Hermeneutics and sex
Muhammad Yunus won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for his work in economics, of all things. His concept, micro-finance, is based on the idea that poverty is a cycle. And once you are in this cycle, it is nearly impossible to get out of it. He asked the question, how much would it cost to offer individuals from some of the world's poorest economies just enough capital for them to break the cycle of poverty? He believed that credit is not something that should be extended only to the rich. So he founded a bank in Bangladesh, and loaned extremely small amounts of money to more than 2 million poverty stricken people from Bangladesh. Not only have these loans changed the face of Bangladesh, but repayment rates are almost 100 percent.
I heard about this concept from a church in Grand Rapids, MI. I like this church's outlook on ministry, and I really like their pastor's preaching. I have their sermons podcasted weekly, and I try to check their website about once a week. This church is involved in organizing a micro-finance program for the nation of Burundi. They are estimating that most of the loans will be around $40, and that it will be enough capital for these people to completely change their way of life.
Think about that. Forty dollars would be enough capital for someone to start their own business, build a house, provide food and fresh water, and send their children to school, provide school supplies, and repay their loan. I can't remember the last time I paid less than $40 for a pair of pants. Every pair of pants that I own equals economic solvency for an entire family.
I recently read a book written by the pastor of that church in Grand Rapids. It was called Sex God. The idea behind the book is that there is something bigger going on with sex. That it isn't just a physical expression of an emotion. Maybe it is a symbol of something bigger. Of a bigger connection or connectivity intended for man. Maybe sex is a spiritual act, intended to symbolize the way humans connect with the divine. And maybe sex is made up of emotional and physical parts. Without the physical, the emotional only goes so far. And without the emotional, the physical is empty.
Christians are a weird bunch of people. There are all of these people that are human rights activists and social aid workers and environmentalists, and they claim to be Christians, and then there are these other Christians that are completely unconcerned with all that. Those people talk about God's gift as a personal, internal thing, and read the Bible in terms of personal deliverance. Both of these people seem to be able to quote tons of verses to support what they think, and both of these people think that the other group is misinterpreting scripture.
And then I started thinking, maybe Christianity is something bigger. Something made of up of more than just an internal repentance. Or maybe I should say that if it is only an internal repentance, it only goes so far. And if it is just goodwill and activism, all it's empty. Maybe, if you want to grasp the whole picture, you have to realize that both ideas work together.
My friend and I have been talking about participating in this church's micro finance program, and he decided to tell some of the people that lived in his dorm about it. The response was unbelievable. The first question was, "Did you hear about this in an email? From a Nigerian Prince?" The rest of the responses ranged from "Hmm, that's nice, but..." to "Forty dollars is a lot of money. I don't know if I could really give forty dollars. I mean, I really wouldn't have very much money for the rest of the semester..."
I said that the response was unbelievable. The problem is that it's not.
Now the easy connection to make is that these people are only concerned with the internal work of God in their heart, and therefore, just missing out on some of the fullness of. But I don't think that totally covers it. I think it's something different.
I think it's masturbation.
I think that attitudes like that show self-absorption and narcissism. Attitudes like that have nothing to do with God. And I think that those attitudes are everywhere.
Think about it. Be honest with yourself. How much of Christianity is about glorifying God, whether it is through the rebirth in our own lives or redeeming this world for the kingdom of God? How much of what you deal with is about self-gratification? Is a pastor that talks about a different demonination or church in a derogatory way building or strengthening his relationship with God, or his congregation's relationships? Or is he trying to make himself feel better because he is "right"? What if we all got together and had a conference about why we were "right" and how we can prove our "right-ness" to everyone else around us? How much of that would be useless self-gratification? What have you been thinking while you have been reading this? Have you been looking for reasons that I am wrong? Or have you been trying to understand what I'm saying? What about what I've been saying? Is it just a twisted form of self-gratification for me?
I know you will want to do something after reading this. I want you to go ahead. React. Respond. Rebutt. Say what ever you need to say. Tell me I'm a genius. Tell me I'm a heretic. Ask me how to be involved in Burundi. Explain how your hermeneutic interprets 2100 Bible verses dealing with the poor. Explain to me why internal redemption isn't necessary. I want to hear what you think. But please, be honest and think. Because I have already heard the rest of it.
I heard about this concept from a church in Grand Rapids, MI. I like this church's outlook on ministry, and I really like their pastor's preaching. I have their sermons podcasted weekly, and I try to check their website about once a week. This church is involved in organizing a micro-finance program for the nation of Burundi. They are estimating that most of the loans will be around $40, and that it will be enough capital for these people to completely change their way of life.
Think about that. Forty dollars would be enough capital for someone to start their own business, build a house, provide food and fresh water, and send their children to school, provide school supplies, and repay their loan. I can't remember the last time I paid less than $40 for a pair of pants. Every pair of pants that I own equals economic solvency for an entire family.
I recently read a book written by the pastor of that church in Grand Rapids. It was called Sex God. The idea behind the book is that there is something bigger going on with sex. That it isn't just a physical expression of an emotion. Maybe it is a symbol of something bigger. Of a bigger connection or connectivity intended for man. Maybe sex is a spiritual act, intended to symbolize the way humans connect with the divine. And maybe sex is made up of emotional and physical parts. Without the physical, the emotional only goes so far. And without the emotional, the physical is empty.
Christians are a weird bunch of people. There are all of these people that are human rights activists and social aid workers and environmentalists, and they claim to be Christians, and then there are these other Christians that are completely unconcerned with all that. Those people talk about God's gift as a personal, internal thing, and read the Bible in terms of personal deliverance. Both of these people seem to be able to quote tons of verses to support what they think, and both of these people think that the other group is misinterpreting scripture.
And then I started thinking, maybe Christianity is something bigger. Something made of up of more than just an internal repentance. Or maybe I should say that if it is only an internal repentance, it only goes so far. And if it is just goodwill and activism, all it's empty. Maybe, if you want to grasp the whole picture, you have to realize that both ideas work together.
My friend and I have been talking about participating in this church's micro finance program, and he decided to tell some of the people that lived in his dorm about it. The response was unbelievable. The first question was, "Did you hear about this in an email? From a Nigerian Prince?" The rest of the responses ranged from "Hmm, that's nice, but..." to "Forty dollars is a lot of money. I don't know if I could really give forty dollars. I mean, I really wouldn't have very much money for the rest of the semester..."
I said that the response was unbelievable. The problem is that it's not.
Now the easy connection to make is that these people are only concerned with the internal work of God in their heart, and therefore, just missing out on some of the fullness of. But I don't think that totally covers it. I think it's something different.
I think it's masturbation.
I think that attitudes like that show self-absorption and narcissism. Attitudes like that have nothing to do with God. And I think that those attitudes are everywhere.
Think about it. Be honest with yourself. How much of Christianity is about glorifying God, whether it is through the rebirth in our own lives or redeeming this world for the kingdom of God? How much of what you deal with is about self-gratification? Is a pastor that talks about a different demonination or church in a derogatory way building or strengthening his relationship with God, or his congregation's relationships? Or is he trying to make himself feel better because he is "right"? What if we all got together and had a conference about why we were "right" and how we can prove our "right-ness" to everyone else around us? How much of that would be useless self-gratification? What have you been thinking while you have been reading this? Have you been looking for reasons that I am wrong? Or have you been trying to understand what I'm saying? What about what I've been saying? Is it just a twisted form of self-gratification for me?
I know you will want to do something after reading this. I want you to go ahead. React. Respond. Rebutt. Say what ever you need to say. Tell me I'm a genius. Tell me I'm a heretic. Ask me how to be involved in Burundi. Explain how your hermeneutic interprets 2100 Bible verses dealing with the poor. Explain to me why internal redemption isn't necessary. I want to hear what you think. But please, be honest and think. Because I have already heard the rest of it.
posted by oneweekend at 12:35 AM
6 Comments:
Like you said Dale, it's both. If we really love God with everything that we are, and- as a result- are loving others with the purpose of helping them to love God with all that they are, then we will do both. As I believe Calvin stated it, "Faith alone saves; the faith that saves, however, is not alone."
"And they will know that you are my disciples by your love for one another."
I should move to Bangladesh. I'd be like Bill Gates there.
Fundamentalism has long forgotten about those less fortunate. A large segment of the movement wish for the salvation of the lost only to add to their membership totals and to create more christians in their image and mold.
I often heard of the "social gospel" growing up and how it was wrong. But its hard to think of being saved from an eternity in hell when you feel like you're already there.
Somehow I think God wouldn't mind if Christians spent alittle more time and money on food drives, homeless shelters, and charity.
Maybe if Christians were seen more working to help the poor and seen less working to build political influence, defending ten commandments monuments, and attacking ppl, the lost would be more likely to seek the God Christians represent.
I'd like to respond to Ryan's comment, if I may...
I disagree that Fundamentalism as a movement has forgotten about those last fortunate. I dare say Christianity as a whole has forgotten about those less fortunate. To say fundamentalists are only interested in increasing there numbers is a dangerous proposition. Last time I checked, most strict Fundamentalist took pride in decreasing their numbers through strict rules and regulations. If they wanted to grow, they'd pull a community church movement.
To neglect to defend public debates, such as the ten commandments, would be to eventually loose the freedom to care. A defense of those institutions is important as well, and should not be overlooked.
Yet, I do agree that Christians as a whole should be more concerned about the less fortunate, however one cannot wake up one day with a love for others. The answer is not to throw off entire movements, or embrace movements, it's to daily die to self and live for Christ. Unfortunately, no one desires to do that. If everyone lived selflessly, we'd solve the entire problem. It's not going to happen to everyone overnight, the point is that it should happen to someone every night.
Liz, I have a few questions about your comment.
First, I wouldn't disagree that Christianity as a whole has forgotten about the less fortunate. But I wonder why you disagree that Fundamentalism has forgotten about the less fortunate. Is your point to defend Fundamentalism or to indict the rest of Christianity?
And I don't necessarily agree with your assesment of Fundamentalism's attitude towards church growth. The church that Ryan and I grew up in had a church growth and outreach program that would rival any "mega-church" marketing scheme. Yes, many Fundamentalists view their strictness as a badge of spirituality, but I don't think that many of them would pass up the opportunity to increase their numbers, as long as it didn't interfere with their regulations.
I'm curious about your interest in these public debates. You claim that neglecting these "public debates" would eventually cause Christians to lose their freedom. If the ten commandments were never displayed again-- ever-- what would change in your Christian life? If prayer was never allowed in any school, would your relationship with God suffer?
I have this theory. I think that maybe if Christians really knew God, it would be pretty obvious. We wouldn't need to dress like Amish people or use marketing plans designed around cute little fishes or demonstrate in front of courthouses. We could just be ourselves, and go about our daily lives, and that would be enough. And maybe if we just did that, people would ask us about God. Maybe they would want to keep the ten commandments around so they could understand the basis of our religion. Maybe they would think that the reality of our life was worth having. Because it would be. So why do we need to do all those other things now?
Have Baptist Fundamentalists forgotten about the poor? Sure, some have. Do they spend anywhere near as much money directly on poverty as many other churches/denominations. Of course not. But is that all bad? I'm not so sure.
The Burundi program sounds great. It really does. It seems to be a program you could really get behind. But money is not always the answer. It can never be the answer for many people.
The homeless man on the subway--what does he need? $10,000 to start a new life? Or a changed heart? It can be easy sometimes to write a check. It is often much more difficult to actually get out and touch this man--to reach him where he is.
Throwing money at a problem is rarely the answer. The failure of the American welfare system is well documented, as is the disappearance into corruption and graft of much of the millions of dollars raised for the African AIDS crisis in big lavish concerts and fundraisers across America. People love to make a big show of the amount of money they are giving, without worrying about the actual good that money actually does. It makes me very slow to give money to these big charity programs. Perhaps this Burundi program is a good exception.
The key, as always, is balance. Should we have food pantries and free dinners and Reformers Unanimous-type programs? Of course. But we also need to focus on what the poor and unfortunate need more than all of that--a new life in Christ. Fundie Baptist sometimes forget the former, but many of the social gospel advocates quickly lose sight of the latter.
Yeah, treksinab, thank you for your comment. I know exactly where you are coming from. I wanted to talk about what you said, and I haven’t really had time to write out my thoughts until now.
I love the book of Matthew. It is this book written for Jews, in this amazing tradition of Jewish literature, but it was written by this guy who was completely outside the Jewish social structure.
The book of Matthew starts as a symbolic retelling of the history of the Jewish people. It has this genealogy that has all of this numerical significance and symbolism. Then it tells the story of Jesus’ birth and flight to Egypt. Jesus leaves Egypt, has this miraculous incident of divine blessing and calling that is somehow symbolized by water, and then He goes into the wilderness for 40 units of time. Remind you of anything?
And then Jesus goes to this hill and starts teaching. He outlines all of the ways that His kingdom is different than the kingdoms of this world whether in reference to government, society, or religion. And when He comes down, He starts doing all of these miracles.
First, He heals a social outcast, then a Gentile, and then a Jew. From the Jewish mindset, I think that seemed backwards. Like, if he deigned to heal non-Jews, he would have at least taken care of the Jews first.
Then Matthew tells us how Jesus exerts control over the natural world, and then the supernatural world.
So far, it seems like Matthew is trying to tell us something in the way he is writing this book. I think he is showing that Jesus is the head of this new kingdom that is like the Jewish kingdom, except perfect. And then he shows the way this kingdom that Jesus explained for 3 chapters plays out in real life—all kinds of people, no matter what their social status, and all of creation—natural and supernatural.
So in chapter 9, they bring this sick guy to Jesus. And Jesus talks to him for a minute and tells him that his sins are forgiven. And everyone around him is pretty surprised. I mean, he has been physically healing all of these people—which is obviously a huge deal—but to forgive sins jumps into this entirely different realm. And Jesus sees that everyone is flipping out, and He asks them which is easier to see—forgiven sins or a healed body? And then He heals the guy. So He is proving that He is healing him spiritually by healing him physically.
I agree that it is really easy to write a check and walk away without any spiritual effort. But it is just as easy to “be concerned about their souls” and walk away, wallet intact. What Jesus does is heal the man’s spiritual needs and physical needs. In fact, Jesus proves his spiritual by showing the physical. Maybe we should stop trying to focus on one or the other. Jesus didn’t.
Post a Comment
<< Home