Power of touch March 4, 2007
Posted by Alien Drums in Christianity, Jesus, Salvation, Spirituality, Truth.5 comments
A number of years ago, a stomach virus went through our family. One night my wife, in the grip of the thing, chose to sleep on the couch.
Sometime during the night our 3-year-old son found his way to my bed and went back to sleep. I awoke around 4:15 and got up. After washing my face and getting more awake, I walked through the darkness to my study, which opened from our bedroom. In the darkness I bumped two porcelein pans we had bought to use on camping trips and by the time I turned on the study light, our 3-year-old was out of bed and walking wide-eyed toward me. My hopes of early morning work instantly looked dim. I scooped up my son, held him close, and we both laid back down, him laying on my chest.
In a few minutes I moved him to my side, but I stayed on the bed. As I laid there, I prayed. I was struggling with some frustrations at that time, most importantly, I was just struggling with life itself.
As I laid there, I began to pray, and I said something to the affect of, “Lord, I need a fresh vision of Your presence. I need to know You’re here with me.” And then, as I laid there with my eyes closed, my son laid his young arm across my chest. He was on the edge of sleep once again, and he had reached out and touched his dad.
In that moment I felt a peace beyond understanding. My son’s touch was so soft and gentle and comforting. It was a touch of love, for I knew in his semi-slumber that he was making sure I was still there. And in that moment I thought of the sheer joy of being touched, that feeling of flesh against flesh, and how through such a touch we feel loved.
Then I thought of a Bible verse, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” In the silent pleasure of that moment, I better understood the incarnation of Jesus Christ, as He became flesh and dwelt among us and touched us in a way we had never before been touched.
Vigilante moralists March 2, 2007
Posted by Alien Drums in Christianity, Ethics, Freedom, Islam, Jesus, Truth.7 comments
Those of us who are basically moral folks have to be careful. We look at the world around us and see the moral decay and it makes us want to wipe out immorality because we know how distructive it is to individuals and society. That is a good instinct. The tricky part comes in the approach we take to wiping out immorality. Do we do it from a compassionate perspective that recognizes our own failings and the importance of maintaining human freedom, or do we do it by attacking.
National Public Radio reports the latter in Gaza. A story by reported today on “Morning Edition” that a “violent group in Gaza has murdered prostitutes and destroyed a variety of businesses in the name of Islam. Some worry the crimes are meant to impose a wider Islamist social order in the area.”
This story is about Islamic moralists, but we Christians must not be smug. Religious fundamentalism breeds this sort of verbal and physical violence whether it be Islamic or Christian or whatever.
Westervelt used a great phrase — “vigilante moralists”. In other words, these seemingly moral people have taken the law, and it is religious law, into their own hands and are seeking to enforce it with murder and destruction. They don’t seem to see the murder and destruction as moral failure.
Your local Christian fundamentalist may not be murdering and destroying property, but he or she does often seek to take away the freedom that leaves the door open to immorality. And even if they don’t seek it they often secretly wish it.
Make no bones about it, freedom and immorality go together. If people are free then they will act in ways that are destructive to themselves and to others. In fact, it is a basic Christian teaching — all have sinned.
So how do we “fight” immorality. We keep holding up a moral standard, one exemplified by Christ and other great religious leaders throughout history. We keep seeking to live in such a moral way. We reach out to the “immoral” with compassion and understanding. We make sure we do not use immoral means to pursue moral goals.
Religion as reconnecting February 24, 2007
Posted by Alien Drums in Christianity, Jesus, Religion, Truth.Tags: Reconciliation
3 comments
Religion, today, is almost a dirty word. Even the religious do not want to be called religious.
Most people would say I’m a religious man, but I have told the Sunday school class I teach that I do not care about religion; I care about relationship. When I do that I am carping the mindset of my times.
It is all rather clear why this has become the case. Religion has developed a bad name. Too many bad things have been done in the name of religion, and we have condemned the word as if nothing good has ever been done in the name of religion.
Well maybe it’s time to resurrect the word, this time with a different understanding.
Brian McLaren’s fictional character, Neo, says the word “religion” is derived from an old Latin root meaning to reconnect. In other words, religion is really about reconnecting a disconnected and fragmented people with God, with others and with self. (A New Kind of Christian, p. 72)
Well it’s not quite that simple. Wikipedia says the etymology of the word “religion” has been debated for centuries. “The English word clearly derives from the Latin religio, “reverence (for the gods)” or “conscientiousness”. The origins of religio, however, are obscure. Proposed etymological interpretations include:
From Relego
- Re-reading–from Latin re (again) + lego (in the sense of “read”), referring to the repetition of scripture.
- Treating carefully–from Latin re (again) + lego (in the sense of “choose”–this was the interpretation of Cicero) “go over again” or “consider carefully”.
From Religare
- Re-connection to the divine–from Latin re (again) + ligare (to connect, as in English ligament). This interpretation is favoured by modern scholars such as Tom Harpur, but was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation of Lactantius.
- To bind or return to bondage–an alternate interpretation of the “reconnection” etymology emphasizing a sense of servitude to God, this may have originated with Augustine. However, the interpretation, while popular with critics of religion, is often considered imprecise and possibly offensive to followers.
From Res + legere
- Concerning a gathering — from Latin res (ablative re, with regard to) + legere (to gather), since organized religion revolves around a gathering of people.”
So the religare derivation is the one McLaren refers to. Despite the uncertainty as to origins, I like what religare represents. If what we mean by “religion” is reconnecting with God, others and self, then it’s something I want.
McLaren: “I think what Jesus was about … was a global, public movement or revolution to bring holistic reconciliation, a reconnection with God, with others, with ourselves, with our environment. True religion, revolutionary religion. That’s what got them in such trouble.” (p. 73, his italics)
