The Divine Dance, Fr. Richard Rohr

 Harriett Choffel's poem:

In a temple holy,

    Our heart encodes

        the fruits of the Spirit

Best received at rest

    in quiet contemplation

Connecting--nurturing--integrating

    We--Us--Our

Heart to heart

    we exchange energy . . . 

        Resonate. . . 

           Be humble

hc-'99

“East Coker” T. S. Eliot brings us into the darkness of the via negativa—the way of dispossession and ignorance. We must wait without faith or hope or love.  We surrender to death that we might be reborn.
>

Testing for 10.25.2020

Ancient Secrets: Chapters 2 & 3 Rumblings in Paradise

 

In Chapter 2, The Union of Opposites, Rabbi Meier presents his insights into the story of the Garden of Eden.  Here, I must express some irritation and disappointment with the Rabbi for an oversimplified but under-analyzed approach that I found ineffective on any level.

First, he offers a disappointing analysis of the relationship between Adam and Eve fitting the Rabbi’s agenda for his oversimplified idyllic impressions of domestic life. The opening section of the chapter offered some charming thoughts, but no insights, and none of the charming thoughts were original or stimulating.

In my opinion, the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden must be understood as an allegory created by ancient people for a couple reasons.  One reason was ancient man’s natural curiosity and desire for understanding of his origin and place in nature.  In the ancient Jewish context, this entailed a paradox.  Their society was largely based on herding, so they would have noticed that while they were clearly superior because of the free will discussed by Meier, which placed them “above” their animals, the animals, themselves, led more carefree lives, spending much of their time sleeping in the shade, while their human owners toiled from sunrise to sunset.  This raised the question of why – if humans were “above” animals – should humans have to work much harder than their animals?  The story of Adam and Eve’s expulsion from the Garden provided a culturally appropriate explanation.

Another reason for the allegory – also arising from ancient Jewish culture – was legitimation of male domination.  Meier appropriately writes about the significance of guilt and lessons the story can teach in that regard, but I believe the original purpose was to reflect the position of women in that culture at that time.  Scapegoating is a natural human response to misbehavior, and women have been used by men as scapegoats since the dawn of time.

In the two preceding paragraphs I have oversimplified and under-analyzed for the sake of my own agenda, just as Meier did for his, and probably for the same reason.  These issues are so dense with meaning for our modern consideration – anthropologically, ethnically, culturally, historically, theologically and psychologically – that to do them justice would require the participation of experts in all those disciplines and thousands of pages of text. My point is, this is not a simple three-page discussion, and when a writer chooses to use it to make a point of his own, the limitations of his arguments should at least be revealed to the reader.

Two other comments before moving to the next chapter.  I can’t put my finger on the source right now, but I recall reading that Meier was a “Jungian” psychologist.  My experience with Jung, and Jungians, is that they are especially insightful about the psychological meaning of ancient folk tales.  The ones I have read I have found both highly relevant and intellectually fascinating.  Without getting too deep in the weeds, Jung developed a theory holding that humans in western cultures inherit and develop within their psyches images or models called “archetypes” the most commonly discussed of which are the romantic/sexual archetypes experienced by both men and women.  In brief, the theory is that within each psyche each individual carries an image of a perfect mate.  To grasp this concept, emphasis must be placed on “perfection” – perfect intelligence, perfect empathy, perfect sex, perfect appearance, etc.  Every now and then, a man (and his archetype) meets a woman (and her archetype), their archetypes match perfectly, and they experience the type of “love at first sight” poets and songwriters have written about for centuries.  The theory is that the man (at the mercy of his archetype) endows the woman with all the perfection he longs for, and vice versa.  This archetypal recognition ignites the passion, but, over time – sometimes days, sometimes years – the man begins to notice the woman’s imperfections (they were always there, but he could not see them because he was enthralled by the archetype), and vice versa.  To protect the psyche, the archetype causes the man to blame the woman for tricking him into thinking she was perfect, and vice versa.  The union dissolves in pain with great sense of relief and remorse.[1]  Maybe this scenario resonates with some of you.

Another Jungian concept explains guilt as psychic anger and disappointment caused by one’s violation of one’s own self-image.  In other words, my self-image is that I am not a thief.  If I stole something, the theft would violate my self-image and would trigger guilt. But a thief’s self-image is that he is a thief, so the same theft committed by the thief would not violate his self-image and would not trigger guilt.

I wanted to throw in the Jungian stuff – again way oversimplified to make the point – because of Meier’s use of the terms “soul mate” and “guilt.”  It’s not enough to simply tell folks to forget about finding a “soul mate” and get on with their lives.  If you’re talking to a 30-ish American who has endured one of these archetypal recognition passions, it’s likely they won’t pay much attention to your warning.  The power of the experience is much too strong to forget and move on without first gaining some understanding of what happened and why it failed.  The romantic archetype and the mechanics of guilt are the core of the story Meier relates from the Danish novel Niels Lyhne as appropriately stated by the female character as follows: “Day after day I will have to live with this stigma on my soul, and never will I meet anyone so degraded that I won’t know in my heart that I am even more degraded.”

Chapter 3, The Voice Within, is summarized by Meier in its last paragraph, thus: “So finally, we are told that being in touch with the voice inside of us is part and parcel of a much greater whole – making a connection with the beyond, being in touch with the stars, being in touch with the infinite, being in touch with God.”

In pains me to be negative about such lovely sentiments.  I’d much rather be able to praise Meier’s work than criticize, but – hey, I’m the one writing the blog, so you get my thoughts, and I’m gonna be honest with you.  I’d love to have another contributor who sees things differently write a response.  It might open my eyes.

In any event, I understood Chapter 3 to be an attempt to inspire the reader, but it was so superficial, it turned me off.  In college, my Sociology of Religion prof assigned the class to attend various religious services to observe and report our impressions.  I’ll never forget the Reverend A.A. Allen Revival Troup from Miracle Valley, Arizona, coming to town.  I’d seen a few TV preachers, but none in person until I went to the revival.  It was entertaining and appalling at the same time.  My impression was that the folks were there expecting divine intervention to solve their problems.  The message was simple – contribute money to the Rev, and God will answer your prayers.  It was reinforced over the course of several hours with stories about the good things that happened to people who made pledges and paid their pledges, and the bad things that happened to those who either didn’t pledge, or worse, pledged but didn’t pay. 

Meier is certainly not a scoundrel like the Reverend was.  But suggesting that God responds to bargaining, and telling people to listen to an inner voice without discrimination is not just foolish, it’s dangerous.  In our modern world, we are bombarded by stimuli constantly and indiscriminately.  Even in Abram’s day, there must have been some degree of mental illness or personality disorders that could be heard by the ancients as the voice of God.  In some primitive cultures, hallucinogenic drugs are used as sacred rites to hear the voice of the local deity.  Alcohol has also contributed to the phenomenon, even in our day.  How does one discriminate between a message from God and an influence from years of exposure to cultural pressures or mental illness?  Don’t get me wrong, I believe God communicates with us all the time, some of which involves dreams, or, in my case, sudden awakenings with answers I needed.  I firmly believe God has given me direction and helped me find solutions to many problems, so I suppose one day he may show me a path to take that would validate Meier.  But, before taking that path, I would appreciate it if you would have me checked for mental illness!

By the way, I think I understand what it means to be in touch with God, but can anybody explain to me what it means to make a connection with the beyond, be in touch with the stars, be in touch with the infinite??? Are these Christian concepts? 

Peace.

 

---

[1] If you’re interested, the best resource I know of on this topic is Robert A. Johnson, We: Understanding the Psychology of Romantic Love.  Johnson has a series of books analyzing various aspects of the psyche with Jungian principles.  Amazon carries them all.

Ancient Secrets, Chapter 1 - A Surprising 20th Century Secret

 

Welcome to the St. Michael’s Episcopal Church book study group blog – The Seekers Blog. Our group has embarked on the discussion of a book titled Ancient Secrets by Rabbi Levi Meier, a chaplain, clinical psychologist and biblical scholar.  The subtitle of the book is Using the Stories of the Bible to Improve Our Everyday Lives.  It is divided into five parts, each containing several chapters, with each chapter focused on Rabbi Meier’s analysis of a familiar story from the Bible.

At our first discussion, the group covered the Introduction and Chapter 1, As in the Beginning, So Now.  Meier begins with the Genesis story of God’s creation of the world, and immediately introduces an interesting take on the distinction between the “light” created on the first day, and the creation of the sun on the fourth day.  According to Meier, the original Hebrew word for “light” is ohr meaning a “supernatural light” he describes as a “divine life force” and then declares: “So the first thing God created was life.”  This first life was originally indefinite, not taking on any particular character, described by Meier as: “a metaphysical, divine life energy that permeated the whole world.”  He then enlists the assistance of French philosopher Henri Bergson’s concept of elan vital and provides some examples of people who have enjoyed success in their spiritual lives by tapping into their inner “life force.”

As a metaphor, the concept of a “life force” may be useful as a stand-in for a bundle of qualities such as determination, courage, character, faith, devotion, selflessness and morality, but Meier goes much further.  His description of it as “a metaphysical, divine life energy” is not metaphorical.  He maintains, with Bergson, that the elan vital, or “vital energy” dwells within us, and can be transformed “into a creative force in our lives” citing specifically the principle from the laws of physics usually referred to as the “law of conservation of energy” holding that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can be transformed.  These ideas were prominent during the height of Bergson’s career in the early 20^th Century, and were adopted by many eminent thinkers, including George Bernard Shaw and the Fabian Society.

As you may know, the Fabian Society was a group of social progressives who, among other things, were instrumental in the creation of the British Labour Party.  They were influenced by communism and embraced socialistic policies, and their membership famously included secularists, the irreligious, non-believers and atheists.  Although they espoused the virtues of the collective, their concept of collectivism did not include society’s undesirable classes. In fact, one of their principal objectives was to create a superior human race even if it entailed selective breeding and the elimination of inferior human genetic stock.

As I draft this blog, I am trying to choose my words carefully in order not to sensationalize the Fabian Society linkage to Meier.  The Fabians, founded in 1884, still exist and still support socialism.  Without commenting on the socialist system, it is important to understand that eugenics and elimination of so-called inferior people were “progressive” ideas openly promoted and supported by the Fabians until the crimes of the Nazis were discovered.  Modern liberal politicians and commentators often try to align conservatives with inhumane policies, but progressivism, as promoted by the Fabians, embraced concepts that would have meant extinguishing the “life force” within undesirables in order that their inferiority would not continue to burden those deemed worthy of contributing to the survival of the species.

C. S. Lewis was an outspoken critic of Bergson, Shaw and the Fabians.  In his essay The Weight of Glory Lewis wrote: "...even if all the happiness they promised could come to man on earth, yet still each generation would lose it by death, including the last generation of all, and the whole story would be nothing, not even a story, for ever and ever. Hence all the nonsense that Mr. Shaw puts into the final speech of Lilith,[1] and Bergson’s remark that the élan vital is capable of surmounting all obstacles, perhaps even death—as if we could believe that any social or biological development on this planet will delay the senility of the sun or reverse the second law of thermodynamics.”

Thus, in its original application, the concept of the “life force” was more than a mere metaphor.  It was a theory underpinning progressivism and factoring into intellectual society.  In our reading, Meier continues this tradition by giving the “life force” the status of “a metaphysical, divine life force.”  His use is clearly well-intentioned and benign, but he should have avoided the reference to Bergson, and he should have sanitized his idea in the form of a true metaphor rather than “a metaphysical, divine life force.”   Thinking about how he could have eliminated the criticism, it is obvious to us, as Christians, that the light that imbued the world with life on the first day of creation was the Holy Spirit!  As a Jew, Rabbi Meier is not a believer in the Trinity, and must reach for an alternate explanation for the work of the Holy Spirit.  But, as Christians, we need not – indeed, we cannot – believe in a “metaphysical, divine life force” that is not the Holy Spirit.   

I have read enough of Ancient Secrets to be of the opinion that Meier is sincerely concerned with sharing his insights into the meanings of Bible stories.  I do not think he is trying to subvert our beliefs, or attacking Christianity.  I look forward to our discussions of the points he raises, and, perhaps, having been somewhat taken aback by his first chapter, we can be aware of non-Christian ideas as we encounter them in the future.

Peace.

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] The last scene of Part V of Back to Methuselah, a play by George Bernard Shaw in which he envisions the development of mankind from the Garden of Eden into the distant future.  Lilith, a god/goddess half man and half woman, is revealed as the creator of Adam and Eve, and her oration at the end of the play bemoans humanity’s evolution into pure intellect having overcome entirely the need for the body.

QUOTES FROM THE RECTOR THAT WILL TWEAK THE SEEKERS' CURIOSITY!

It’s clear why Robby is a staunch supporter of The Seekers’ when you read these quotes he enthusiastically just shared with the congregation.  They are worthy of some of our dialectic time!

 

Thoughts from the Rector ...

 

Some Good Borrowed Thoughts

  

The quotes below are from the Right Rev. Rob Wright, Bishop of Atlanta, to "THE Conference" at Camp Allen this past weekend.  It was a time of great nurturing, and several of our staff and Vestry were part of the 200 in attendance.  Bp. Wright was born

of biracial parents who placed him in an orphanage.  He opened by saying:  I am a commercial for God's grace.  [RV:  Am I?  Are you?  Our baptismal contract says that we will be with God's help.]

 

God put big in the whale, busy in the ant and annoying in teenagers.

 

The only thing interesting in religion is God.

 

God wants us always expecting something; we're always in Advent.

 

Quoting Jimmy Bartz (former Episcopal chaplain at UT): "God is wildly active outside the church."  

 

Quoting Bp. Tutu of South Africa:  "We are missionaries or we are nothing."

 

We have two passports: one for this world; one for the next.

 

Quoting Phyllis Tickle (famous author/lecturer on religious issues):  "The church holds a great rummage sale from time to time."

 

Our work is to discern, among competing priorities, what is expendable and what is precious.

                                                                                                           

--Robby Vickery

 

WHEN HELPING HURTS

CHAPTERS 4 AND 5: NOT ALL POVERTY IS CREATED EQUAL and GIVE ME YOUR TIRED, YOUR POOR, AND THEIR ASSETS

 

I’m tackling two chapters this week, in part, to catch up from my one week hiatus for my yearly struggle with the Internal Revenue Code, and, in part, because these two chapters share a common theme exposed in our group discussion of Chapter 4.  

 

Beginning in Chapter 4 and carried into Chapter 5, the authors offer some practical advice for church ministries to the poor.  They first provide some advice for identifying or diagnosing the kinds of problem situations in which the poor find themselves, and the types of responses appropriate to the problems – relief, rehabilitation or development.  Expanding on these ideas in Chapter 5, they provide suggestions for involving the poor in the formulation and execution of the solutions.  One of my personal tests for the validity of any social model is its adaptability to analogous situations.  In my opinion, social engineering that fits only one discrete situation is unlikely to be successful, even in that discrete application – for example, when they depend on the support of a particular individual or group for success.  Many social conditions that seem unique turn out to have precedents in other cultures or systems that have worked out best practices organically.  Here, the organic solution for alleviation of poverty is paternalism.

 

Our authors tell us in Chapter 4 that “paternalism” is a bad thing: “Avoid Paternalism.  Do not do things for people that they can do for themselves.”  Doing things for people they could do for themselves seems to be the authors’ definition of paternalism, and they describe five types of paternalism to be avoided.  But this is an unfortunately narrow definition.

 

The dictionary definition includes the following: “(Relationships) of a character similar to that existing in the case of a father and his dependent children.”  In my reading of these chapters, it struck me that the measures and techniques supported by the authors are the same measures and techniques any enlightened father would employ.  The key words in that sentence are “enlightened father.”  Think about the qualities exhibited by an “enlightened father” and the differences between a father who is “enlightened” and a father who is “in the dark” when it comes to his kids, and let’s see how the authors proceed.

 

Beginning on page 112 and carrying over, in their discussion of “Managerial Paternalism” the authors write: “There are lots of reasons … people…in low-income communities might not take charge, but here are several common ones…”

• They do not need to take charge because they know that we will take charge if they wait long enough. (Translation: Poor people are lazy.)
• They lack the confidence to take charge, particularly when the ‘superior,’ middle-to-upper-class North Americans are involved. (Translation: Poor people must be led and guided or they won’t move.)
• They, like we, have internalized the messages of centuries of colonialism, slavery and racism: Caucasians run things and everyone else follows. (Translation: Poor people expect poverty and failure.)
• They do not want the project to happen as much as we do.  For example, they might know the project will accomplish little in their context but are afraid to tell us for fear of offending us. (Translation: Poor people don’t know what’s good for themselves.)
• They know that by letting us run the show it is more likely that we will bring in money and other material resources to give to them. (Translation: Poor people are deceitful and avaricious.)

Do those beliefs suggest these authors are enlightened?  It seems to me, they demonstrate extraordinary stereotyping of the sort I would expect from someone “in the dark.”  No father I know who held such negative opinions of his children could be considered in any way enlightened.  Certainly, the old stereotype of the myopic and self-centered domineering father is still with us, but postmodern fathers are showing much more enlightened approaches, at least “middle-to-upper-class North American” fathers.  So, where is this enlightenment coming from?  Let’s see what the authors think

By the time we arrive at Chapter 5 some glimmers of enlightenment begin to appear.  The discussion from page 119 through page 122 offers a remarkable chance to compare the authors’ enlightened approach to the poor with a father’s enlightened approach to his kids. Try this.  Re-read these pages substituting the word “child” (or “children”, etc.) for words like “the poor” (or “low-income people”, etc.), and “father” for words like “church” (or “ministry”, etc.), and “childhood or adolescent problems” for “poverty.”  Making these substitutions yields a coherent summary of enlightened parenting techniques – paternalism in a positive sense!  Surely, God intends us to use these methods when dealing with the poor whenever possible, just as he intends us to show respect and love to our own children – even tough love when required.  The trick is to be judicious and purposeful in the administration of your love – tough or otherwise.

 

The last few pages of Chapter 5 have useful suggestions for practical ways to bring actions to these concepts – Asset Mapping, Participatory Learning and Action, and Appreciative Inquiry.  Again, re-read these sections thinking about using these techniques with your kids.  In some cases, troubled kids will not be good candidates for these approaches, and it’s our responsibility as parents to recognize when and how to engage a particular child.  Likewise, in some cases, poor people will not be good candidates.  In both situations, the response must be to provide more preparatory challenges to eventually equip the child or the poor to participate responsibly in their own lives.

 

Although I take issue with a good deal of the material in this book, I agree with the authors that problems of the poor and problems with young people can be alleviated by creating (In most cases.) or restoring (In a minority of cases.) the four key relationships described in Chapter 2 – relationships with God, others, self and environment.  The fact that this model is built on an enlightened approach that works in a variety of social situations suggests to me that it is valid and can be effective if properly administered.

 

I am choosing not to comment unnecessarily on the authors’ fundamentalist strain of theology because I hold a different view that I believe to be more enlightened, but I also try to retain enough humility to allow for error on my part.  That said, I will continue to point out inconsistencies and problems with their arguments, like their misuse of the term “paternalism,” and the contradictory nature of their insights, like their stereotyping of the poor.

 

Whether, or not, I elect to comment on every chapter will depend on identifying elements that merit deeper analysis than the authors offer.  Anyone wanting to offer a post on coming chapters is encouraged to do so.  Just let me know, and I will be happy to help you.

 

Peace

CHAPTER THREE: ARE WE THERE YET? C’MON MAN!

You’ve probably had the experience of picking up a saying or a tune that keeps interrupting your thoughts.  Some people call them “ear worms.”  My latest ear worm is the phrase “C’mon man!” picked up from sports talk TV.  The phrase is intended as a good-natured jibe at something someone says that’s clearly hyperbolic – waaaaay over the top – as in “I could beat Muhammad Ali with one hand!” Appropriate reply: “C’mon man!”  That phrase kept cropping up during my reading of this chapter, and I thought it might be fun to cite a few examples.  I know, I know – it’s a serious topic, but hyperbole of this caliber deserves recognition.  Here are a few examples.

“… middle-to-upper-class North Americans, a group characterized by high rates of divorce, sexual addiction, substance abuse and mental illness.  Nor is the goal to make sure that the materially poor have enough money.” (p. 74)

C’mon man!  Aren’t middle-to-upper-class North Americans also Christians?  Do they really have high rates of sexual addiction?  No doubt there is substance abuse and mental illness, but is it more prevalent in North America than elsewhere?  If things are so bad in North America, maybe we should be focused on fixing the middle-to-upper-class who at least have the advantage of money and role models.  After all, your goal is not to “make sure the materially poor have enough money.”

“Think about it.  If poverty alleviation is about reconciling relationships, then we do not have the power to alleviate poverty in either the materially poor or in ourselves.  It is not something that we can manufacture through better techniques, improved methods, or better planning, for reconciliation is ultimately an act of God.  Poverty alleviation occurs when the power of Christ’s resurrection reconciles our key relationships through the transformation of both individual lives and local, national, and international systems.” (p. 75) 

C’mon man!  If we have to wait for the transformation of national and international systems to impact poverty, we might as well not bother.  Yes, God’s grace is required, and grace is sometimes a product of faith, but faith on a national or international scale is a naïve pipe dream.  At other times, as I have personally experienced, God’s grace is a pure gift to an undeserving sinner.  But I am not aware of any case in which God extended his grace to a large population over a long period of time.  Even the Israelites suffered in the poverty of slavery.

“A Christian relief and development agency attempted to improve crop yields for poor farmers in Bolivia’s Alto Plano.  Although successful at increasing output, the impact on the farmers’ incomes was far less than hoped because of the farmers’ deep reverence for Pachamama, the mother earth goddess who presides over planting and harvesting.” (p. 80)

C’mon man! I’ll paraphrase: “A Christian relief and development agency attempted to improve the incomes of chronically poor people by convincing the state legislature to raise the minimum wage to $10.00 an hour.  Although successful at increasing take-home pay, the impact on incomes was far less than hoped because of the poor’s deep reverence for keeping up a façade of success.”

“Seeking Pachamama’s favor, the farmers purchased llama fetuses, a symbol of life and abundance, to bury in their fields before planting.  I paraphrase: “Seeking self-gratification, the poor used their minimum wage increase to purchase X-Box games and $100 sneakers to impress others.”

“At the time of the harvest, the farmers held a festival to thank Pachamama.  The larger the harvest, the larger the celebration was.  In fact, a large percentage of the farmers’ income was being spent on the fetuses and on the harvest festival, thereby contributing to the farmers’ material poverty.”  More: “Each December, the poor held a festival called Christmas, during which they spent a large percentage of their income on decorations, celebrations, parties and material goods they could not afford, thereby contributing to their material poverty.” C’mon man!  While I admire the authors’ ambition in taking on worldwide poverty, I wonder if they’re spreading themselves thin.  Wouldn’t another valid approach be to solve the problem nearby before extending efforts worldwide?

That’s enough of “C’mon man!” for the moment.  You get the idea.  We need to think carefully when writers offer facile examples to justify their agendas.  That said, there is much in this chapter with which I agree.  The authors acknowledge that anti-poverty efforts can succeed on a material level without a faith-based foundation, but they argue that faith in God is the key element for a durable outcome – one that effects a transformation in the “worldview” of the person and informs their decisions and lifestyle thereafter.  Again, from personal experience, I agree with that conclusion.  Where the authors and I diverge is their insistence on a fundamentalist approach to the spread of the gospel and the Christian lifestyle.

Their example of Alisa Collins, a single mother “trapped” in ghetto life ends on an upbeat note with Alisa finding work with the help of a thoughtful mentor.  According to the story, Alisa “suddenly started finishing her high school degree, working full-time as a kindergarten teacher, and getting up at 4:00 a.m. to wash her family’s clothes before she was due at work.”  And according to the authors, “Alisa’s worldview changed and the system in which she lived changed.” (p. 93) The systemic change they cite was the passage of welfare reform legislation that limited Alisa’s access to ongoing government support.  They claim Alisa’s worldview was changed by a mentor who recognized “natural teaching gifts.”  One wonders if the mentor, like Diogenes, wandered the ghetto in search of “natural teaching gifts,” or if Alisa – running out of welfare income – sought out employment that led her to the mentor.  C’mon man! (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.) Although God may anoint certain people for certain important roles – think of biblical leaders like Moses or historical figures like Joan of Arc or Abraham Lincoln – in general I believe he wants to see us use our free will to make appropriate choices, and it requires effort by the poor to begin the healing process regardless of the obstacles presented by the “system.”  Alisa didn’t feel the need to make the choice to work until she had no other alternative.  That wasn’t the “system’s” fault.  That was Alisa’s free will choice.  How do we encourage better choices by the poor? Is it likely that Alisa, living in a ghetto, had never heard the fundamentalist version of the gospels until she “suddenly” changed?  Maybe the fundamentalist approach isn’t the most effective way to engage everyone.  Perhaps the authors will have some good ideas including a spiritual as well as a fundamentalist tactic, and I can finally get rid of this ear worm.

Peace

 

 

 

Are We There Yet? - Chapter 2 comments

Dear class:

Please be prepared for chapters 3 and 4 next week.  I’m moving the pace up on this for chapters I’m covering because of the substantial amount of “propaganda” (in my opinion) for literalism that is embedded in the materials.  The authors blend a strange militant Christian-only-centric worldview needed for prosperity (Chapter 3) with some good insights about poverty alleviation having to do with using the right tool for the right job (chapter 4), such that while Chapter 3 is a curiosity for a class like ours, Chapter 4 is more instructive.

Some Chapter 3 gems: 

·         “Ultimately, the profound reconciliation of the key relationships that comprise poverty alleviation cannot be done without people accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.”  p. 76

·         “Second, Satan and his legions are at work in the world and have the capacity and desire to damage our relationships.  Even if all humans had the correct worldview [i.e. are Christians as authors define], Satan would still be on the prowl, attacking us and the rest of creation, thereby causing “poverty” in many manifestations.”   p. 83

·         “Third, one of the results of the fall is that the entire creation is cursed, meaning that crops fail and tsunamis happen even when our worldviews are not faulty.”  p. 84

·         “the fall really happened, affecting both Alisa and the systems into which she was born,”  and blaming a person’s poverty on their own mistakes, “ignores the comprehensive impact of the fall on both individuals and systems and blinds us to our need to bring the reality of Christ’s redemption to bear on both.”   p. 87

·         “Too often we drill wells, dispense medicine, and provide food without narrating that Jesus Christ is the Creator and Provider of these material things.”  p. 90

If others have a different view, they can manage it when they lead!  I’m for moving through this book forthwith—there is some good stuff, but in my opinion it's pretty obvious and easy to get to.  And while what's here can be boiled down to a little more than the one word we were going to boil our last book down to, it doesn't merit a lot more attention. J

Peace, Phyllis