to Islamicize the world. When a person or a country stands in the way of Islam’s efforts, these regard it as a “war on Islam.” This does not mean all Muslims hate Christians. For over a thousand years there have been many friendships between Muslims and Christians. However, Muslims who have befriended Christians have disregarded the Koran in the process, since it prohibits such friendships (Q 5:51).

So, in effect, it is Christian people and countries versus Muslims and their apparent efforts to 'Islamicize the world.' But in noting that Muslims do missionary work, Mike obscures the enormous time, energy and finances that evangelical Christians spend on missionary work. In some sense, then, what we are seeing here is a turf battle between Christianizing and Islamicizng agents. Mike is a Christianizing agent.

As a Christianizing agent, Mike articulates three ways of dealing with Islamic agents. The first:

Understand that we stand in the way of Islam intentionally. We believe that Islam is a religion that promotes false teachings about God. The Apostle Paul wrote, “But even if we (or an angel from heaven) should preach a Gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be condemned to hell!” (Galatians 1:8). Since Islam’s message differs fundamentally from the Gospel, it is clear what Paul taught regarding the fate of Muhammad and those who propagate Islam. A few years later Paul wrote, “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5). It is the responsibility of evangelical Christians to promote the Gospel of Christ to the exclusion of the core messages of other religions -- including Islam. In the eyes of Muslim Islamicists, this places evangelical Christians at war with Islam.

Again, 'we' is used by Mike to signify the boundaries between the Christian community and the Muslim community. These boundaries, as Mike says clearly, must exclude the 'core messages of other religions because 'Islam's message differs fundamentally from the Gospel.' But does it? Mike is using a logic of differentiation here. One might say that fundamentally, Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all three religions tied together through the figure of Moses. And, all three religions are monotheistic. So, Mike's logic of differentiation effectively obscures the historical links between the three religions. Mike is politicizing the relationship by hardening the boundaries into an a-histoircal configuration that fits nicely with the contemporary fears many Americans have of Muslims. Thus,

It is natural to feel anger and hatred toward Muslims who want to kill us. On a national level, we can support politicians who are committed to hunting down and destroying terrorists, upholding free speech, and standing in the way of Muslim thugs who declare war on everything which does not allow Islam to dominate. On a personal level, Jesus tells us plainly what our response should be:

"But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.... If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. ... But love your enemies, and do good ... and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men" (Luke 6:27-35).

So, in saying that it is 'natural to feel anger and hatred toward Muslims that want to kill us,' Mike is legitimating and normalizing this response over other possible responses. Other responses that include, turning the other cheek, as Jesus might have suggested. But more than that, Mike is conflating the US war on terrorism as part and parcel of a Christian response. This comes through most clearly when he says they want to 'kill us'--meaning 'us' Christians and 'us' Americans--and then when he appeals to a national-scale war-making effort. What is fascinating is how love and war work together in Mike's discourse. This helps construct the difference between the nation on one hand and the individual on the other hand and legitimate the violence that the nation perpetrates against others and the missionary work individual Christians do. In other words, as the nation wages war, realize that Jesus calls us to a "holy war" -- the difference is that our holy war actually involves, well, holiness, and does not involve weapons and violence.

Thus, 'we' are clearly different than them. 'We' are holy and they are not. 'We' are waging a legitimate war and they are not. 'We' have the right religion and they do not. But can these strict 'we'-they boundaries not be deconstructed? Is Mike not helping to cultivate fear? Is Mike not helping discipline those that call themselves Christian? I wonder if Mike has ever met a Muslim.

Deciding the Decider: A Struggle over Meaning

Just who is the "decider" or "decision-maker" is a concrete struggle over meaning that is playing out right before our eyes.

President Bush has remarked on a number of occasions that he is the "decider" and more recently, the "decision-maker." And he has been making decisions to back up his claim. A large number of people gathered in Washington, DC, yesterday to protest Bush's decision to send more military forces into Iraq. Many of their protest signs read: "We are the deciders." Many of the protesters and apparently many more people across the United States have been making decisions too. In the recent Congressional elections, the Republican controlled House and Senate were overturned, with the Democrats assuming the majority status in both chambers. And finally, there are Congressional leaders that are challenging Presiden't Bush's claim to be the sole decision-maker. Senator Arlen Specter said today in a news article: "I would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the sole decider."

It remains to be seen just who exactly the decision-maker is. Indeed, the fact that it is a site of struggle, suggests that it is not as stable and unquestioned as it once was in the US. I personally feel this to be a positive development. I tend to favor moves to disturb the taken for granted ideas and ways of being that make our lives seem unchallengeable and unchanging. Don't get me wrong, stability and predictability is nice and indeed, necessary to some degree. But it can also be stifling and stuffy. So, the struggle over the meaning of just who is the decision-maker is a struggle over stability and change, over two different visions of how political and social life should be organized and directed.

The Sovereign, the People, and the Congress represents the three-part divide we are talking about.

I am of the mind that in some contexts a sovereign decision maker simply makes sense. Some contexts, for instance, like in the heat of battle, a fascist moment where a split second decision about the course of events is appropriate, I think. I get scared of this sovereign decision maker on the national scale. The fascist moment can too easily grow into the fascist state of emergency that has no end in sight (e.g. the open ended "war on terrorism).

But at the same time, representative democracy has its problems. The often ephemeral whims of the people are no metaphysical guarantee for anything in particular. Too often, I feel, there is some charismatic person that can rhetorically "speak to the people" and in effect, tell them who they are. This is the anarchist critique of representative democracy. Sure, the people elect certain candidates, but the candidates are in some sense, constructing "the people" and "their constituency" by telling them who they are and who they can be in the future. In other words, perhaps I should speak for myself and not let someone represent me, to speak for me, to construct me and who I am for others to see. I fear a representative democracy risks being swept up into a populist, nationalist frenzy of identity politics.

Perhaps we would be better off by not clearly firming up who IS the decision maker for all times and places. Perhaps we would be better off by playing it by ear and deciding the decider based on the context.

Discipline: The Function of Fear in our Everyday Life

One of the topics that I research and write about is how fear operates in our lives. In a Baptist Press News piece this morning, an article entitled: "Fear and Confidence?" It is a short article that discusses the Biblical verse: “In the fear of the Lord one has strong confidence and His children have a refuge” (Proverbs 14:26). The author relates her fear of the lord to her fear of her father and how both fears help create a sense of confidence and security in her life. The relationship between fears and fathers comes together most clearly when she writes, " Yet I still can truthfully say that I had the kind of healthy “fear” of him [her father] that is like the kind we need to have concerning our Creator."

If we abstract back a bit and think about the logic of her argument and its implications, then we start to see the function of "fear" in her life--it helps produce a sense of security and confidence, but more than that, it produces a disciplined child/believer.

The evangelizing of fear plays a prominent role in local church operations and federal politics. Talking fear keeps Godly believers and citizens alike under control and within the limits set and maintained by the community--be it a congregational community or a national community.

Fear, in this sense, is a friend of the familiar--laws, elites, institutions, authorities--and a consort of the conventional.

What if we began to question what we were told to fear? What if we question our church leaders and political leaders about what they tell us to fear? What if we strive to have a different kind of relationship with God and the federal government that isn't based on fear?

I'm sure that a questioning gaze would be met by unquestioning resolve and certainty. For, it is much easier for those hierarchically above us to speak with confidence and authority to those lower down the ladder.

But watch. Try to discern how "fear" functions? What does "fear" promise? Does it make sense? Should we try to force it to be nonsensical? Should we try to make the standard use of "fear" to look strange to us? To do so, I think, can be the point of new possibilities.

In the name of God, what are you doing?

Religion in a person's life can play out in a number of different ways. Some offer this distinction, a "true Christian" acts differently than a "nominal Christian." People use this distinction to symbolize the difference between those that call themselves "Christian," but then go about living an ungodly life, and those that call themselves "Christian" and go about living Christ-like. The idea is that a true Christian tries to act godly because their belief is deep and permeates their lives, while a nominal Christian is a Christian by name only. That is a nice distinction used by insiders to distinguish between the kinds of believers. It is a mode of internal differentiation that attempts to set apart one group of Christians from another group of Christians.

But my general point still stands, I think, religion plays out differently in peoples' lives and not always for the better.

In this blog I return to the Narrative of Frederick Douglass. I quoted him at length a while back. Here is another powerful quote:

In August, 1832, my master attended a Methodist camp-meeting held in the Bayside, Talbot country, and there experienced religion....It neither made him to be humane to his slaves, nor to emancipate them. If it had any effect on his character, it made him more cruel and hateful in all his ways; for I believe him to have been a much worse man after his conversion than before. Prior to his conversation, he relied upon his own depravity to shield and sustain him in his savage barbarity; but after his conversion, he found religious sanction and support for his slave-holding cruelty.

What do we do in the name of God? What kinds of actions, policies, views, do we justify in the name of God? The debate should not be over whether he was a nominal or a true Christian. The debate should be on what he is doing in the name of God--and should he be held accountable for what he is doing.

A Fair Hearing for All Views...and other Jokes

An Open Letter to Kansas School Board

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.

The Dangers of Confusing Epistemological Knowledge for Revelationary Faith

In the recent issue of Christianity Today, perhaps the sharpest theological argument that I've run across was published. It was written by John D. Caputo, a professor of religion and humanities at Syracuse University, and the author of several books. He presents a post-modern, post-structural theology that is "radical" by mainline standards.

In this particular piece entitled, "On Being Clear About Faith," Caputo draws a distinction between epistemology in the standard form (e.g. systematic and empirical knowledge) and revelationary religious faith. Collapsing the two together, or confusing faith with knowledge, is dangerous. In his words:

Now I do not regard this as bad news for religion and revelation but as a way to keep them honest (clear—about themselves). I argue against confusing religious faith, or revelation, or religious witness (testimony), with knowledge.4 I am furthermore arguing that the slippery slope from religious faith to knowledge in the standard form epistemological sense is dangerous and it will make it difficult to avoid the exclusivism that both Stephen Williams and I reject. When people forget that distinction, when they do not keep uppermost the coefficient of "faith" (seen in part, darkly) that is attached to revelation, they are—on their best days—led to look with a certain benign tolerance or civility upon those who do not share their faith, or to describe them as "anonymous" members of their own faith, or even think to themselves that such people are not inclined to seek the light. My guess would be that we have no good reasons to doubt that the odds for seeking the light and fleeing the light are about the same for religious believers and for people who believe other things, that the distribution of good faith and bad faith among both groups is about the same. But on their very worst days, and this is the side of religious revelation that gets all the headlines, when they forget this distinction, they might be induced to slam an airplane into the side of a tall building, or to torture or imprison people who do not share their faith-now-become-knowledge. So I spend some time in On Religion in trying to talk people off the edge of that slope, in not making that leap from faith to knowledge.

To be sure, Caputo is saying that religious revelation is true.

But we are thinking about their "truth" in the wrong way if we take them as supplying clear knowledge in a representational theory of truth. Their truth—and this is what I think vera religio comes down to—comes in the way of the fruitfulness of the form of life to which they give rise, which they both shape and embody. Their truth comes in the way of a living truth, a truth that we should make happen in our lives, just the way music does not exist in a score but in the playing.

In the sphere of religious truth, it makes perfect sense to say "I am the way, the truth and the life." It would make no sense for Aristotle, Euclid, or Einstein to say that, but it makes perfect sense to have Jesus say it. For the life of Jesus—behold the birds of the air, Father, forgive them, blessed are the peacemakers, and all the rest—is paradigmatic of the way you do things in this form of life, otherwise you are deceiving yourself and others if you say you are a follower of Jesus. Jesus provides a clearly powerful and powerfully clear embodiment of what we mean by God.

Now it is in this sense that these narratives do indeed supply a certain "knowledge," an understanding, not in the standard form epistemological and representational sense of reporting information about conversations with angels and other supernatural events that merely mortal historians of the 1st century could never have uncovered, but in the sense of "knowing-how" and "understanding-as." They provide those who inhabit these narratives with a way to think about and view things, instructing them in a certain art of life, attuning them to the rhythms of birth and death, joy and sorrow, from just that distinctive point of view.5

What does this mean about religious revelation and faith?

For faith is faith just in virtue of the fact that we do not in some deep way know what is what and that we must accordingly put our faith in certain promises, in certain hopes and dreams, praying and weeping that they come true, all the while confessing that there are many ways to dream, many forms of life, many determinate religious traditions.

I bring this here today, because of the commonplace confusion that many religious people make. There is a strong desire to make faith into some kind of knowledge. I think this has a lot to do with the broader context of the dominance of scientific thought in our society. As a result, you get people trying to "scientifically prove" that God is alive or dead, real or fake. You get well meaning Christan's basically propping up their faith with scientific claims (e.g. faith makes you healthier and this can be proven), or you get well meaning Christians trying to make faith into scientific knowledge (e.g. the intelligent design argument). But most ugly, you get Christians that think they have a little secret, a little bit of sacred knowledge that separates us out from the rest of those less fortunate people that lack this knowledge. So, in some sense, by confusing faith and knowledge, many Christians are shooting themselves in the foot and implicitly undermining their own faith.

The point: epistemological knowledge is not faith in revelation and faith is not knowledge.

Faith and science are often represented as contenders in a fight over which reveals Truth. I think that instead of assuming that they are contenders, look at them as shedding light (or truth) on two different aspects of life--one empirical and the other spiritual. They both give us narratives to help organize our lives. And, for those inclined to do the work, a genealogy that explores how science and religion have come to their present relationship would be helpful in breaking down their current configuration.

Big Ideas, Cheap Plans, and the High Costs of Being "Liberators"

Almost 5 years ago, at the outset of the US waged war in Iraq when Dick Cheney was still arguing that US troops would be greeted as "liberators," some policy wonks and elected officials made the case that the cost would run about $50 billion. That almost sounds like a bad joke. But wait, it gets even funnier.

Today, some estimate that the war is costing $300 million per day of occupation, which adds up to a couple of billion dollars per week and several hundred billions dollars per year. Thus far, the total war cost has been about $1.2 trillion.

A New York Times article entitled, "What $1.2 Trillion Can Buy," tries to put this almost unfathomable amount of money into perspective. They write:

The way to come to grips with $1.2 trillion is to forget about the number itself and think instead about what you could buy with the money. When you do that, a trillion stops sounding anything like millions or billions.

For starters, $1.2 trillion would pay for an unprecedented public health campaign — a doubling of cancer research funding, treatment for every American whose diabetes or heart disease is now going unmanaged and a global immunization campaign to save millions of children’s lives.

Combined, the cost of running those programs for a decade wouldn’t use up even half our money pot. So we could then turn to poverty and education, starting with universal preschool for every 3- and 4-year-old child across the country. The city of New Orleans could also receive a huge increase in reconstruction funds.

The final big chunk of the money could go to national security. The recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that have not been put in place — better baggage and cargo screening, stronger measures against nuclear proliferation — could be enacted. Financing for the war in Afghanistan could be increased to beat back the Taliban’s recent gains, and a peacekeeping force could put a stop to the genocide in Darfur.

"They must see Americans as strange liberators."

On 4 April 1967, Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. made the famous Riverside Church speech in New York City. It was entitled: "Beyond Vietnam--A Time to Break Silence." You can listen and/or read it here.

I first heard/read this speech about a year ago. It is powerful and moving. But more than that, the speech demonstrates that since MLK's death, he has been domesticated. By that I mean, MLK is often talked about as a more moderate personality than, say, Malcolm X. But MLK had some pretty "radical" ideas about what we (American citizens and poor people at the wrong end of US military might) should do to transform and challenge the situation. MLK says:

These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. We in the West must support these revolutions.

But the value and meaning of his words extend beyond the times and places that he spoke. Today they are relevant again. His speech is well worth the listen.

Where are the "Poor" People?

In a Baptist Press News article, a theologian says that Bush's presidency fairs well on Biblical grounds.

Grudem weighed the Bush presidency on 10 major issues that included protection of life, marriage/family and the courts, human dignity, the political process, the environment, economics, the war on terror, communication skills and personal character and faith....

...Bush has consistently given the nation a stalwart example of kindness and moral leadership consistent with an evangelical Christian worldview, Grudem said....

“I am so very thankful for an outstanding, I think excellent president,” Grudem said. “What more could we ask from a president, the man who has the most difficult job in the whole world? I think [he] has continually exhibited personal conduct that is above reproach, giving moral leadership to the nation by example of life and by kindness that amazes me toward those in politics and in the press who continue relentlessly to attack him.

What exactly has Bush done to gain all this praise? According to Gruden, Bush has spread religious and political freedom around the world, he has preserved the lives of unborn children by signing into law the partial birth abortion ban, he has appointed federal judges that are strict constructionists, he has upheld the Biblical understanding of marriage, defended the nation against terrorism, called evil evil, and made allies with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Lebanon.

The aim of this post is not to empirically challenge these claims, even though their accuracy is certainly up for questioning.

My real concern is with Gruden's claim that Bush is an example of a good Christian. If Bush is an example of a good Christian, then I believe that that doesn't bode well for Christians more generally. Gruden's claim ignores the large number of people that self-identify as Christians that dislike Bush and think his policies are morally, biblically and legally questionable. To take one example, Jim Wallis has called President Bush's troop "surge" a "criminal" act. Those are words clearly not of praise and admiration.

Bush is not a good example of Christians writ large. On the contrary, Bush is a good example of one loud, politically charged, Christian sect's vision of Christianity. Gruden reflects and reproduces this sect and the policy issues they push forward--largely, the issues are bound up with purity and pollution. Take the issue of marriage as an example. Gruden says:

The president has also upheld the traditional biblical view of marriage and has opposed “same-sex marriage” by supporting a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Grudem said it is properly within the government’s domain as defined in Romans 13:1-7 to encourage traditional marriage, because when it does so, the ruling authority is exercising its God-ordained role of restraining evil and rewarding good.

By pollution and purity, I mean that Gruden and Bush come together around the notion of marriage as consisting of one man and one women, each with their proper roles and divisions of labor naturally attached. Purity is achieved through the gestures of separation that attempt to fix this interpretation, this particular meaning, as a Devin formula that is outside of human argument and disputation. Anything different than one man and one women, this single formulation of marriage, allows dangerous mixtures that threaten (as Gruben sees it) to destroy the "lives of our children and grandchildren and...our freedom to preach from the Bible.”

The one question that I want to ask is this: where are the poor people? Gruden doesn't actually mention the plight of the materially "poor" in his talk, and Bush did very little in concrete terms for the "poor." But throughout the Old and New Testaments, the concerns of the "poor" are addressed on numerous occasions. Take one instance, Jesus said: "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me" (Matthew 19:21). The lack of concern for the "poor" in relation to the concern for "marriage," can be seen as issue of purity too. During the life and time of Jesus, the socially marginalized (poor, women, lepers, tax collectors) were brought into the circle of people following Jesus. This symbolically challenged dominant ideals of purity structuring Jewish practice. Today, the poor continue to be marginalized by some religious and political elite (e.g. Gruden and Bush) and I believe that it continues to be tied up in issues of purity and pollution, and biblical interpretations that emphasize spiritual well being over material well being.

"I'M GAY" and "I AM FAT": The Boundary Politics of Everyday Life

The physical bodies of people that traverse borders (cultural, legal, territorial, moral, etc) are subject to the forces of power and domination in a way that someone that safely sits at the 'center' of their community cannot fathom. Those forces that sustain 'commonsense' boundaries inscribe the bodies and mark the flesh of those that dare to trespass them. At one time in the history of America, those that tread on sexual mores were compelled to wear the scarlet letter on their body and clothes. They and their deviance were marked for all to see and all to shun.

Today, the bodies of those that trespass highly politicized boundaries are still targeted by normalizing forces. If he could speak, Phanta "Jack" Phoummarath would attest to that fact.

The body of an 18-year-old fraternity pledge who died of alcohol poisoning was defaced with numerous anti-gay epithets and obscene drawings, according to a medical examiner's report.

Phanta "Jack" Phoummarath, a freshman at the University of Texas at Austin, died after ingesting large amounts of alcohol at a pledge party at Lambda Phi Epsilon house in December 2005, authorities said. Phoumarrath's body was found the day after....

The Travis County medical examiner's office reported that partygoers used green and black markers to write "FAG," "I'm gay" and "I AM FAT" on Phoummarath's head, face, torso, legs and feet. Someone also added drawings depicting naked men and women and blackened his toenails.

If Jesus is Lord, Where Does that Leave the Family?

A Christianity Today article caught my attention. In Dethroned, David P. Gushee talks about the importance of dethroning the "All-Important Self" and making sure that "Jesus is Lord" is regularly affirmed.

Mentors and authors have helped to sharpen my understanding of Christ's lordship. They've warned me about idols that threaten to replace him. Jesus Christ is Lord, so mammon cannot be. Jesus Christ is Lord, so relationships and pleasure cannot be. Neither can fame or power or education or career or success or, well, anything at all.

Affirming Jesus as Lord relativizes all earthly attractions, pleasures, and goods. They all come a distant second to Christ himself. That's why we can hardly be reminded too frequently of the implications of his lordship.

Gushee's article goes along with an acronym that I've often seen/heard Christians talk about: JOY. That is, Jesus, Others, Yourself. That is the order of importance in a Christians life, or at least that is what it ought to be for true Christians, the story goes.

At the same time, conservative Christians have basically a lock on the language of "family." Popular Chritian authors like James Dobson run institutions and disperse publications that "Focus on the Family." The "family" is under attack by same-sex marriages, many religious conservative say. In the name of the "family," many conservative Christians speak out authoritatively, as if they are the protectors of "traditional family values."

But insofar as Jesus is first and Others (like your family) are second, the family is secondary in importance to Jesus. Just as Gushee said above, earthly relations are a "distant second" in importance to Jesus.

This is an important site where criticism can be leveled at conservative Christians that presuppose and assert that they are focused on the family and that other non-Christians are not. Christians are focused on Jesus. The family is ultimately secondary. This should be challenged. True Christians cannot have two firsts, so the gap between Jesus on one hand and the Family on the other hand, is ripe for criticism.

Dethroning the All-Important Self and affirming that Jesus is Lord entails that the Family is dethroned as well. What are your priorities?

Extra-Biblical Stories, Concepts and Their Effects

Over the past year or so, I have spent a considerable amount of time reading the Bible, Christian-oriented literature (e.g. Christianity Today, the Baptist Press News, etc.), and sociological, historical and theological works that relate to evangelical, fundamentalist and emerging church streams of thought and worship. I have benefited and learned much about topics and issues that I was (and still am) largely ignorant of.

This blog, at least in part, is an offshoot of this effort to engage with these religious ideas, traditions and beliefs in a genuine way. In some way, it entails a move, a re-conception of who I think I am. To genuinely engage with a different way of living, entails that one move away from outright disbelief. Disbelief leaves no room for genuine engagement, because it excludes the very possibility of believing something different, of encountering something new. Conversely, genuine engagement and a commitment to understanding entails that I not go into the encounter with an uncritical eye. Thus, I sit somewhere in between, in the gap between belief and disbelief, where I think genuine engagements take unfold. Finally, genuine engagement entails that I reflect on my past and how it will shape the encounter. On this, I basically come to the encounter with little knowledge of the stories and traditions that animate believers. For good and ill, I do not carry the burden of officially sanctioned interpretations and so have fresh eyes with which to see.

Today, I'm going to briefly talk about extra biblical stories and concepts. These are storylines and concepts that are not concretely in the bible itself. They have been added over time, incorporated and disseminated by various preachers and theologians through their churches, publications, and radio and TV broadcasts. Gradually, as the concepts and storlines took hold among believers, the legitimacy and significance of them (compared to other possible storylines and concepts) became commonsense--that is, unquestioned precepts that have concrete consequences for those that question or challenge them.

A particularly salient extra-biblical concept is the rapture. According to BibleGateway, an online multi-lingual-bible search database, the word "rapture" is not actually in the New International Version or the King James Version.

At the same time, the rapture is a much talked about concept among evangelicals and fundamentalists. There are websites, fiction and nonfiction books, sermons, prognostications, and so on that devote a considerable amount of time commenting on the rapture. According to the rapture storyline, at some point and time, Jesus will descend and rapture all saved Christians into Heaven.

So, beyond the fact that the "rapture" concept is not in the Bible, the question is what does its regular use and circulation do? How does the circulation of the "rapture" concept function among believers?

Believers of the rapture concept tend to orient themselves toward the afterlife up in the heavens. Thus, it obscures the here and now and the very earthly and the very real suffering, injustice and cruelty that wrack the world in which we live today.

For believers, telling stories of the rapture concept helps create a sense of warm excitement and insecurity. Some are insecure about their status--saved or unsaved--and others certain of their status and excited about the return of Christ. The rapture concept helps affirm the boundary between saved and unsaved and reinforce the significance of being saved over going to hell for eternity. It helps determine who is a Christian and who is not.

The rapture concept also functions as a commodity that generates billions of dollars. Through products like the Left Behind series of books and movies, the rapture concept has become popularized and sold to audiences around the world. Economically, then, it helps sustain the neoliberal system of trade that materially effects practically every place on earth.

Ideologically, the rapture concept can be seen as part of a broader historical set of processes of western colonization. Through missionary work and world preaching tours of charismatic stars like Benny Hinn, the rapture concept has been implanted in the daily lives and routines of people outside the western world.

Today in the Washington Post, "The Private Arm of the Law" caught my attention. The article discusses the privitization of the police, or the rise of private security firms, which have apparently outnumbered public police forces in the United States since the 1980s.

With the sleeve patch on his black shirt, the 9mm gun on his hip and the blue light on his patrol car, he looked like an ordinary police officer as he stopped the car on a Friday night last month. Watt works, though, for a business called Capitol Special Police. It is one of dozens of private security companies given police powers by the state of North Carolina -- and part of a pattern across the United States in which public safety is shifting into private hands.

As a pattern of activity, the privatization of security forces in the context of international politics is apparent too. Companies like Blackwater USA represent and effectively help sustain a transnational marketplace for force and violence. You can see a good example at YouTube.

Since the 1950s and the institutionalization of civil defense, this pattern of privitization is also apparent in everyday family relations. Family and national security has gradually been off loaded onto the individual person. Thus, as privite citizens we go out and purchase a $3,000 bombshelter or more recently, duct tape and plastic.

So, generally, we might say that a pattern can be discerned, where security is privitized; that is, shifted away from the state and recentered on the individual person and the individual corporate entity.