rites of passage

The Samburu tribe out of Kenya have a rite of passage for their boys. They send them out on their own when they think they are ready around 12-14 years old. They live off the land isolated from their village. They return when they think they are men. In former days this included killing a lion. The return can be from 3 months to several years. The future leader of the tribe is the boy who gravitates toward leadership in a group they send out.

There is a circumcision (ouch) ceremony when the boys return. For girls it is different. The women are in charge of the village and so girls are trained in their responsibilities, before they are declared women. When they are deemed ready, there is a clitoridectomy (ouch again!) ceremony.

What are rites of passage for the American tribe? Depending on cultural or religious background, it can be anything from confirmation to bar mitzvah to a Quinceañeras. However there is a cross cultural American rite of passage. It is called a “DRIVERS LICENSE.”

Our daughter just got her license yesterday and it was not a trip to the wilderness or, heaven forbid, surgery, but it was definitely a milestone. She can now go out to the wilderness of the LA Freeway system on her own. When I got out of the car and the test instructor was ready to get in, I slipped a Samburu bracelet on her wrist. This was a gift from my friend Buzz who had just visited the Samburu in December. After she passed the test, I got the bracelet back, along with a new driver in the family. The power of our tribe has expanded.

Jambo!!

End of The Spear

Saw End of The Spear last week. Thought it was just an OK film, but for anything Christian based that makes it in Hollywood, you have to accept anything that is at least half way decent. It tells the story of 5 missionaries out of Wheaton College (one of our rivals at Carthage College where I attended) who were killed in the jungles of Ecuador while sharing the gospel with a group of indigenous people, the Waodani. The film tells the story of what happened as many of the Waodani came to Christ after establishing a relationship with the families of the men who were killed.

The film really didn’t get into the whole missionary/ Bible translator culture (would have loved to hear a ton more about the why? of their journey) that still is at work today. The Waodani culture was so violent and revenge focused that it was apparent from the film that they were on the brink of wiping themselves out. My brief research on this gave a figure of 60% fatality by the time the film took place 1956.

The film made clear the anti-violence, anti-war message that is part of Jesus’ model and biblical teaching that many Christians follow. These men were extreme pacifists, even refusing to fight in self-defense. I am not going into the nuances on biblical teaching on this yet, I will blog on it at a later date, but suffice it to say, this is about as pro-peace as you could possibly get for a movie. Anti-war groups should be raving about this film or at least its message.

Probably not though. The five men and their families were Anglo, and the Waodani are indigenous people of color. There is no way this is not going to be panned by critics, even though it happened this way. I am going to pick 3 film weblinks from imdb.com to read a review and I will let you know if anyone caught the pacifist influence. Be back in 5 minutes.

Back. Variety, reel.com, and Entertainment Weekly. One review caught the anti-violent message, and two were sarcastic about the white man/ native stereotype. Problem is, it happened just that way. Go see the film.

do we have a clue?

Are you genetically and physiologically wired to specific behavior? This week I have mentioned a few observations on this hypothesis. A huge challenge to any of this is of course “choice.” When it is all said and done, people still have to act. Frequently, that may go completely against what is supposed to be their nature. That’s really the issue here. You can analyze brain circuitry and chemical imbalances and all the rest, but what you are left with is people eventually do something. It is not always what is expected. Often. In fact, people are transformed in ways that can’t be explained.

The evidence of the whole human experience has never been this.

“I have tendencies toward A behavior rather than B behavior and therefore I always exhibit A behavior and not B.”

When you are supposed to be A, but you behave in a B fashion, then does that mean you were never A in the first place, or did you choose B for other reasons? Why are there rage-filled and violent people who don’t kill or injure others? Was physiological impulse overcome by physiological resistance because you had been pre-wired to know you might go to prison? How come that circuitry didn’t kick in for those who did act out and get convicted?

Do you see where you can go with this? We haven’t a clue about the intricacies and nuances of the human mind, let alone be able to attribute everything to brain synapses, hormones, and isolated chemicals brewing in the human cauldron.

Back to “the Devil made me do it?”

bonding

Thus far, my quick research in the parental bonding area that I spoke of yesterday has resulted in a possible genetic link for warmth for one’s offspring. Environmental influences for bonding or imprinting on one’s child are so high that genetic factors don’t seem major though possible. The question remains. How do you explain the bonding that occurs so quickly when a parent connects with their adopted child?

When parents hold a child in their arms is it qualitatively different when the parent realizes this is the child they will raise as their own? There is so much to human consciousness and perception that doesn’t fit into a physicalism model.

parental instinct?

If our thinking is totally material, based on “stuff” that is already “wired” in our bodies, then how do you explain the physiological and emotional response of adoptive parents? Let’s say parents who have genetic connections to their offspring have in place mechanisms that “imprint” on these children. Call it instinctual. I don’t know if there is research to this effect, but let’s just say there is.

Now add to the mixture adopting a child. If you know parents who have adopted (recently friends Matt and Susan, for instance), there is an immediate imprint that most often occurs. Where does this physically come from? An instantaneous rerouting of brain circuitry to override the genetic-based imprinting?

Allow me to make a disclaimer here. I am using the logical fallacy of “begging the question”, as I am assuming someone has already done studies on instinctual connections between parents and biological children, and this assumption has to be accurate for my question about adopted children to be correct. If there is indeed some physiological source for parental imprinting, then where is the source for parental imprinting on adopted children?

physicalism

You can’t have it both ways. Either, this is a strictly physical world and everything that exists can be explained materially, or there is something beyond the physical, the metaphysical, as it were, that also is part of our reality.

In a world of physicalism (only physical world), any “true” morality would be non-existent. Helpful or harmful behavior would only be in the “eye” of the beholder. If one were trying to judge whether something is right or wrong, it would simply depend on who was doing the judging. If it was a matter of actual legal work, then whoever has the power decides. In any case, never would there be a values judgment made. Does this match with reality?

Test yourself out with this. Picture a documentary on the hunting skills of the lion. You are watching a lion stalk a zebra. You see him run the zebra down, and pounce! The lion kills the zebra and starts tearing away at the body. What is your values judgment of the lion?

Chances are you didn’t sense your blood pressure rise or get too outraged by this. Lions eat zebras. Now let’s imagine a shift. You are looking outside your window, and you see a pack of coyotes attacking your dog or cat or other beloved pet. If you don’t have a pet bear with me. What would your reaction be if your pet is being torn apart? How would you react to the coyotes?

How do you explain your neurons responding so differently to basically the same act? How do you begin to explain using physicalism?

what if?

Let’s think philosophically about some of the implications of taking a purely physical view of reality.

Hypothesis: The physical or material is all there is.

• If my behavior is “pre-wired” genetically, and then developed physiologically, is there a sense that morality is non-existent? How could some action be moral or immoral if it is simply the result of my physical being?
  
• Do we make a values judgment on a sneeze or a hiccup?
  
• Do we make judgments about computer operations when they are accomplished? (Oh, wait, that’s not a very good analogy! I judge my computer all the time, especially when it freezes up!)
  
• If my neurons and physiological structures bring about behavior that is considered harmful, is there any grounds for my being punished? Or at most would my imprisonment merely be to keep me from harming myself or others? (More like a quarantine)
  
• What is harm? Physical harm? Psychological harm? Take verbal “hate” crime for instance. Should I be imprisoned to protect you from being psychologically harmed by taking offense of what I am saying, or should you be imprisoned to protect me from harming myself by instigating my physiological response in my reaction toward you?
  
  
  
  

innuendo

Looking at C.S. Lewis’ tips on writing it would be helpful o see people actually carry out such advice. For example:

1. Always try to use the language that makes quite clear what you mean and your sentence couldn't mean anything else.

Imagine a public figure speaking without innuendo? The word, innuendo comes from the Latin innuere, meaning “to nod toward.” A good example comes from the Monty Python “wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, say no more.” sketch. As in…

Man: Evening, squire!
Man with hat: Good evening.
Man: Is your...is your wife a goer? Eh? Know what I mean? Know what I mean? Nudge, nudge! Know what I mean? Say no
more!
Man with hat: I-I...I beg your pardon?
Man: Your...your wife. Does she go,eh? Does she go, eh? Eh?
Man with hat: Huh, sometimes she has to go, yes.
Man: I bet she does! I bet she does! Say no more! Say no more! Know what I mean? Nudge, nudge!
Man with hat: I'm afraid I don't quite follow you...

Seeking clarity about an issue makes innuendo a tool that is specifically designed to work against clarity. Asking the listener/reader to fill in the blanks only increases the possibility that what you mean may not be what you mean. I think innuendo is most often used for two reasons.

One, you don’t want to be caught directly criticizing someone and so you use innuendo to cover up your disagreement. Two, you want to purposely try to damage another person’s position by using innuendo, hoping others will take an exaggerated view of what you alluded.

Read any news account where someone opposes someone else’s position and look for examples of innuendo. Homework for the weekend?!

time

We all have the same amount of time to spend on various activities of life. No one person is busier than another. The only difference between person A and person B when it comes to “busy-ness” is what you are doing. If you make a request for an activity from person A and they say, “I can’t, I’m busy,” they are really saying, “I can’t, I am a human being.”

People choose to spend time on activities they are passionate about or that bring escape from day-to-day life. A significant arena of involvement that is often ignored is learning activities that would provide benefit in life in general, often in interpersonal relationships specifically. Some examples of this type of learning…

1. Working on a team
2. Healthy conflict
3. Memory enhancement
4. Understanding the other positions on issues you disagree with

What are areas of your life that could use some focus today?

development

Evolution= Development

One way to help bring less heat and more light to the evolution wars is to limit the use of the term “evolution” unless you are specifically referring to natural selection and random mutation. Development will do just fine.

“The project evolved in unexpected ways.”

No…

“The project developed in unexpected ways.”

Yes...

Gerald Schroeder uses the term “development.” I think he is on to something. I recently read an interesting essay in the Jerusalem Post that has some clear implications on what may be happening from the Darwinist’s perspective.

Apologia

Apologia- Explanation

Read a word study of the Greek word for Apologetics, Apologia. Linguist Terence Mullins, makes the case for the word Apologia meaning “explanation” rather than a more generally used “defense.” This makes the use of apologetics clearer because when you hear, “Defend,” or “Make a defense,” it puts you on the, shall we say, defensive.

When you use the word “explanation” or “explaining,” it co notates making clearer. Of course our explanation of basic Christian teachings is helpful for us and for people who are seeking. You are not in a position to try to defend your faith as much as you find a opportunity to further clarify. If a person is open but skeptical about the truth claims of Jesus and his followers, explain. If someone is closed and antagonistic about the Christian faith, move on and find the new Christian, open skeptic, or those who are truly seeking.

For practical purposes this means you spend far more time studying so you can be clearer in your explanation, and listening, so you can be helpful with the other person. Also, you spend far less time arguing and you stop trying to develop a “proof text” view of the Bible. We are not about proving, we are about explaining.

I was troubled

I heard a bit of the confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. The word “troubled” was used a few times. As in, “This troubles me.” Here is another word that needs to be retired. Using a word or phrase to describe your emotional state as a basis for decision making is something that is common for us. A friend of mine put it this way.

One hundred years ago you wouldn’t hear people saying, “I feel” when they were trying to make a point. It would be “I think.”

If the intent of the Senators using the term “troubled” was meant to sound ominous, they were actually telling us quite a bit about themselves.

Feelings-based decision making= “I was troubled”
Thinking-based decision making= “I have concerns”

For an interesting exercise on this topic, pay attention to how many times you or someone else says, “I feel…” when dealing with some decision that is coming up. Now, you are probably not going to say it, but I feel you might!

bigot?

Bigot- a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. (Webster)

The use of the word “bigot” today is almost always done by someone who is a “bigot,” by definition. Find me one person who calls another, “bigot,” who is also not extremely devoted to his/her own way of thinking and preconceived notions about how someone else thinks. Also, if you want to find someone who is obstinate, look for someone who frequently calls others, “bigoted.”

How could you not be a bigot? By not using name calling (ad hominem attack) when you disagree with someone. By being able to articulate clearly the position of someone you disagree with and assume the best possible intent for their thinking the way they do. I guess we will just have to come up with another word for “bigot.” More often than not, the word does not qualify how you are any different. It is almost like calling someone else a “sinner.”

send or choose?

I was speaking to someone the other day about separating from God forever. “Hell” is another way of saying this.

“How can a loving God send good people who don’t trust in Jesus to hell?”

Perhaps the answer is, “He doesn’t.” If you mean by “good” someone who is sinless like Jesus, then anyone who can live a sinless life will be able to be in God’s direct presence for eternity. If by “good” you mean someone who does more good than evil, whose scale is tipped more to the good side, then what do you do with the consequences for the evil? The all-loving God is an all-just God, as well. Consequences must be dealt with.

Perhaps the answer is, “He doesn’t.” “Send” people to Hell. If you have chosen to separate from Jesus by choice in your lifetime, chosen not to trust in him for forgiveness of sin and new life, then when you die what are the chances you will want to live with him? If he really is the way to God forever then when you find out you were wrong all your life, what are the chances you will say, “Oh, I can’t believe I have been wrong all my life. Sorry, now I know better. Can I stay with you?”

We rarely see people admit they were wrong on lesser issues, let alone on something as big as one’s whole life being based on a false premise, i.e., “I don’t need Jesus.”

When someone asks you how a loving God could send people to Hell, perhaps just reframing the question is enough.

“How could a loving God force his adult children to do something that they are totally unwilling to do?”

Any loving parent eventually comes to the conclusion that I have to let my adult children live their own lives. I can’t try to force them to do anything. Perhaps the language of “choose Hell” is more appropriate then “sent to Hell.”

not alone

What does it mean to be lonely? I ask that question when I consider these words,

Acts 2:44
And all the believers met together constantly and shared everything they had.

When the Holy Spirit comes at Pentecost, those who responded were not alone. They “met together constantly.” They shared life together. Jesus promises he will be with those who gather in his name. When you spend time with someone and one way or another Jesus is part of the mix, then you aren’t lonely. With the rapid pace of society and the impersonal nature of it all, there are times when you can be with people and still be lonely. Yet this doesn’t happen when disciples come together. Why?

Being a follower of Jesus includes being with people for their sake. Support and encouragement. Sometimes just being present knowing “it is good to be here” (Matthew 17:4). You don’t have to be doing any kind of spiritual discipline experience together. It is as simple as knowing you are among friends. Boundaries of graciousness expand and you can be relaxed and refreshed.

it starts with love

When the first Christians began to be an influence in Roman society, we hear they are “enjoying the goodwill of all the people.” (Acts 2:47) Why? It begins with how well they treat each other.

If you attend a church, do people authentically care for each other? Do they actually like each other? This is an important question. Churches that have people who have the best interests of others at heart are churches that are growing in health. Healthy churches are attractive churches. God sends people to them.

“And each day the Lord added to their group those who were being saved.”
(Acts 2:47)

There is no decline in the involvement of people living the life of a disciple in churches moving forward in healthy ways. Churches with people putting the interest of others ahead of their own; churches with people willing to die to themselves to reach out for the needs of others. It’s not about “bells and whistles.” It is about taking yourself less seriously and God more seriously.

pray and wait

The disciples are going to learn much about Kingdom living. They are in for the ride of their lives. The wonders they will see will rival anything they experienced with Jesus. The sick will be healed. Demons will be cast out. They will see the dead raised. Not yet, though.

Acts 1:8
But when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, you will receive power and will tell people about me everywhere--in Jerusalem, throughout Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

This is going to be a momentum builder. The Holy Spirit will do amazing things through the disciples. This will influence them to tell the story everywhere. Then more people will get involved. More marvelous wonders. More people will be told.

It is so clear how necessary it is to be open to the Holy Spirit. They don’t try to force the Spirit. They don’t try to give a witness to Jesus without the Spirit. They have been instructed.

They pray.
They wait.

It’s as if the very air they breathe is charged with energy. What now??

now, Lord?

When the apostles were with Jesus, they kept asking him, "Lord, are you going to free Israel now and restore our kingdom?" (Acts 1:6)

The disciples have spent three years with Jesus, learning from him what is important to him. There is nothing more important that the Kingdom of God. Jesus explains the Kingdom. He gives many examples by teaching in parables. He lives the Kingdom life. He dies and raises from the dead, assuring the permanence of God’s Kingdom reign forever.

So, why is it still confusing? The disciples are human, that’s why. They are looking for an angle that benefits me. The idea of “me first” wasn’t invented in the 20/21st century. Every generation is the “me generation.”

“Lord, are you going to free Israel now and restore our kingdom?”

I didn’t know the disciples had their own kingdom. You would think they would be smart enough to at least say “restore your kingdom.” They show their lack of understanding of the mission of Jesus. They will understand soon enough. All of humanity has been given true freedom through the death and resurrection of Jesus. Restoration with God is available to those who connect through Jesus. Instead of a question the disciples can make a statement.

“Lord, you have freed all people, including Israel, and your Kingdom reigns forever.”

They can use a little review.

“Thy kingdom come.”
“Thy will be done.”
“On earth as it is in heaven.”

Rose Bowl

It’s raining on my parade. You can take this phrase literally here in LA. The Rose Parade is taking place in the pouring rain as I write this. Everything is kind of mixed up anyway with New Years on a Sunday, the parade on January 2nd, and the Rose Bowl is a BCS Bowl on January 4th.

A little history.

The first Tournament of Roses was in 1890, with local citizens who had come from back East wanting to showcase how beautiful their new home was. There were parades and games added, with events like ostrich races and bronco busting. The first football game was 1902 with Michigan burying Stanford 49-0, all in three quarters. This is because Stanford gave up in the third quarter. There wasn’t football again until 1916, when the crowds were so big that they built a new football stadium, dubbed the “Rose Bowl,” and played the first game there in 1923.

I have attended 3 Rose Bowl games, with the sweetest being two victories by Wisconsin. As a child in Wisconsin, I used to be like everyone else and dream about beautiful California, watching while I was freezing. That was the original idea behind the Rose parade and game. In my case, I guess that feat has been accomplished.

Now, they don’t have to show a game. People from all over the world keep moving here. Most don’t know football, though they know football, but that’s soccer to me. It really is a great place to live.

Tune in Wednesday. The rain will be over. It will be sunny and beautiful. O, I forgot. TV revenue dictates an evening game. It will be dark. A night time Rose Bowl on January 4th with no Big Ten team? Back to the ostrich races…At least until Wisconsin gets back in the game.