Emerging Atheism

There has been a surge of books by atheists in the last few years. Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens are the holy trinity of neo-atheists. Fortunately, there are less demeaning voices among the atheist community. In her book "The Age of American Unreason", Susan Jacoby has given us a fresh voice that is less angry and more conversant than her atheist cohorts are.

For Jacoby, the big problem we face is not religion, but instead the problem is anti-rationalism. Fundamentalist strains of religion can certainly become a catalyst for anti-rationalism, but she is clear to state that religion doesn't always have to be that way. The real culprits are poor education, the rise of junk-science, the degradation of our media, and a growing distrust of intellectualism. Jacoby also points out that we have lost our ability to have conversations. We've learned to mimic what our media sources present to us as examples. Unfortunately, that means we spend more time talking past one another rather than listening. The recent political debates are perfect examples.

As Christians, we could learn a great deal from the voices of reason. Many of their criticisms are valid. If we have any hope of emerging from our polarized past, we need to invite this perspective to the table. Rationalism does not exclude faith, but it does force the conversation to a level deeper than flimsy rhetoric and ancient dogma.

Is there a possibility for faith that goes beyond a simple rejection of reason? Is there a case for an emerging post-atheism?

Where Does The Money Go?

Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson are editors of Public Agenda Online. In this book, they've done a wonderful job of sorting through information, disinformation, and partisan rhetoric to bring the monstrous federal budget into the grasp of average citizens. They do this without glossing over the bad news, over-simplifying solutions, or creating hype about one particular pet issue. This book needed to be written. I hope many people will read it during this election period. It isn’t an attempt to bash government or make a partisan plea for votes. It is well balanced and focused on educating citizens about the realities of our complex budget. No simple solutions or silver bullets exist. Fixing our budget crisis is a critical problem but these authors remain hopeful. Feasible solutions exist even if they are not easy to swallow.

We need to realize that the answer isn’t on the left or the right. The answer is in owning up to our responsibilities and facing reality. The book closes with a plea for each person to exercise a little self-examination. Are you part of the problem?

Five Signs You’re Part of the Problem

• You can name every part to the legal entanglements surrounding the death of Anna Nicole Smith, but you don’t recognize the name of the vice president or the speaker of the house.
  
• You’re getting all your news from comedians
  
• You watch every single game in the NCAA tournament, but you don’t have time to keep up with politics.
  
• You’re focused on your family. Politics doesn’t matter to you.
  
• The news is depressing. You’d rather not know.

"Where Does The Money Go" - Bittle and Johnson

If you're curious about how much of the problem is government waste, tax-payer fraud, lazy people collecting welfare, politician's salaries, tax-cuts, or those nasty "earmarks" we hear so much about, then this book will help quantify each issue. The answer is that correcting any one of those problems won't make a dent in the budget crisis.

Is Jesus Dead?

This is the real question we must wrestle with on the Saturday before Easter Sunday. Most of my faith journey felt like one long confusing Saturday. Brian McLaren wrote a song called “I Am an Atheist”. This song makes the provocative statement “I can’t believe what they believe in you [but] I believe.” I can identify with that song. As an adult, I could no longer believe the things I was taught about Jesus as a child, but I still believe. I kept hoping for Easter to make sense. Most of the stories in the bible were easy to see as symbolic language. Easter was a bit more difficult to reconcile. It remains a stumbling block for many, but we can’t live our whole lives in the shadows of Saturday. We have to find our way to Easter Sunday.

The first time I saw this book by Bishop John Shelby Spong, “Resurrection: Myth or Reality?”, I was so shocked by it that I put the book down after reading the first few pages. Now, I would say this book has been more helpful than any other book on the subject. It is so much more than a philosophical discussion about the reality of resurrection or a dry academic search for the historical Jesus. If you think you know Bishop Spong or could guess his answer to this question, then you might be wrong and you may want to pick up this book and take this journey.

To dismiss these familiar biblical details as legendary does not end our search for the truth of what happened, it only drives us to another level where we ask a different question. What happened that gave birth to the legendary details that gathered around the moment of Easter? Why did they gather? Hundreds of millions of people have lived and died on this earth - some of them famous, powerful people – and no similar legends gathered around them. Why this one man, at this time, in this place?
[…]
Our great failing was that we did not know anything about midrash, so we literalized narratives that were not intended to be literalized. The Jerusalem Easter legends are not to be dismissed as untrue. They are meant to be probed for clues, as I trust I have done adequately. Behind the legends that grew up around this moment, there is a reality I can never deny. Jesus lives. I have seen the Lord. By that faith and with that conviction I live my life and proclaim my gospel. - John Shelby Spong

For Bishop Spong, the key to understanding the gospels and the early Christian development of faith is grounded in the tradition of Jewish literature called Midrash. I’ve been blogging about that for the last couple of weeks. Understanding the New Testament as Midrash may save Christianity in the 21st century from dying the slow death of ridicule and irrelevance.

My own wilderness moment, my Saturday, my period of mourning the death of Jesus, ended at some point in my journey. I found Easter Sunday when I found a Jesus I could believe in. The Gospels poetically describe resurrection as symbol for the moment when the mourning ended and the meaning of Jesus’ life sunk in. It was an enlightenment experience. At some point, possibly first in the mind of Simon Peter, the light bulb came on. The reason for Jesus’ life and death finally made sense. His followers couldn't remain silent. All they needed to do was envision it through the lens of their religious ancestors and begin telling this powerful life-changing story. That was the moment of Easter and it became the defining moment in history. It happened the moment that these early Christians knew Jesus’ life could not be silenced by his death. Each community immortalized Jesus with their own specific narrative about his life, baptized it in the allegory of Jewish antiquity, encapsulated the whole story into Jesus’ defining ritual of bread and wine, and then placed their own understanding and words deeply into the dialogue and action.

Is Resurrection a myth or a reality? I believe something real happened in the lives of these real people that lead to these important stories. I also recognize that the Resurrection is a myth about a transcendent reality that could not be described through any other means.

The Metaphor of Incarnation

For Christianity, this is where the rubber meets the road. To be Christian in any way means that you somehow feel Jesus incarnates God. I affirm that statement, but it is simply too ambiguous to have any significant meaning on its own. Albert Mohler would also affirm this statement, but we would likely mean very different things. The issue for me is not “if” Jesus incarnates God. Instead, the issue is all about “how” that happens and what exactly we mean when we say it.

John Hick is an internationally read and discussed philosopher of religion and theologian. His many books have, between them, been translated into seventeen languages. I read his book “The Metaphor of God Incarnate” last year and it helped me to crack open the doctrine of Christology like no other book I’ve read. This had been something I avoided. Born and raised as a conservative Evangelical, I was taught not to ask such questions. These doctrines about Jesus’ divinity were supposed to be off the list of acceptable topics. It was never important what it meant, but only that you repeat it as often as possible and with as much emotion as you could muster. At some point in my journey, that shallow denial of reality was just not enough. I could no longer participate in a faith that required me to “check my brain at the door” and ignore the 300 lb gorilla in the room. I’ve learned in my lifetime that when people are afraid of questions, it is always because they know deep down that their answers are inadequate. Still, I'm not ready to give up my faith tradition.

John Hick has done a wonderful job of opening this language of incarnation without loosing its power to change our lives. Conservatives have treated the incarnation as a rare bottle of wine, hidden away in cellar, possessed, revered, showcased on Sunday morning, often treated as an object of pride and boasting, but rarely opened and enjoyed. However, Jesus is not an exhaustible resource. There is no reason to fear opening this bottle up and enjoying it. To follow Christ is to open the best bottle first and let it be enjoyed by all because this wine will never run out. A believable understanding of incarnation is necessary for the survival of Christianity in the 21st century and offers great hope for the end of divisive competitive religious polarization and war.

You can read a short essay by John Hick called “Believable Christianity” on his website. Here is a quote:

Am I suggesting, then, that we should drop the language of incarnation? No, I'm suggesting that we should understand it in a different way. The idea of incarnation is a powerful metaphorical idea. It means to embody some ideal or conviction in one's life. We all know what is meant when someone says that, for example, Nelson Mandela, after the triumph of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, incarnated the spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation. He embodied this in his life and actions. And the metaphor of divine incarnation, according to which Jesus embodied an overwhelming awareness of the goodness and love of God, is intelligible, believable, and morally challenging. The official dogma, on the other hand, is neither intelligible, nor believable, nor morally challenging. For if Jesus, as number two in the Trinity living a human life, was sinless and perfect, what sort of a role model is that for we ordinary human beings? We are not God incarnate, we are sinful, frail and imperfect, and we need a human model whom we can follow and by whom we can be challenged. And the human Jesus of Nazareth was just that. We can take him as our lord in the sense of - to use an eastern word now much in use in the west - our guru, someone whom we try to follow as our role model. - John Hick, 2006

I recongnize this is "too far" for many Evangelical rooted Emergents. They would prefer to keep a cork on this topic, but there is so much to be gained here. Many of the painful frustrations felt within the Emergent groups are due to an unwillingness to have this discussion. The result is often ambiguity, division, and confusion. It doesn't have to be that way. We've made theology so much harder than it has to be by attempting to literalize our metaphors and myths to the point that they become incomprehensible and bizarre. Incarnation is a beautiful story. Let's open it up and let it breath.

Free Lunch

David Cay Johnston has written a great book called "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill)" . I was a little afraid that the book would drag me back into a libertarian state of pessimism about government, but the book was more than I expected. The author does a wonderful job of pointing out corruption without making America and our government the problem. We have been the victim of corrupt leadership, absentee media sources, and a largely ignorant public. That combination has lead to nearly 9 trillion dollars of national debt and little to show for it. However, if we let ourselves become pessimistic, we will have lost all hope.

Nearly thirty years ago, our nation fell for the intentional decision to move toward a policy that ships our tax dollars to large corporate interests. It may look like downsizing, but in reality it is more costly than we ever could have imagined. I fell for it too. It sounded like a good idea. Ronald Reagan made us believe we would downsize our government, but the reality is that he made us addicted to debt and we began spending more than ever by outsourcing many of our nations responsibilities to overpriced government contracts. We mistakenly thought that brining “business men” into the equation would trim spending and make our government more efficient. We were all wrong. Instead, our ties to corporate interests have created a huge amount of debt. Businesses are designed to make money, and they have done just that at the expense of American taxpayers. The trend has continued ever since. The funny thing is that George W. Bush got elected on the basis of tax cuts and responsible spending, however, David Cay Johnston shows us that Bush made his fortune on tax increases and a slick arrangement with state and local government to send the proceeds directly into his pocket via his investment in the Texas Rangers baseball team. There are many more examples including subisidies to Wal-Mart, oil companies, casinos, and sports teams.

One of the bright spots in this well written book is a clear explanation of Health Care in America including the history of Health Management Organizations (HMOs) and drug company influences. I wish every American voter would read this book. It is well researched and very readable. It will probably piss you off, but it shouldn't leave you jaded about the possiblity of solving our problems.

The New Christians

I was recently asked to review Tony Jones' new book for the Academy of Parish Clergy. His publisher was kind enough to send me an advanced copy. I loved the book. It will be available in March 2008 but you can pre-order it through Amazon.com. Here is the short version of my review:

---

The Emergent Church is a hot topic. Its critics have been struggling to nail down its definition and paint its leaders into a corner. Discussions about these new Christians are full of rumors, misconceptions, and urban legends. However, many people feel this movement could be the future of American Christianity.

Tony Jones is the national coordinator for Emergent Village and a doctoral fellow in practical theology at Princeton University. He lays everything about the Emergent phenomenon on the table in his new book “The New Christians: Dispatches From The Emergent Frontier”. For anyone interested in the Emergent Church, this book is a must read. Giving the reader an inside scoop on the origins of this movement, Tony Jones has taken a big step toward answering many questions of participants and critics alike. I’d like to thank Tony for sharing his journey with us.

These new Christians began as small group of Evangelicals asking a few deep questions. As the answers produced more questions and those questions took on a life of their own, it became obvious that their friendships were much more important than their agreement on all the details. These questions are not new. Most Christians have struggled with questions of faith at some point in their life. Churches of all varieties have to deal with questions regarding leadership structure, facilities, worship models, and culture, but something different happened in this conversation. Where past generations of Christians had often come to irreconcilable differences that severed relationships and fragmented Protestantism into a million pieces, these friends found a way to see past the division and savor the conversation.

The Christian community has been watching intensely as these new Christians have held a public brainstorming session for the past decade via blogs, magazine articles, and even a few controversial books. Few concrete answers have crystallized but publishing your work for the world to see makes you very vulnerable and vulnerability creates fertile ground for change. Most pastors and executives would rather iron out all the details, conduct a few market tests, and debug all the programs before going public. These new Christians resisted that temptation and dared to take another path. The result is not simply a new denomination or a different doctrinal statement, but it is a different kind of process. They have created a theology and ecclesiology developed through collaboration and community rather than any claims of divinely appointed superiority or exclusive access to tradition. Tony Jones compares Emergent to an open source software product or an online collaboration tool such as Wikipedia.com.

“Like Wikipedia, emergent churches harbor no great fear of failure. In fact, failures are a natural consequence of innovation and adventure”
…
”However, when emergent churches open-source their worship environments, all sorts of people make themselves heard, leading to a richer experience for all, albeit one with some serious mistakes.” (p.193)

This book doesn’t gloss over the problems. Not all of the relationships made it through undamaged. For some, the questions were out of bounds and many answers spelled heresy. For the critics, the concrete answers were not materializing fast enough.

As more than a biographical sketch of Emergent, the book discloses the core values of these individual communities and provides a healthy dose of the terminology with in-depth definitions. Any attempts to heal the wounds of conflict would be futile without addressing the deep theological differences. When theology and practice become disconnected, there is a big problem.

“The emergent movement is robustly theological; the conviction is that theology and practice are inextricably related, and each invariably informs the other.” (p.104)

I suspect that this Emergent conversation may be the first glimpse into modern mainline theology for many Evangelicals. It might be fair to suggest that these young Evangelicals are just now catching up with scholars like Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, and Walter Brueggemann who have been willing to tackle tough theological questions and create dialogue for a long time. There is ample evidence of that trend. His friend and fellow Emergent author Brian McLaren, credits both Brueggemann and Crossan in his latest book “Everything Must Change”. However, Tony Jones is a bit critical of these scholars. He suggests that Borg, in particular, has missed the mark by rejecting orthodox beliefs in the resurrection and interpreting the bible’s miraculous stories as symbolic parables. (p.148, p.156) I feel Tony might have been too quick to make that judgment. Mainline scholars have long been the champions of fresh theological perspectives and he might be overlooking some worthwhile advocates in the journey ahead.

This conversation is happening all around the world in homes, coffee houses, bars, and maybe even a few Sunday school classes. Something wonderful happens when people are willing to become vulnerable, share their incomplete stories, doubts, and questions. These new Christians realize that the gospel is so much more than bulletproof answers to questions. The gospel comes to life during the process of accepting people who have questions to ask. For those of us interested in the Emergent journey and even those wishing to cut them off at the pass, this book offers much to learn for us all.

The First Christmas

I read Marcus Borg and Dominic Crossan's latest book "The First Christmas" a couple of months ago. If you want to get a good feel for its important message, you can read this interview with Crossan about the book. Thanks to Mystical Seeker for posting the link on his blog.

I'm not a huge Christmas fan. The season largely misses the point. However, this Christmas was less commercial and less busy than usual. I didn't buy one single gift at a store. My wife and I gave Kiva.org gift certificates as presents to all our friends. I'm excited to see them put into action. I can only imagine the difference those micro-loans will make.

After a trip out of town to visit family, we were home for a quite Christmas. It was a good day for reflection, meditation, and a change of perspective.

Let's Be Honest

R. Kirby Godsey was president of Mercer University in Atlanta, GA for 27 years and his progressive views have made both friends and enemies. I just finished his book "When we talk about God... Let's be honest". It has many refreshing moments. The highlights are Godsey's perspective on belief and doubt, a well rounded critique of atonement theory, a healthy respect for non-literal biblical interpretation, and tolerance for pluralism and universal salvation. I particularly enjoyed his chapter on " Plain Talk about Last Things", which described a very enlightened view of human spirituality and after-life. He manages to do all these things without loosing the average reader or renouncing his love of the Baptist faith tradition.

This book is not a detailed treatment of any theological topics, but it reflects a lifetime of deep thought and study. Godsey is obviously well versed in theology but he cares enough about his audience to gently introduce an honest approach to a deeper process of thought. I wish I had found this book when I was a Baptist. Here is my favorite passage...

Unlike naive optimism, hope faces the tragedy of all that is not right and fosters within us the courage and energy to work toward making things right. Hope rights the wrongs. Hope does not say, "Don't worry about it; God will take care of everything." Hope becomes the agent of God in making the world right. Hope searches for ways to overcome terrorism. Hope becomes a part of undoing the violence of abuse and abandonment that threatens us. Hope embraces the lonely. Hope carries coats to the elderly in winter. Hope takes the homeless home. Hope feeds the hungry and clothes the naked. Hope forgives the hurt. In very concrete, specific ways, hope is the eternity breaking into the time of our lives. God's presence changes the character of our time on earth. The Christian understanding of last things is not, then, chiefly about judgement day or heaven and hell. The Christian's last word is about hope. To be Christian means being present in time with the power of hope.

Leaving Microsoft

From Crackle: Room To Read

Vampire Theology

Just in time for Halloween, I’m continuing my thoughts on the classic theory of atonement described in “The Cross of Christ” by John Stott.

I’m beginning to realize that maybe instead of a sci-fi movie or Greek mythology, the appropriate analogy for his description of atonement might be a B-grade horror flick. To make his theory work, you must make another assumption borrowed from Greek philosophy. In order for atonement to have its purpose of securing a preferred status in afterlife (heaven vs. hell) their must be a dualistic separation between physical bodies and spiritual souls. In other words, there needs to be something immortal which could be “alive” or “animated” outside of our physical body and then “saved” or “condemned”. It is a clever but very ancient way of explaining human intelligence and emotions. We can thank Plato for this mind/body dualism but it may not have been applied to the life of Jesus until Christianity began spreading outside the ancient Jewish world.

Most people today would understand “soul” as a symbol for our passion, hopes, and purpose and we would recognize our highly refined intellectual skills as a product of evolution. But for fundamentalists, atonement theory requires an ancient application of the word “soul” as a ghost-like being living within our body and surviving after our death. It is debatable if Jesus would have had that view given his setting in 1st century Jewish culture. Jesus lived in a time where the worldview of his people was shifting to embrace the Greek philosophy so it is possible but not probable that he embraced that shift. That logic had not been deeply absorbed into the Jewish religion. Even if Jesus did embrace this dualistic philosophy, most modern biblical scholars find it hard to imagine that he would have understood an otherworldly aspect to the system of sin and forgiveness. For Jews, sins are clearly actions that have their origin and resolution here on earth so the idea of sin and forgiveness playing out in a cosmic battle with stakes that are beyond our sight seems to be out of context for Jesus. This might explain why the application of atonement theories on top of Jesus’ life forced Christianity further and further from its Jewish roots. Early Christian theologians like Paul were quick (and probably correct) to adapt his message to fit this growing gentile worldview. If messages don’t adapt to the overriding worldview of a population then they most likely die. This ability of these early Christians to adapt the message of Jesus into the worldview of other cultures may be a huge success factor in the spread of Christianity in the Greco-Roman world. Maybe we should learn from that approach.

It is more probable to assume that the problems addressed by Jesus were the same sins of injustice spoken about in the prophetic voices of Jewish prophets like Isaiah, Micah, and Jeremiah. All of the Gospel writers linked Jesus to the Old Testament prophets in their narratives by having him quote specific passages which symbolized his desire to continue their prophetic critique of the wealthy elite in Jerusalem. It makes sense to think that since he quoted them, he (and his narrators) agreed not only with the words of those prophets, but also their political meaning. That meaning is clearly the end of oppression by corrupt leadership and domination by a foreign empire.

Placing hope in medieval atonement theories has about as much as a value as a mystical clove of garlic. Remember, these theories came from the same people that invented the idea of splashing around holy water to fight off evil spirits and that wasn't even a movie. Still more to come…

Domesticated Jesus

More good stuff from Brian McLaren whose new book "Everything Must Change" is making a big splash this month.

"We [Christians] have to ask ourselves some deep questions. To what degree have we lost the plot? To what degree have we ended up with a religion that talks about Jesus, sings about Jesus, but Jesus has just become kind of a hood ornament on our own vehicle that we're driving to our own destination."

"Do we really get the good news of Jesus or are we living out another story using a lot of Jesus talk plastered onto it."

Everything Must Change

I received my copy of Brian McLaren's new book "Everything Must Change". It started a bit slow and I was worried that it might devolve into a watered down form of environmental activism (not that there's anything wrong environmental activism) but thankfully it is so much more. Brian has a gift for articulating important elements of Biblical scholarship in a very digestible format for those who are new to theological discussions. In addition to being accessible, the book is organized with group discussions in mind.

I'm sure this book will offend some very conservative people (because everything does), but Brian has succeeded in presenting this material in a non-threatening manner that holds onto just enough traditional theology to entertain a broad audience. I understand why he was a successful pastor because he has created a perfect balance of prophetic critique, education, and inspiration. This message is right on target to make huge waves in the Evangelical Christian community where people like Marcus Borg and Dominic Crossan are not allowed. I hope it finds its way into that space. It is sure to open many hearts and minds.

Change is Coming...

I pre-orderd Brian Mclaren's new book "Everything Must Change" (I'm addicted to Amazon.com) and it should arrive at my door in the next day or two. As Brian says in the video, it's about two basic questions: 1) what are the biggest crises facing the world today, and 2) what do the life and teachings of Jesus have to say to those global crises? The early reviews say it will be even more controversial than his previous books.


I hope to find a few local friends that will agree to begin a discussion group. If you are in the Augusta area and would like to buy a copy and begin meeting to discuss the book then let me know.

I hate brands!

In her well written book "No Logo", Naomi Klein highlights the impact of globalization through the financial rise and ethical demise of multi-national corporations. I've been enjoying the book, but my reason for hating brands is less about the implications of labor abuse in third world nations and more about the sickness of "image" that is embedded in our society.

I absolutely hate brands and branding and I do my best to avoid buying anything that is sold based heavily on its branding. There are no pictures of fruit on my computers and I will not wear a shirt with a visible logo. If you want to sell me a product then don't push it at me with a naked woman or lay it on the hood of a sports car or try to make me think I'll be cool if I own it. If I do happen to end up with a branded product (by gift or by accident) I remove and/or mutilate the brand logo. I thought I was alone in my mission so you can imagine I was hooked when I saw the nologo logo on this book.

Pop culture and fashion are so foreign to me that I once thought New Balance was an "off-brand" of shoes because I happened to buy mine for $15 on clearance. I never shop so I had no idea it was a recognized brand. Two weeks ago, a friend informed me that I was in fact wearing a trendy fashion item that normally sells for 3 or 4 times that price and is coveted by college students. I was upset so the next day I removed the logos with a razor blade. I'm sorry that I bought them, but the damage is done. At least now I'm no longer giving them free advertising and you'll be happy to know that the shoes look 100% better without the big N.

I run a business and I do advertise but there is a big difference between advertising to find customers that need my products and services versus creating a need by implying that consumers will become rich, famous, and sexually appealing if they will slap my logo on their ass. If you are selling shoes then advertise the damn pair of shoes not the promise of a better lifestyle! My solution to this problem is that every commercial using image to pimp their product should be required to add a disclaimer at the end. This disclaimer should read like the side effect disclaimer at the end of an ad for a new drug. Maybe something like...

"The lifestyle depicted in this ad will destroy your marriage, friendships, and values and leave you a shell of human being. The probability of drug addiction, promiscuity, jail time, and suicide will be increased by 72%. You will be just as lonely after you buy this product and the only thing that will change is your credit card bill."

Brian Mclaren's newest book...

Here is Brian reading a bit of his upcoming book. I thought it was relevent to my current frame of mind.

Plug-in Hybrids

If you haven't read this book or seen the movie "Who killed the electric car?" then please make the time to do it. Electric cars could be mass produced right now for reasonable prices and our dependency on foreign oil could be over in less than a decade. If you don't believe me, do some research on your own. The technology is available and contrary to oil and car industry propaganda, the American public wants these cars NOW! Thank you Sherry Boschert for making this information available in a very approachable and effective book.

I hate the fact that I can't have one of these cars. I would pay dearly to get one but they are not available. Actually I would prefer a 100% electric car which COULD be produced and has been produced but will not be produced anytime soon.

There many reasons why can't we buy these cars right now?

1. The oil companies spent millions of dollars to kill the legislation that mandated the production of Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV). This legislation was in place in the 90's and the Bush administration (code name for oil industry executives who now run America) championed the death of that legislation.

2. George Bush's hollow backing of alternate fuel sources like hydrogen fuel-cells and Ethanol are a slight of hand trick aimed to delay the discussion for 20 years and steer us away from the technology that would be devastating to the net worth of our president, vice president, secretary of state, secretary of defense, and over half the elected and appointed officials in Washington because their oil industry dividends, kickbacks, and stock-options would dry up. We desperately need to enforce the principle of SEPARATION OF OIL AND STATE by demanding that no elected government official can have any financial ties to the oil industry. Our president said "we are addicted to oil". I agree, so the production of gasoline should be viewed in the same light as the production of cocaine. Actually, we might be better off with a president that has family ties to the cocaine industry. At least then we could grow our own cocaine and we wouldn't have to spend a trillion dollars fighting for it!

3. In 1994, GM purchased a controlling interest in Energy Conversion Devices, the company that invented and patented the most efficient NiMH batteries used in 2nd generation electric vehicles which allowed mid-sized electric sedans (like the GM EV1) to go 150 - 300 miles with a 2-4 hour at-home charge and could out run most sports cars 0-60. After ZEV mandates were killed, the cars were destroyed and GM sold its interest in the battery company to ChevronTexaco. Think for a minute about this. The one technology that could IMMEDIATELY end our dependence on oil is owned by one of the largest oil companies in the world. They even sued Toyota for trying to continue their production of the vehicles using this battery technology. Hmmmm.... I wonder why I can't buy an electric car and I wonder why the only talk of electric cars are "hybrids" that still need oil and gas and leave us addicted and at the mercy of foreign policy built around our Government officials ties to the oil industry. About the same time GM killed the EV1 and sold it's interests in battery technology, it purchased a new line of innovative vehicles called HUMMER. There is no question that General Motors places a higher priority on its own profits than the lives of American soldiers and our nation's best interests.

4. Vehicle Maintenance made up 12% of dealer revenues in 2004, and that accounted for nearly 57% of their profits. They just don't make much money selling cars, but they get rich fixing old outdated internal combustion engines which need heavy and costly transmissions, regular tune-ups, oil changes, mufflers, and are extremely inefficient at converting energy. Electric cars use 70% fewer moving parts. Yet, we somehow expect these same car companies to provide an alternative that can save us. What are we thinking? Would we have airbags and seat-belts without strictly enforced laws? Of course not. It is time to reintroduce the CAFE fuel efficiency standards like we had in the 70's AND a NATIONAL ZEV mandate similar to the one introduced in California in the 90's. Again, this is why the only alternatives on the table are combination electric/gas hybrids. They need us to always be slaved to internal combustion engines which also mean the cost of these vehicles will be HIGHER since they need two separate power sources and a vast array of computerized parts to combine them. It also pushes up the price and raises the barrier of entry for its competitors.

This isn't the first time that the automotive and oil industry have teamed up to take advantage of their power and influence at the expense of our nations best interests.

Between 1922 and 1955, GM colluded with Standard Oil and Firestone tire company to systematically buy up the nation's clean electric (and popular) streetcar systems, the dominate mode of public urban transportation. By 1946, using a front company called National City Lines, they owned streetcar lines in 80 cities and steadily closed them down, replacing them with exhaust-belching, unpopular buses. At the same time, they lobbied hard for creation of interstate highways and the paving of America's cities with freeways in order to promote car use. A federal antitrust investigation led to conviction of GM executives, but by then US public electric transportation was obliterated, and the company paid only $5,000 in fines. - Sherry Boschert

Electric cars are our future and I'll do my part by making this pledge. I will not buy another car that runs only on gasoline. I also won't buy one of the current hybrids that get better mileage but still depends on gas as their only source of energy. It looks like I'll have to wait another 2 to 4 years and I'll have to settle for a plug-in hybrid (sad compromise but my current vehicles are getting old). I demand the right to plug-in and I also pledge to buy the first 100% electric car that is available for under $30,0000 and I pledge to vote for any political candidate that supports this cause. I've not yet heard one 2008 presidential candidate mention electric cars. Supply and demand won't solve this problem because the forces in control of supply are artificially manipulated. Our government (that is you and me!) must step in.

“Christian” – Is that term still applicable?

The opening Chapter of John Shelby Spong’s book “A New Christianity for a New World” he begins with some assertions which many people may think are incompatible with Christianity but he has no problem claiming the label “Christian” for himself. I find myself in agreement with many of these assertions and some people I’ve talked to lately have questioned my use of the label. I’d like to hear some opinions on the possibility of a person dissmissing so much of the traditionally defined content of the Christian faith and still claiming the label “Christian”. If I agree with Bishop Spong on these points, am I still a Christian?

Here is a brief summary of Spong’s assertions:

• I do not define God as a supernatural being.
• Since I do not see God as a being, I cannot interpret Jesus as the earthly incarnation of this supernatural deity.
• I do not believe that this Jesus could or did in any literal way raise the dead, overcome a medically diagnosed paralysis, or restore sight to a person born blind, hearing to a deaf person, etc.
• I do not believe that Jesus entered this world by a miracle of a virgin birth or that virgin births occur anywhere except in mythology.
• I do not believe that the experience Christians celebrate at Easter was a physical resuscitation.
• I do not believe that Jesus returned to God by ascending in any literal sense into a heaven located somewhere above the sky.
• I do not believe Jesus founded a church or established an ecclesiastical hierarchy.
• I do not believe that human beings are born in sin and unless somehow saved will forever be banished from God’s presence.
• I do not believe that the Bible is the “word of God” in any literal sense.

Spong also makes these positive affirmations of faith, which until a few years ago I would have thought were incompatible with the above statements.

• I believe that God is real and that I live deeply and significantly as one related to that divine reality.
• I call Jesus my Lord.
• I believe that Jesus mediated God in a powerful and unique way to human history and to me.
• I believe that my particular life has been dramatically and decisively impacted not only by the life of Jesus, but also by his death and indeed the Easter experience that Christians know as the resurrection.
• I believe that in this Christ I discover a basis for meaning, for ethics, for prayer, for worship, and even for the hope of life beyond the boundaries of my mortality.

What do you think?

"Static" - N.T. Wright meets MTV

If I had seen Ron Martoia's web site or seen a picture of him before I purchased his new book "Static", then I'm afraid I wouldn't have read it. I'm probably shallow for thinking that way, but I have to confess that I really dislike all things with glitz, glamour, vibrant colors, and slick presentations. I've always hated MTV. In my opinion, MTV killed rock music. I only listen to talk radio and don't listen to ANY music, other than the occasional ambient meditation CD, because I don't think any form of performance based music can exist today free from the greed and vanity of mass marketing. Now, in the place of music is one big stupid fashion and sexuality show with a faint presence of melody somewhere in the distant background. I like so much of what the Emergent conversation is doing to help educate the Evangelical community, but when I see a preacher with hair gel and a cool shirt or hear about a conference with "christian rock bands", flashy graphics, and disenfranchised video game playing twenty-somethings I immediately tune out and assume it is another Marc Driscoll or imitation rock-star wannabe.

Ok, I'm done bitching now...

I was wrong, this book is wonderful! I'm glad this book slipped past my overly critical (and often flawed) radar screen. By the time I realized who Ron Martoia was, I was already hooked by this book. I've made a commitment to try and read books from a variety of theological camps so I decided to give this book a chance. "Static" is very reminiscent of Brian Mclaren's "New Kind of Christian" using fictional conversations to model how traditional Christians might begin to have more robust theological discussions and potentially make shifts in their view of the world. The book is targeted at Evangelicals, but its intent is to introduce the type of biblical exegesis and critical thinking that is rare and even off-limits in many Evangelical settings. It does this without being critical of the Evangelical worldview and won't seem foreign to most traditional Christians. "Static" has the potential to make a huge impact much like Donald Miller's "Blue Like Jazz", which caught fire in the twenty-something Evangelical crowd a few years ago.

On a personal level, the book challenged me to rethink how I discuss theology with my many fundamentalist friends. I've had my fair share of run-ins with fundamentalists lately and after reading this book I really feel challenged to take a different approach. Martoia is still very much an Evangelical, but he isn't an idiot, a religious bigot, or someone that shuts down theological discussions immediately.

The most exciting revelation in this book is that Martoia summarized many of the ideas that Marcus Borg and Dominic Crossan have written about which reveal the Jesus of the Gospels as a contrast to the Roman imperial theology of Caesar as the divine savior of the world (he doesn't cite Borg/Crossan but the themes are consistent). This will be new for most of the readers of this book and he does a great job of introducing these concepts without asking Evangelicals to let go of their concepts of the divinity of Jesus or a theistic/interventionist view of God. I don't see eye to eye with Martoia's image of God but it didn't seem to bother me because he doesn't shut down other views as outside the realm of possibility. He does entertain the idea of rethinking afterlife but he doesn't throw out the concept. Instead, he suggests a restructuring of our priorites and a focus on the presence of the kingdom in our lives now rather than something that happens "only" after we die. That is a big step in the right direction and one that I'm excited to see discussed. It is yet to be seen if people can have this "both/and" approach and still be able to understand the radical political and social implications in the Bible's message and let this message effect their day to day lives, spending habits, and voting patterns. I'm willing to step back and see if this mixed message will be potent enough to make an impact without devolving back into a mentality of small minded charity instead of large scale systematic transformation. I hope it is possible.

The bottom line is that the work of N.T. Wright is beginning to have an impact in Evangelical circles. I don't agree with everything that comes from Mr. Wright, but I like what these 2nd generation manifestations of Wright's influence are beginning to say. It is a step in the right direction and I have to admit that his message stands a better chance of impacting the lives of traditional Christians than the voices of Borg, Crossan, and Spong who write for an entirely different audience within the mainline church and the more secular educational forums. I'm very encouraged by what this book says and I'm optimistic about its potential ability to bridge the gap between different Christian groups. You certainly can't judge a book by its cover and I'm humbled to admit I was too quick to make a judgement about this emerging prophetic voice.

The Story That Changed My Life

In his book "Why Christianity Must Change or Die", John Shelby Spong points out that Paul's letters do little to explain the meaning of Jesus, but are much more concerned with proclaiming Jesus through ecstatic proclamations. Then, Spong suggests that the Gospel writers take up the task of expanding Paul's work by crafting narratives around Paul's words about the importance of Jesus. He mentions the word "distorted" but he goes on later to describe that this word is not meant to devalue the work but only to frame it within context of the limitations of human language. These stories are no longer an obstacle for me. They come to life when I see them through this lens of creative story-telling woven together around important metaphorical truths.

The experience of Jesus clearly needed to be narrated. In these Gospel stories the Jesus experience would be explained, interpreted, and rationalized in terms of a first-century Jewish worldview. Inevitably, this meant that the Jesus experience would be distorted.

This point must be heard: the Gospels are first-century narrations based on first-century interpretations. Therefore they have never been other than that. We must read them today not to discover the literal truth about Jesus, but rather to be led into the Jesus experience they were seeking to convey. That experience always lies behind the distortions, which are inevitable since words are limited. If the Gospels are to be for us revelations of truth, we must enter these texts, go beneath the words, discover the experience that made the words necessary, and in this manner seek the meaning to which the words point. One must never identify the text with the revelation or the messenger with the message. That has been the major error in our two thousand years of Christian history. It is an insight that today is still feared and resisted. But let it be clearly stated, the Gospels are not in any sense holy, they are not accurate, and they are not to be confused with reality. They are rather beautiful portraits painted by first century Jewish artists, designed to point the reader toward that which is in fact holy, accurate, and real. The Gospels represent that stage in the development of the faith story in which ecstatic exclamation begins to be placed into narrative form.

I've always seen this process backwards because it appears that Paul was expanding the Gospel stories, but we know that isn't possible since his work came first. I guess the biblical ordering confused the issue. Paul uses bold statements about Jesus as the incarnation of the spirit, the need to be transformed through death, and becoming new creatures through resurrection. Then the Gospel writers gradually expanded on these truths to give us a better picture by crafting the stories about Jesus' virgin-birth, baptism and descending of God's spirit, death and resurrection, and ascension. All these stories contain elements of Paul's symbolic language illustrated in vibrant narrative form.

Where have all the leaders gone?

I'm not a big fan of the Detroit auto industry. I'm outraged that I don't have the option of buying an electric car and I feel certain that people are dying in Iraq today simply because our government caved under pressure from lobbyists and rolled back the fuel efficiency standards that were put in place in the Carter administration. Had we continued with those CAFE standards since the late 70's then we would be energy independent today. That mandate called for the average passenger car fuel efficiency to be 48 MPG by 1995. What would that be worth to our economy and our lives? Oh! I forgot, Carter was an unpopular president that asked us to make a few sacrifices to help avoid disaster in the future. Thank God we "fixed" things. I would hate to have stuck with Carter's plans to be energy independent, have health care for all our citizens, saved billions wasted fighting a losing war on drugs, and created peace in the middle east through diplomacy. Being a great leader in tough times means resisting the urge to take the easy way out by saying what is popular. Instead of following Carter's plans, by making short term sacrifices to solve these long term problems, we turned our nation over to questionable leaders that decided to drive our nation into drastic debt with tax cuts and defense spending and then climb in bed with oil companies and the national powers that would end up attacking us on 9/11.

Despite my suspicion of the auto industry, I just picked up Lee Iacocca's new book and I was pleasantly surprised. He has always been known for being a straight shooter, but I wasn't expecting him to be a voice of prophetic critique of our current administration and a champion for change. I don't agree with everything, but like to hear diverse opinions and I'm really enjoying the book. He admits his mistake of supporting Bush in 2000, but was willing to correct that in 2004. Now he is very vocal and very prophetic. Here is what he has to say:

Had Enough?

Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."

Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I'll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!

You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies. Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don't need it). The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?

I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have. - Lee Iacocca