Food Inc.

My daughter, Nikki, was radically offended by a movie they showed in school a couple weeks ago. I would have thought that my son would have been offended by his school showing Sweeney Todd to his stagecraft class (I know I was), but he was fine by that. But my daughter had a real problem with the film Food Inc.

Honestly, she had problems with food, as it is, because she's such a picky eater. She doesn't eat most meat, not because she has a moral problem with it-- she does eat hot dogs and chicken nuggets-- but because she doesn't like it. Well, this movie sent her right to the edge of being a full vegetarian. She decried the abuse of chickens and was horrified at the brief shots of slaughterhouses.

I went ahead and watched Food Inc. myself, with the rest of my family going in and out of watching it with me. I hope that doesn't come back to bite me. So to speak.

Food, Inc. is a documentary that is basically presenting some of the more radical points of two books, Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser and The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. It is a shame that some of the more interesting points of the second book weren't presented, but the documentary was more focused. It was concentrating on how the incorporation of the food industries have caused problems for both animals and humans.

It presents it's points well, having extensive interviews with the authors of the books as well as farmers and organic food producers. Interestingly, it isn't completely against incorporation, giving a more balanced perspective of the relationship between the organic dairy company Stoneybrook Farms and Wall-Mart. It shows that it is possible for customers to vote with their pocketbook, by purchasing food that is raised better.

However, and more realistically, it also shows that purchasing good food that is healthy for both humans and animals isn't possible for a large percentage of Americans. It shows a family who is just making ends meet because of health costs and time constraints, and so they are forced to eat fast food and cannot buy vegetables. If you've only got a few dollars and you want to feed your family in a hurry, you can either get each of them a hamburger-- made from unhealthy beef, encouraging horrible animal care practices-- or you can buy your kids Little Debbies and soda.

This is my family's reality. I've had doctors and others tell us what we should be eating, but the fact is, we can't afford it. Vegetables are expensive, even your basic lettuce. Last night, I wanted to buy a salad for the meal we were serving to the homeless, so I figured I could pick up a couple heads of iceberg lettuce and a bunch of romaine to mix it up. However, when I got there I found that this store switched to all organic produce and it carried the organic price tag. Smaller heads of lettuce cost twice as much as they would have regularly, and to add romaine to that was out of my price range. I ended up paying more for bagged lettuce, but at least I had a salad. But this means that I have fewer options for other meals.

Donated food is also problematic. The far majority of donated food is bread and other high carb options. Protein is difficult to get, and organic options are laughable. The non-profit groups, like our own, do our best to serve healthy, balanced, and tasty meals, but our resources are limited.

People wonder why the poor are fat. It's not because they are lazy or because they make terrible choices with their limited food dollars. It's because their food dollars won't allow them to eat nutritionally.

And why is that? Primarily because the government subsidizes corn products, but not more nutritious items like broccoli or spinach. They regulate meat to a certain degree, but not with an eye to the over all health of their nation. The government nutrition guidelines are a joke-- they recommend way too much carbs and way too little veggies. Now, I know why they do that. They are trapped between the two pincers of the reality of what is available to most Americans and the powerful food industry lobbies.

But until the government makes serious practice changes, the food industry won't change. The food industry, honestly, is giving us what we buy. We are addicted to addictive foods, which are bad for us. And so our addictions are controlling the market, making the bad foods cheaper and the good foods more expensive.

If the government subsidizes healthy food, then the poor will be required to change their eating practices. If the poor have more veggies and fewer carbs, then their systems will be less stressed and they will make better life choices. The whole of society will benefit.

However, we know how government works. They don't do anything unless they are demanded of. They continue to vote for immigration bills that they know-- both Republicans and Democrats-- that are bad for the economy. George Bush presented a balanced immigration bill to a Republican congress, but it failed because of the outcry of the American people. Healthcare will continue to be stalled because the American people are nervous about losing what they have. If the Farm Bill-- the main policy map that determined government subsidy of food-- isn't changed by the voice of the American people, it will be determined by the lobbyists. The American people must demand better food for all the people, not just those who are able to afford it.

For this reason, I wish that every American could see this documentary, Food Inc. Not because all of it's points are good, but until people realize there is a problem, they will never try to create solutions.

Why My Son Won't Drive A Car

It is sometimes a mistake to give children the full truth. They might act on it. When my son was very young, I taught him about the problems of an automobile society, the inherent danger and the environmental impact. I also told him how our societies are built around the necessity of cars. This is summarized in Rusty Pritchard's article below.

Because of this, my son refuses to learn to drive, to get a license. He'll ride with me-- beg me to drive him sometimes-- but he won't drive himself. Someday he'll learn consistency between ideals and actions (maybe as soon as I do?), but in the meantime I am still the only one in my large household that drives. Dang, why do I shoot myself in the foot like this?

Anyway, read Rusty's article. It's excellent. This was copied from Evangelicals For Social Action's website:

Toyotas (and Fords) 600 Times More Dangerous than Media Report
by Rusty Pritchard

An estimated 19 people have died in crashes related to unexpected acceleration in Toyota-made vehicles over the last decade. This has led to a national uproar, dominating the news cycle and flooding dealers with recalled autos to repair.

I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations to put the problem in perspective. In a year, Toyota drivers, if they are like other drivers, put about 11,400 miles on their vehicle. Ten years of driving (114,000 miles, give or take), times the number of vehicles involved in the recall (8 million), equals the total miles driven by recalled vehicles over 10 years (912 billion miles; that’s 9.12 x 10^11 for you exponentially-minded people).

So dividing the number of deaths (19) by the total miles driven gives an estimated risk of death from sudden acceleration: 2 deaths per 100 billion vehicle miles traveled.

To put that in perspective, in 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration calculates your risk of dying from an automobile accident at 1270 deaths per 100 billion vehicle miles traveled.

Hmmm. That means that you are over 600 times more likely to die in an automobile fatality in ANY make of car than you are to die from a Toyota flawed acceleration system. Statistically speaking, stuck accelerators and faulty floor mats just don’t matter.

Getting in a car is inherently dangerous.

But it is worse than that. By building our cities the way we have since World War II, we in the US are virtually forcing our citizens to make very dangerous choices, if they want to work, go to school, go to the doctor, or shop. Relatively few Americans live in neighborhoods where they can choose not to have a car, largely because we’ve built our cities on the cheap, failing to provide public transportation alternatives, outlawing mixed-use developments through perverse zoning policies, and subsidizing development on the margins of our cities with public money. In the case of land use and transportation, we get exactly the system our policies promote.

Getting in a car is dangerous, and it’s hard to avoid getting in a car. It’s even dangerous for people who aren’t in the cars.

While we’ve abandoned the American landscape to the automobile, the death rate from traffic fatalities in the US, for passengers, drivers, and pedestrians, has leapfrogged past every other cause of death for children over the age of one, and it remains the leading cause of death even for young adults.

Citizens in the US are twice as likely to die from automobiles as citizens in the UK, to take another developed world example; we have the highest risk of any developed country, not because our roads are more dangerous, or our cars more deadly. Our death rate is sky-high because we expect people to drive everywhere, and therefore we spend much more time in cars than folks in other countries. We’ve built a landscape in which no one is seriously expected to walk or bike to any destination. This has an effect on our obesity rate and on all the diseases driven by being overweight (diabetes, heart disease, stroke, stress, cancer). But the main health effect is on the number of Americans who die in the traffic epidemic.

But we take this deadly epidemic (and the corresponding injury rates) without blinking, having become convinced that it is somehow natural to have 35,000 Americans die each year on the road.

There are alternatives: It is possible to design healthy places that are not only safe but which also cultivate community, flourishing economies, and happy families. For ideas, check out the Healthy Places section of the CDC website, or the other resources on healthy places for community developers at Flourish’s website.

Arrested for Taking Your Kid To Church?

From Religion Today Summaries:

Chicago Man Could Face Trial for Taking Child to Church

Religion News Service reports that a Chicago man could face prosecution for violating a restraining order by taking his 3-year-old daughter to church. Joseph Reyes, 35, converted from Catholicism to Judaism when he married his wife, Rebecca. According to Rebecca Reyes, they agreed to raise their daughter Jewish. But when the couple filed for divorce, Joseph baptized his daughter as a Catholic without his estranged wife's consent. Following the baptism, Rebecca Reyes filed for and was granted a restraining order to keep Joseph Reyes from exposing their daughter, Ela, to any religion other than Judaism. On Jan. 17, Joseph Reyes entered Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago with his daughter and a television news crew in tow. Joseph Reyes's attorney, Joel Brodsky, said the restraining order violated the First Amendment by choosing one religion over another

Perhaps a case can be made for him that the restraining order was wrong. However, to invite a news crew to church with you means that it isn't about how he should raise his child, but about him using his child to make a point. How different is this than "balloon boy's" dad? Children should be treated with respect, not a pawn in one's hateful relationship squabbles, or to promote one's own agenda, whatever it is.

Jesus said that a father should train up a child in the way of the Lord. Is not that way sacrifice and respect? Certainly going to church this way is not acting in accordance with Jesus' way. He should learn the humility of the Lord before using the church to insist upon his rights.

Cultural Hijacking

Concerning the American missionaries accused of "kidnapping" children from Haiti they were trying to adopt:

I understand that the missionaries were only trying to do what was right. Haiti right now is a hell, and they were trying to save these children from hell. They're heart was in the right place.

However, children are the heritage of our future. They are the ones to perpetuate our culture, our traditions, our hopes. Each society has its own set of standards and ideals that we place on our children. To take children away is to steal a culture's future. If a parent chooses to move a child from one nation to another, that parent is making a choice against one society in favor of another.

But no one can make the choice for another society's children. For the Haitians, yes, their country is a hell, but that is partly the result of a disaster, partly the result of France that dismantled their government, and partly the result of American economic imperialism throughout the globe. Yes, many Americans think we have a better way of life, but for much of the world it is simply a wealthier way of life, not better at all.

I have never met these missionaries and I cannot make a judgement of them. But it makes me wonder if they have a cultural superiority in their hearts. Do they think that America will truly be better for those children? Economically, surly, but would that be truly better? To take them away from their Haitian cultural heritage? To live as Americans-- who are eating up the world's resources faster than it can accept?

It also makes me wonder about those involved in the Sanctuary movement for immigrants to the U.S. A number of Christian liberals are speaking about the U.S. as if it were the kingdom of God. As if immigrating to the U.S. is the best thing that could happen to those immigrants and they have the right to live here. Now, I know that where a number of these folks come from are places that are difficult to live and that they have gone through many struggles to arrive in the U.S. out of necessity. However, should we be pouring money into something that the citizens of the U.S. are clearly opposed to, or should we put our resources into making the rest of the world a better place to live, where one can feed the children? If money was already going from the U.S. to build up the immigrant communities, they wouldn't need to come to the U.S.

The U.S. is not the best culture in the world. Nor is it the worst. It is just one of many. Let's keep things in perspective and deny the cultural imperialism that we can so easily get caught up in.

The Lord's Supper and the Poor

Interesting article on the Lord's Supper I found here:


In a tragic twist of irony, the venue in the Christian faith that was intended to unify believers of diverse stripes and beliefs has actually divided and split the church in untold ways.

I’m referring to Communion. The Lord’s Supper. The Eucharist. The Table.

It goes by many names, and has been practiced many ways. It began with Jesus and his disciples, the night before the Christ would be betrayed, assembled around the Passover table with a meal with some bread to eat and wine to drink. You could make a strong case that it really began centuries earlier with the original Passover celebration, ordered by God to prepare the Israelites for their impending exile from Egypt.

This is part of the account of the Last Supper from Luke’s gospel:

When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”

After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed. But woe to that man who betrays him!” They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this.

Fast-forward roughly 2,000 years. Today, 38,000 unique denominations exist in Christianity, many of them set apart by how they have observed the Lord’s Supper. Some use unleavened bread, some do not. Some drink wine (from one cup or many), some prefer grape juice. Some serve the wine and the bread separately, some practice intinction. Some observe it annually, others quarterly, and still others weekly. Some believe the bread and wine to be symbolic of Jesus’ body and blood, and others believe in the mysterious transubstantiation of the emblems into flesh and blood.

Disputes over the practice of the Lord’s Supper have created more divisions than perhaps any other tradition in Christianity. So much so that we refer to many of these diverse denominations as “communions.”

But what if we – the church – missed the point? What if Jesus’ Last Supper was, well, just a meal? A Passover meal, yes, but never intended to be institutionalized as a religious sacrament. What if he was simply observing the Passover like a good Jew would, but telling his disciples (then and now) through his words and actions that he was now the fulfillment of the Jewish law and would now be the centerpiece of table fellowship when his followers came together?

What if Jesus was reminding his disciples and us that some of the most radical moments of his ministry occurred around the dinner table?

I do not challenge 2,000 years of Christian history lightly. I come from a tradition that takes the Lord’s Supper seriously. Very seriously. Churches of Christ take communion weekly, even on youth trips and campouts, and some among us even insist on drinking the grape juice (never wine) from a single cup. On our better days, we were a family that puts Christ and his meal at the center of our fellowship, and on our worst days, we are bitterly sectarian and exclude certain groups for not seeing things our way. I grew up with an appreciation for the centrality of the Table to Christian assembly (all Christian assembly; not just Sunday), but with a nagging suspicion that other groups weren’t Hell-bound for doing things differently.

And to be honest, I’m glad the tradition of the Supper has stuck around. It’s a good thing to remember that Christ is in our midst when we gather around the table, a table that welcomes every kind of person to it.

Lately, however, I’ve wondered whether the ritual was legit. I’ve wondered if Christ’s primary intent was to ordain a new church tradition or just demonstrate a way of being in the world. I’ve wondered if Jesus is saddened by how far some would take their insistence on a certain way of observing the tradition they had turned from an ordinary Passover meal into a holy sacrament, excluding others on that basis.

Jesus ate so many meals. Of the numerous meal stories that are recorded in the gospels, ten are in Luke; one scholar quipped that Jesus is eating his way through the book. I think that as Jesus’ disciples looked back on their last meal with their Lord before his crucifixion, they would have remembered the meals Jesus enjoyed during the previous three years. His first healing of Simon’s mother, who recovered from her fever and began serving Jesus and Simon food. (Lk 4:38-44) A sinful woman anointing Jesus’ feet while he was at dinner with a Pharisee. (7:36-50) The feeding of the 5,000 from five loaves and two fish. (9:10-17) His meal with Mary and Martha. (10:38-42) Not washing before eating with Pharisees and experts in the law. (11:37-53) Healing on the Sabbath in front of the Pharisees and a teaching on whom we are to invite to luncheons and dinners. (14:1-13) Jesus parable of the Great Banquet. (14:15-23) Eating with tax collectors and sinners. (15:1-7; 19:1-10)

My point is this: More important than “getting right” the practice of the Eucharist on Sunday is our willingness to dine with sinful and marginalized people on Monday. I heard someone say recently that our celebration of the Lord’s Table on Sunday is practice for the openness of our own tables on Monday. In those radical acts of hospitality, our plain, store-bought dinner tables mysteriously transubstantiate into a Jesus Table, and our meal into the Lord’s Supper.

I need to be honest right here: I write this as one more inclined to plan a banquet and invite those friends who possess the means to turn around and invite me to their banquet, instead of inviting the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind.

I’d do well to meditate on the Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:40, as would we all:

“Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”

My response:
Interesting article and discussion.

Although I agree that The Sheep and the Goats is specifically speaking about disciples, Jesus spoke generally about feasting with the poor in other contexts, not least in Luke 14. And Paul's message in I Cor 11 is about a eucharistic meal which is a feast in which some did not get to eat because of the greed of the first in line. We must be aware of the body of Christ, and allow the lowest in the body to gain as much as the greatest.

In Anawim, we have two sacramental meals: a. A meal that is for everyone, especially the poor and hungry, without excluding anyone because of religious preferences. We have these meals every time we worship, four times a week. b. Twice a year-- New Year's and Resurrection Day-- we hold a Lord's Supper with the bread and wine. These are special times of commitment to Jesus as Lord, remembering His sacrifice for our sins.

People come to Anawim with different theological ideas of what the Eucharist means, but we all share in the unity of it, as long as we recognize Jesus as our Lord and we are committed to Him.

Letter To A Young Activist

A great essay by Thomas Merton to anyone who is more interested in social action than words. I found it here:

"Do not depend on the hope of results. When you are doing the sort of work you have taken on, essentially an apostolic work, you may have to face the fact that your work will be apparently worthless and achieve no result at all, if not perhaps results opposite to what you expect. As you get used to this idea, you start more and more to concentrate not on the results but on the value, the truth of the work itself. And there, too, a great deal has to be gone through, as gradually as you struggle less and less for an idea, and more and more for specific people. The range tends to narrow down, but it gets much more real. In the end, it is the reality of personal relationships that saves everything.

"You are fed up with words, and I don’t blame you. I am nauseated by them sometimes. I am also, to tell you the truth, nauseated by ideals and with causes. This sounds like heresy, but I think you will understand what I mean. It is so easy to get engrossed with ideas and slogans and myths that in the end one is left holding the bag, empty, with no trace of meaning left in it. And then the temptation is to yell louder than ever in order to make the meaning be there again by magic. Going through this kind of reaction helps you to guard against this. Your system is complaining of too much verbalizing, and it is right.

"…The big results are not in your hands or mine, but they suddenly happen, and we can share in them, but there is no point in building our lives on this personal satisfaction, which may be denied us and which after all is not that important.

"The next step in the process is for you to see that your even thinking about what you are doing is crucially important. You are probably striving to build yourself an identity in your work, out of your work and witness. You are using it, so to speak, to protect yourself against nothingness, annihilation. That is not the right use of your work. All the good that you will do will come, not from you but from the fact that you have allowed yourself, in the obedience of faith, to be used by God’s love. Think of this more and gradually you will be free from the need to prove yourself, and you can be more open to the power that will work through you without your knowing it.

"The great thing after all is to live, not to pour out your life in the service of a myth; and we turn the best things into myths. If you can get free from the domination of causes and just serve Christ’s truth, you will be able to do more and will be less crushed by the inevitable disappointments. Because I see nothing whatever in sight but much disappointment, frustration, and confusion.

"The real hope, then, is not in something we think we can do, but in God who is making something good out of it in some way we cannot see. If we can do His will, we will be helping in this process. But we will not necessarily know all about it beforehand . . . "

Culture of Oppression

I got this response to my post on the movie District 9 (edited):

Steve, this is very sad. the movie was very sad, inhumane, & cruel. I didn't like the movie, because it was inhumane & cruel & very brutal. I didn't like the guy who was in charge of trying to get the aliens out of their own homes & such. not until the very end, when he did what he did at the very end. i can't watch that movie again....I also saw Inglorious bastards, again, another movie that was way too brutal for my liking, and again, I saw that one because my friend had wanted to see it. I didn't care for it, nor was I interested in seeing that movie. I really don't like movies that are that kind of brutal. makes me sad & mad at the same time to see such cruelty at the hands of those humans that make me wish I wasn't part of their race. just like in Avatar. not all of the humans, but the majority of the humans, or the ones who worked for the RDA, made me sick....made me wish I wasn't part of their race. I actually found myself wishing I could be part of the Na'vi, the Omaticaya clanthat Truly sickens me to beyond words. to be part of the race that wants to wipe out what is pure & good, for the sake of greed....makes me sick to my stomache. why do those kind have to always try to destroy what is beautiful, pure, & natural? I just don't understand. there is No need to be cruel. I wish our world was like the Pandora world. minus the devastation & the greed of the real savages.

My response:
You make a good point about all three of the films mentioned. They all depict cruelty and insensitivity to a larger group of people. But in all of them, they are intended to display that cruelty so that we do not participate in it. In Avatar, it was clear that it is the U.S. cruelty against Native Americans, the Iraqis and others that are targeted. In District 9, it is apartheid that is targeted, but all kinds of racism is included-- any type of segregation, in fact. In Inglourious Basterds, the audience itself is shown as being cruel for wanting to see a gorefest of one particular group, even if they are Nazis. All three movies target us as the ones being cruel and unkind, as participants in our government, in purchasing the products of corporations that take advantage of indigenous peoples, as taking the fruits of years of racism and as moviegoers lusting after the death of our enemies. They all call us to repent of our own segregationism and racism and cruelty.

President Slam!

No matter who the president is, there are many who will find fault with him. I just read a list of slams on President Obama, from him "looking nervous" to him "holding the country in a stranglehold" to the alleged idea that he wasn't born in the U.S. I am not an Obama supporter, even as I was not a Bush supporter. However, we do have the requirement to show respect to those in office. As believers in Jesus, we are commanded to be submitted to the government. Of course this idea can be carried too far, but we have some basic requirements as toward our leaders-- whether we like them or not.

-We should be respectful of the office, which means insults are not allowed.
-We should allow our critiques to be thoughtful and helpful, not just a generalized statement that the leader is doing a bad job.
-We should never spread rumors or unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. Followers of Jesus shouldn't be involved in gossip.
-Most of all, if you are concerned about the direction of the government, spend less time complaining and more time praying.

To be submissive to the government, we are commanded to:
Show respect
Pay our taxes
Follow the law (as long as it does not limit our love for others)
Pray that our leaders would bring peace to the land

Let's not get so carried away in worldly politics that we forget that we are actually citizens of the kingdom of God. Let's act appropriately as ambassadors, not as rebels.

True Christian Love in Haiti

Haitian Orphanage Refuses to Turn People Away

Baptist Press reports that one orphanage in Haiti has found itself caring for the wider community after last week's earthquake. Cabaret Children's Home, located 30 miles north of Port-au-Prince, has welcomed hundreds of people who have lost their homes in the Jan. 12 earthquake. "When people come to us, we cannot cross our arms, meaning, we cannot turn them away," Haitian worker Pierre Prinvil said through translator David Garret. "Obviously feeding is going on for displaced folks [at the compound]," said Garrett, a church and community director with the Southern Baptist Convention. "They are sharing their food with people who have nowhere else to be." The orphanage's older students have helped feed younger children outside the compound, and the orphanage has used its own supplies to feed famished the famished Haitians who keep arriving. "They are such a resilient people," Garrett said.

-From Religion Today Summaries

The Spiritual Principles of Avatar

After two viewings of Avatar, I realized that there are some deep spiritual principles to be found in this film. If all you see is a tree-god and anti-American sentiment or a pretty weak statement about race, you're missing the deeper message. If you've seen the movie, read through these principles and see if they resonate with you, or your understanding of the film:

There is a empire, ruling the world, and its focus is to increase the wealth of a limited few, even if that hurts others. Everyone within the empire is a part of this system of greed, even if they superficially attempt to oppose it.

There is an alternative system which focuses on relationships, community and spiritual power.

The secret of the spiritual community is empathy. It is the sign that one is a part of the spiritual community, the unifying principle as well as the power. One has empathy with all life. Even if one must kill to survive, empathy requires that one feels the death of the other, and give it the respect that one would demand. The minimal amount of empathy is treating other’s life as one would be treated.

All empathy begins with understanding, with listening. Eventually, one can “see” another, deeply understanding the other, placing them as an equal in importance to oneself. Those who do not have the ability to understand, to empathize, are insane and cannot exist in the spiritual community.

But some relationships have deeper empathy, a full bond. In those relationships, two share their minds, their lives, their souls. And once bonded, the bond cannot be broken except through death. This is love.

The opposite to empathy, to bonding, is fear. To fear the other is to separate from the other. To listen to the other, one must receive the other; to accept the other, one must trust; to bond with the other one must unite.

Those of the empire cannot empathize. Yes, they can understand intellectually the other different from oneself, but they cannot truly see them as equals to themselves. They are so caught up in building their own empire for those like themselves, that they cannot see the other. So they outcast those who truly empathize, because the desires of empathy is opposite to the greed of the empire.

The evil empire wants the resources of the spiritual community and will ignore all the concerns of the spiritual community to get it. On the surface, the evil empire is more powerful than the spiritual community, and the spiritual community is in threat of extinction.

For the spiritual community to survive, there must be a mediator—one who knows what it is to be spiritual and one who has lived amidst the empire. He or she must be born of both worlds, but the Mediator does not straddle the fence. The Mediator must be on the side of the spiritual community, the weak, the oppressed, if they are to survive.

In the end, there will be conflict—disasterous conflict—between the empire and the spiritual community. And although the empire seems to have the greater power, the fact is that the spiritual community has a source that is at the core of all life. The only way to connect to that Source is through prayer. Thus, though the Mediator may use many different resources, the true power is found in prayer. Prayer is what changes the course for the spiritual community.

One must recognize, however, that the Source does not take sides between the empire and the spiritual community. The Source is on the side of all life, of order and balance. However, as long as the spiritual community is on the side of the Source, then the Source will act for them. And this action is more powerful than anything else they might conceive themselves.

Eventually, the spiritual community of empathy will rule the world and force the empire out. But this will only happen when the truly are united in Empathy. Only then will many in the Empire become united with the Source of all life, and seek balance.

Why I Absolutely Despise Inglorious Basterds

I am a grudging fan of Quentin Tarantino.

His films are over-gory and glorify violence. They take the most dispicable characters and make you think about their motivations, which may not be the best kind of meditation. As a follower of Jesus, they made me uncomfortable, at best.

But after watching Pulp Fiction, I had to admit, he's amazing. The script is sparkling, brilliant, like a philosophy of religion class dressed as a 70s B movie. The characters revel in their hypocrisy, and allows us to look at our own, and as they explain their philosophy of life, they cause us to reflect on our own.

Kill Bill, especially Part 2, is the same. It was a Hollywood version of a Hong Kong violence fest, and then it becomes a reflection of life and motherhood and relationships and... wow. So much there to think about. And the possible connection to Buddhism is fantastic, even if Tarantino never meant to put that in.

Reservoir Dogs is intense, and the characters are perfect. And Deathproof? Well, it's a salute to 70's B movies and while revenge isn't my thing, it was cool to see women take charge in an action flick.

But after Inglorious Basterds I need to keep my distance away from Tarantino again.

Again, the script is brilliant, the dialog witty and sometimes deep and the film impossible to not look at in wonder. It begins with a teen fantasy premise, as Tarantino films often do-- a group of Jewish Americans in a created WWII scenario dropped in the middle of occupied France to do one thing-- kill as many Nazis as possible. And they do this task with glee.

However, compared to other Tarantino films, there is much less violence and gore. Most of the action takes place off the screen, which will disappoint some, I'm sure. But I was pleased, and was just waiting for the twist he often puts in his films, the moral glimpse at these violent purposes.

It never happened. (Here's the part where if you want to see the film, you stop reading, because I'm going to ruin it for you, if you continue) Sure, there was a twist. Unlike most WWII films, even the fantasy ones, they give a nod to reality, trying to fit their script to fit history as we know it. Not Tarantino. He shrugs off reality and gives us the end of the war as most Americans wished it would be like: A bloody, savage destruction of all the leaders of the Nazi party, including Hitler, with them all knowing that they are being killed by a Jew.

In the most amazing scene in the film, the climax, the beautiful face of Shoshanna is displayed on a screen of smoke, coming up from the fire that will burn down the theatre that all of the leaders of the Nazi party are locked in, and she is gleefully, almost Satanically, mocking them, "This is the face of Jewish vengeance!"

In this film, Tarantino goes back to an older form of the war epic-- there are good guys and there are bad guys. And the good guys, no matter how bloody they are or how many people they kill, they remain on the side of justice. And the bad guys are always bad and they always deserve to die. This fits a certain modern concept of war. Sure, the Nazis have been replaced with terrorists (read: Muslims) and the bad guys don't wear uniforms any more, but war is to create justice, and eventually to create peace because once you get rid of the bad guys then the world is free to do right again.

However, I've always been put off by that kind of movie, and Tarantino's is the most obvious example of it. This is because war doesn't just kill the bad guys-- some of them-- but a lot of misguided good people too. And both the "good" side and the "bad" side kill innocents-- on purpose at times. And what war really does is take the people interested in justice and peace and makes them the bad guys. People interested in doing evil to the other side, no matter what the cost, no matter what the personal moral sacrifice. They turn themselves into the very people they think they are destroying.

The best films on war recognize this. Both Full Metal Jacket and Apocalypse Now delve into the self-destruction of the one who participates in war, morally, spiritually and mentally. Saving Private Ryan and The Hurt Locker, while more subtle and realistic, clearly speak of a cost of war, of the personal sacrifice, and of a situation that any sane person would find impossible to live with.

Inglorious Basterds, however, is a full-on glorification of the worst of war. Although it is the company of Jews that are named the title, it is truly the Nazis themselves Tarantino sees as the inglorious bastards and they deserve to be killed in the most gruesome, bloody, horrific manner-- and Tarantino is going to give them violent justice in a way reality never did.

And he expects us to glory in it. To joyfully revel in shooting Hitler up to such a degree that his face couldn't even be pieced back together. I don't know how many people realize, however, that in sitting before this movie, reveling in all their deaths, that makes us just the same as those Nazis, reveling and chortling and shouting in glee over the hundreds of deaths of Americans.

Maybe I spoke too soon. Maybe Tarantino is more subtle than I realized. Maybe he truly is making that point. "If you enjoy this scene-- you are a Nazi too". It is true, really true. If we leave this movie happy to see this vengeance taken, then we are a Nazi, glorifying in the horrific destruction of our enemies. If, however, we are horrified, disgusted by the blood bath, then maybe there is some hope for us. Maybe it is simply a litmus test of our morality.

But somehow, I doubt it.

Praise Amidst Tragedy

Reported in Religion Today Summary:

Haitians Praise God after Apocalyptic Quake

The Washington Times reports that Haitians still waiting for food and water did not wait to praise God over the weekend. "Why give thanks to God? Because we are here," the Rev. Eric Toussaint said. "We say 'Thank you God.' What happened is the will of God. We are in the hands of God now." Across the devastated city of Port-au-Prince on Sunday, small congregations gathered at the remains of their churches to pray, sing hymns and give thanks even as dead bodies still lay in the street. Rescuers have continued their push for survivors, though most still trapped in the rubble are presumed dead. The death toll is now estimated at 50,000 ot 100,000 people, according to the Pan American Health Organization. Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive said 100,000 would "seem to be the minimum."

"Persecution" in Nigeria

News report from Religion Today Summaries:


More than 40 Killed in Nigerian Church Attack

Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) reports that more than 40 people have been killed in the Nigerian city of Jos after Muslim youths attacked Christians near a Catholic Church. Around 200 Muslim youths claimed to gather yesterday to renovate a house next to St. Michael's Catholic Church, but allegedly launched an unprovoked assault on female passerby before attacks those in the church. The attacks escalated to torched houses, business, and other local churches. Angered by the violence, Christian youths gathered to launch a counter attack, and the violence soon spread to other areas of Jos North.

The history of "persecution" in Nigeria has simply been the history of the Christians there refusing to submit to authorities. When the ruling Muslims imposed their law, instead of submitting to it, they rioted and acted violently. And now there is a cycle of violence between the Christians and the Muslims there.

If the Christians really want God's deliverance, then they need to respond like Jesus-- in submission to the punishment that is given and then God will sweep in and take out the unjust authority-- Psalm 82. Vengeance is God's, not the Christians'. Let us give to God that which He demands for Himself.

Molly In Haiti

This woman gave up her life in the U.S. to spend it for the children in Haiti. Her body was just found this last week.

Please check out her blog 525,600 Minutes to appreciate her love and joy in loving.
525,600 Minutes

Speaking With The Government

My daughter is going to interview Nick Fish, a city commissioner, today, as part of her school. I had a few words that I thought she could tell him, but decided better of it. After all, it's her discussion with the city, not mine.

But if we are citizens of the kingdom of God, then what should we be saying to government? Some say that we hold dual citizenship and so are full participants in both governments. That's too confusing for me. If I go to government, it is as an ambassador of the Kingdom of God, not as a citizen.

So my task, in speaking to government, is that which God wants me to speak to them, no more, no less. I may have personal opinions, but God's will must be primary. I need to uphold the oppressed and downtrodden, to recognize that the government won't save anyone, but they also must be ready to support the needy.

Salvation is not found in government, but in Jesus.

I've had a brief discussion with someone who says we should support the troops. I am saddened for the troops because they've been brainwashed into obeying the military's orders. I think they are put in a terrible situation. But it is the troops which is the weapon that kills. The Iraqis, Afghanis and others need Jesus, not the American military. And they can't have both. Because to them, Westerners represent "Christians", whether they are followers of Jesus or not. And if people come with guns and killing innocents, that is who is representing Jesus to them. Jesus does not support killers. He supports martyrs.

Disaster = Apocalypse?

Yesterday, it was mentioned that some folks are saying that this disaster in Haiti is a sign of the apocalypse. My initial response was, "If a terrible disaster among the poor is a sign of the end, then it should have come a long, long time ago."

We need to take care what seems to be the signs of the end. Jesus said that there would be earthquakes, famines, wars, etc, but "the end is not come." All the things that we often say are signs of the end aren't them.

Scripturally, there are two signs of the end: The desecration of the temple, which happened in 70AD. This event is what both Jesus and Paul point to. Revelation sees a different event, which Jesus also hints at: A massive, worldwide attempt to destroy all the followers of God. This did occur from the 290s to the early 300s. The only reason that the end didn't come then is because the Roman Empire repented.

But if today, we see an organized attempt by almost all the governments of the world to wipe out Christianity (and Judaism), then we will soon see God act in a powerful, destructive way, to take out those governments and replace them with His own.

In the meantime, pray for the current sufferers for Jesus throughout the world. And pray for Haiti. Help if you can. Get more info on how to help Haiti here:
http://mcc.org/

Being Jesus

Just got a question in: "Is being Jesus a Scriptural Principle?" Well, let's look:

I John 2:6
By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

I Corinthians 11:1
Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.

II Thessalonians 3:5
May the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God and into the steadfastness of Christ.

Matthew 20:26-28
It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.

Philippians 2:3-8
Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Matthew 10:24-25
A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign the members of his household!

Luke 9:22-24
The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed and be raised up on the third day. If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it.

I Peter 2:19-23
God is pleased, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God. For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps— he who committed no sin and no deceit was found in his mouth; and while being reviled, he did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously.

Romans 8:16-17
The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

I Timothy 1:16
Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.

John 20:21
Jesus said to them, "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.”

John 14:12-13
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

John 15:7
If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.

Revelation 3:21
He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.


Revelation 2:26-27
He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations—and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as the vessels of the potter are broken to pieces— as I also have received authority from My Father

John 17:22-23
The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.

John 14:27
Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you.

John 15:11
These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.

So we are to live like Jesus, act out His teachings and we receive His suffering, His resurrection, His glory, His peace and His joy. It seems that the Christian life is the life of Jesus.

Sanctification

I received the following response, disagreeing with a statement I made that true faith acts in love:

Good works are the *end result* of salvation. "We are saved for good works, not by good works" is a common quote.

Matt 7:16-20 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Meaning, they *will* do good works based on what They are, which is a result of the work of the Spirit.

One of my responses:
The reason it seems that way is because I absolutely insist upon a life that is following Jesus if one is in Jesus, without excuses. However, if you notice in my teaching as a whole, I insist upon the following principles:

1. The Christian life is impossible for any human to live. It must be lived in the Spirit. In fact, I had a whole series just talking about how to connect to the Spirit and intimacy with God as the source of our life.

2. Sin is dealt with in the Christian life by confession and repentance. No one sin destroys us, unless we fail to surrender to God afterwards.

3. But no Christian should excuse their sin as just being "under the blood" or some such thing. Sin can and will kill us. It is perilous. And so we must do all we can to avoid it.

Thus, I see the Christian life as a partnership between us and the Spirit. It is not always natural, because Jesus insists that we do things that are not natural, such as loving our enemies, to live a pure life, submitting to evil authorities and selling our possessions to give to the poor. The Spirit may prompt us to do these things, but the NT calls it a struggle, not a natural process. We fight with ourselves, we fight with "common sense", we fight with others telling us to do wrong.

For this reason, both I and the NT say harsh, stark words about the lifestyle of love we are to live. It sounds as if I'm saying just pick up and do it, and sometimes I am. Anyone in Jesus already has the Spirit, it is now a matter of submitting to the Spirit and living in the Spirit. That's a choice we have to make as well as a fruit we have the opportunity to bear.

And I know this because I see so many people in the Spirit who make unloving choices. Sometimes they just need reminding of what the stakes are. That if they don't act out love, then they don't have true faith. Etc.

Is Suicide Sin?

A question I got via email. Nicely, it was given as a multiple-choice. But, as usual, I answered it with an essay:

Is suicide something that
a. shows that you are actually not a true Christian.
b. makes you lose your salvation.
c. neither.

First, you have to ask whether sin in general can make you lose your salvation. I would say it could, if you have a lifestyle issue that you do not repent of-- that would be Hebrews 10:26-27.

But is suicide a sin? My short answer is: it depends.

Suicide is rarely mentioned in Scripture. First of all, in a sense, Jesus' death was a suicide because he could have prevented his death many times, but refused to do so. To "willingly" go to death, as is mentioned of many martyrs, is a form of suicide.

And suicide is never mentioned in Scripture as a sin.

However, there are lots of issues here. First of all, what is the motivation for suicide? If a person is committing suicide because they "just can't take life anymore" then there are two ways to work it-- either they are a "coward" and so won't enter the kingdom because Rev. 21:8 says they won't, or they are depressed and not thinking clearly and so, ultimately they are sick and perhaps will be forgiven under God's mercy.
I had one friend of mine in high school who committed suicide and she left a note saying, "I just want to be with Jesus." So, rather than giving up faith, she actually committed suicide in faith and because of her faith, as misguided as it was.
Another aspect of suicide is loving others. A suicide is usually convinced that no one cares about them and they are almost always wrong. So their suicide harms a number of people, which goes against the basic law, "Love your neighbor as yourself." But, suppose the suicide is convinced that their death would bring a benefit-- like Jesus' did-- and so they think-- wrongly, usually-- that they are loving people by taking their life? Then wouldn't it be a righteousness on their part instead of a sin?

Is suicide an unpardonable sin? No, there's only one of those and Jesus says it is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Suicide is not that, so it can be forgiven.

So I think suicide depends on the motivation, which is almost impossible for us to guess on this side of eternity. So, for the believer who commits suicide, all we can do is pray for God's mercy on them, and give them to His hands.


One last thing: The early church never declared suicides sinners because they saw the connection between martyrdom and suicide. Augustine, in the fourth century, is the first one to declare suicide a sin, and he said it was because suicide is a sign of despair, which is the opposite of faith. But that isn't always true. The Catholic church, in determining that suicide is an unpardonable sin uses the same logic, but, again I think they're wrong about that.

Conversation on the Homeless

This exchange is in response to my letter to churches in East Multnomah County about the need to open doors to the homeless:

Blessings,
Thanks for sharing your findings, your concerns for the homeless, raising awareness and asking tough questions. Asking churches to open doors to house the homeless is like putting a bandaid on a malignant carcinoma.
I'm not a betting woman, but I bet there are more than 500 churches within an hour drive of Portland.
500 churches to pledge $1,000 dollars a year for 5 years, amounts to a pile of money. Get volunteer labor (habitat for humanity does) and donated materials . . . and build a "hotel" with one, two, and three bedroom suits.
Better yet, why reinvent the wheel . . . ask Habitat for Humanity to spearhead this major project. Instead of building 20 houses during the next 1-2 years, invest in building a major hotel for the homeless.

Sharon L. Angelique Tata, B.S., LPN
Founder-Director
Grace Haven Counseling & Rtreat Center

Well, I appreciate your comments. However, life isn't as simple as all that. There are stages.

First of all, there are organizations that are trying to establish shelters, but folks on the street need help NOW. Tonight, specifically. And next week. Not whenever the powers that be see the need, go through all their committees, lawyers, grant applications and city approvals. For that kind of (almost) immediate response, the churches are better equipped to handle it.

Secondly, for the long term, it is a simplistic notion that to "solve" the homeless problem one needs housing. The issues are more complex than that. I propose a think-tank of both the homeless and those who know the homeless and those who know the systems that offer help to take the time to really look at the issues and determine what is the best approach to helping. And my guess would be something less expensive than a "hotel".

Lastly, Habitat for Humanity doesn't help the poorest-of-the-poor in the U.S. They help those who can afford low cost housing. For years, my family lived on donations and we could never afford what Habitat offered. I'm not bitter. I'm just saying that Habitat is working with a different population.

There are actually a thousand churches in the North Willamette Valley. If each church just offered support to one or two homeless folks, it would change the outlook of the whole state. If we would love as Jesus called us to love, the world would be different. If we would understand what the real needs are and simply meet them, then nothing would ever be the same.

Perhaps you are opposed to the "organized church" doing anything of substance. But when I call the church, I call ALL of it-- house churches, church plants, organized churches, denominations, liberal, conservative, whatever. Anyone who desires to obey Jesus has a command to assist the poor and needy, wherever they may be. And in every church, no matter how weak organizationally or theologically, has people who just want to do what Jesus told them to do. That's who I'm speaking to. Those who understand that love requires sacrifice, and loving those who are unlovely requires more sacrifice.

If you know of anyone like this, please pass my email on to them.

Steve K

Grammer v. Language

This was originally posted at the Filmspotting Forum's Pet Peeves thread. It was in response to a person complaining about people misspelling "door jam(b)" and an ensuing argument about whether the spelling being changed is a good thing or not.

There are two ways of looking at "correct" language: the grammarian's and the linguist's. The grammarian's approach is to say that there are a standard set of rules that everyone needs to follow and any exception to these rules are improper and reasonable to be irritated at.

The linguist's approach recognizes rules, but understands that they are flexible. Language changes all the time, and whatever is most popularly used IS the proper use in that context. That there are different contexts for a particular language and what may be acceptable in an oral context might not be acceptable in written, or what is acceptable in a journal article might not work in a personal essay.

I, and I suppose FLY, take a more linguistic stance. The spelling of "door jamb" could be changing, and "door jam" is neither better nor worse, just different. An older spelling of "door jamb" is "door jambe", but no one complains about that change.

I suppose if the gammarians want to complain about the popular "misuse" of language, that's up to them (my wife is one of those, and it is a common unheated argument we have). But I choose to complain about people who think that the popular notion of language is the wrong one.

Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind

This was first posted in the Filmspotting Forum, under my own thread, called "The Spirited Away Memorial Kimes Family Thanksgiving Miyazaki Marathon" (go ahead, say that three times fast!)

We kicked off the marathon tonight with Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind.



Someone once mentioned that it is a pretty long title, but with Miyazaki one must expect that occasionally, such as Ponyo on the Cliffs By the Sea.

Nausicaa is Miyazaki's second feature film, and the first that begins using the themes that reflect his later films, among which are relationship between humanity and nature, flying machines, and war. It is based on a much longer, more complex manga written and drawn by Miyazaki.

Nausicaa takes place a thousand years after human war has poisoned the soil of earth to such a degree that poisoned jungles grew up, insects became gargantuan and huge protectors of nature were created-- Ohms. There are a number of human kingdoms, but the film deals with only three, Tolmekia-- a war-like kingdom that wants to rule the others; Pejite, the sworn enemies of Tolmekia; and the Valley of the Wind, a struggling utopia that gets caught up in the other kingdom's war.

Nausicaa herself is Miyazaki's saint-- the ultimate peacemaker. She is frankly an ideal Buddhist saint, who communes with all creatures, and seeks to make peace with all. She is especially focused on creating harmony between humanity and nature, trying to heal the 1000 year old rift. Throughout that thousand years, the poisoned jungles and humanity have been warring with each other, each attempting to overthrow the other's rule. Only Nausicaa realizes that humanity would perish without the jungle and that the jungle can flourish under humanity's enlightened guidance. Nausicaa is somehow able to understand the true nature of whatever she is facing. Instead of reacting to a threat, she responds to the fear behind the threat. Instead of seeing the death of the toxic jungle, she sees the beauty of it. She works with the nature of whatever is before her in order to create harmony with all creatures.

On the surface, this film seems weaker than other Miyazaki. Most Miyazaki are amazing in the detail of the world that was created for the film, and Nausicaa is no different in that. But the dialog is less rich and entertaining, the colors seem washed, and the style of animation is not as fluid as other Miyazaki films. Part of this, though not all, is due, I think because Miyazaki is trying to communicate the bleakness of the world in disharmony with nature. War-- both human and natural-- has taken its toll, draining life from everything. At the end of the film, [spoiler]after Nausicaa's messiahship is realized[/spoiler], the colors suddenly are brighter and everything changes.

Despite it's weaknesses (including a truly lame 80s score), this film is one of my favorites of all time. Despite it's bleakness, it is possibly the most joyful and optimistic of Miyazaki's films, and it plots out the general outline of hope for the future. Other Miyazaki films may communicate that war is bad and that bad guys aren't really all that bad, but this film actually lays out what would need to be done to end war, to change people's hearts. It isn't childish in any way, nor simplistic, if perhaps naive. It communicates that self sacrifice, listening to the another's heart, boldness for another's good and some basic reasoning can create a path out of the bleak world.

Perhaps I like this film because it is very much a religious philosophy I agree with. Perhaps it is because Nausicaa is such a strong character that to me she is the perfect moral hero. But with each time I watch it, the higher my estimation of it is.

5/5

An Open Letter To Muslims

Many are doing evil in the name of Jesus to Muslims
We are American Christians, whom many Muslims claim to be an enemy of submission to God. We have lived in the United States all of our lives, but we recognize that our country of birth has done evil against you, against all of Islam. The United States has destroyed the rule of two Islamic states, and is attempting to put in their places governments that have no desire to do the will of God. Some American Christians have tortured Muslims for little or no cause, in opposition to their very own laws. Some American Christians have killed Muslims for little or no cause. Some American Christians have blamed all of Islam for the evil of a few, although most Muslims would not necessarily agree with the death of innocents, and the military laws of Abu Bakr is opposed to such actions. Some, perhaps most, American Christians characterize Islam as a religion of evil, bent on violence and torture, when Islam is simply the attempt to be fully submitted to God in word and deed.

Jesus is not like that
All Christians claim to honor Jesus (whom the Qur’an calls Isa) as their teacher, prophet, Messiah and example. And yet the actions of these Christians do not reflect the life or teaching of Jesus. When Jesus was attacked by his enemies, he submitted to their torture and did not return torture to them. Jesus told his people to do good to those who hate them and to love their enemies. Jesus taught us to rely on God for His vengeance, and that we could depend on His justice.

Most High God, Holy and Beneficant, we ask that you would have mercy on us for our sin. We ask that you would make us like our Master and Teacher, Jesus, able to follow his way. We pray that we would be more attentive to his teachings.

We apologize for evil actions
Our Muslim friends, we have failed in many ways. We did not rebuke those who did evil in the name of Jesus. We did not pray for the Muslim peoples of the world, asking for God’s help for them. We did not love you as Jesus told us to. We oppose those who call themselves “followers of Jesus”, but kill and destroy and torture. We separate ourselves from those who proclaim the God of Jesus and also declare orders to oppress the innocent. We denounce the false prophets who announce that Muslims are killed rightly or that no son of Ishmael will stand right before God.
Most High God, Merciful and Mighty, forgive us for our sins. Forgive us for not acting and speaking like Jesus. We have sinned before you and ask for a way for us to stand before you pure.

Jesus will come to judge
Even as many Muslims teach, Jesus himself declared that he would come to judge his people. He said that when he comes, he will not accept everyone who call themselves “Christian” or who call him “Lord.” Rather, he said that he will judge his people by what they do-- he will look at his people and if they have chosen not to obey his commands, given by God, then he will declare before God, “I never knew you.” We live in this fear, both for ourselves and for our brothers.

Most High God, we do not want to see our brothers hated by Jesus. We do not want to see them destroyed. And so we ask that You would help them change their ways. We pray that You would teach them to stop killing and hating Muslims, but to treat them as friends.

Words of Jesus from the Injeel:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

“Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners in order to receive back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned.”

“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'”

“Do not return evil for evil, but overcome evil with good.”

Warning: This Post May Not Be Suitable for Children

This is a response to a discussion on Filmspotting Forum concerning the use of the term "bitch" in the movie Dear Zachary, which a nice, older man is using to describe the female killer of his son. The discussion begins with a woman who said she was sympathetic with the man until he said that and it made her question his gender politics. Others said that the use didn't have anything to do with gender politics, but with the emotional experience. I pipe in:

Everyone has gender politics, whether they admit it or not. Nevertheless, I don't know that him using that term reflects his gender politics.

His use of that term is certainly uncomfortable, even as his rare uses of CINECAST! are. From his internal perspective, I would hazard to guess that he is using strong language to express his strong emotion. I don't think he usually uses that language, especially in front of his wife, but the situation, he feels, merits it. And that, I think, we can all agree with.

And he is not using the term "bitch" to speak of any other woman than this woman who was so evil. If it were a man, he might use the term "bastard" or something else that was stronger. Would he ever use this term about his wife? We don't know. If he would, then perhaps we could say that he is expressing something about women in general. Instead, all we see is the use of the term against the most evil person he knew, and so he pulled out the strongest language. Could he have been gender neutral in the term he used? I don't know. Could we think of strong language about another evil person that was gender neutral? In the emotional situation? I doubt it.

I think that the instant reaction against the term "bitch" comes from having it used against women in a more casual way. When Kirk Russell uses it in Death Proof, he is clearly indicating his gender politics (as well as his actions). So we relate the use of the term with this kind of sexist pig, who uses the term casually, to indicate all women. But with this tragic figure of a grandfather, I don't think it reflects on him that same way.

Leo and Leo

 

I'm so happy to have met the artist-- Leo Hartshorn-- who now attends Peace Mennonite in Gresham. It's an honor to know him.

Actually, Leo kinda looks like this Leo above here... At least they both have the long beard.

An Open Letter to Portland Officials

A letter to the city officials of Portland, sent today:

My name is Steve Kimes and I have been a pastor among the homeless and the mentally ill in Portland and Gresham for 12 years. I have also led community meetings of the homeless communities in East County.

I want to thank you, as a city official, for allowing there to be discussions about homelessness in Portland. There are essential issues being discussed and I have hope that some good conclusions can be reached. I would like to make the following points that perhaps have not been thought of.

The homeless are citizens
Perhaps the homeless do not pay as much in taxes because they have no property, but that does not make them less than any other human being living in Portland. Although they are often labeled as “transients” that is almost always a misnomer. Most of the homeless were born in Portland and Gresham and consider this their home town. The homeless love their city and many of them do what they can to assist, even if all they can do is to clean up the streets of its garbage.

The homeless are dehumanized
Instead of being treated as citizens, the homeless are treated as less than human beings. To be treated as a human being, authorities must recognize that we have the same human needs as any other person. But the homeless are treated as creatures who do not need sleep, do not need honor, do not need nutritious food, and do not need human contact. Within the city, the homeless are treated like dangerous animals.
If any middle class citizen were rousted in the middle of the night, told to leave the home they were borrowing there would be a great outcry. Yet this is a common occurrence for the homeless. And if they dare to speak their anger, then they are threatened, ticketed, tased or arrested.

Homelessness is more complicated than houselessness
To solve the issue of homelessness, it is not enough to get everyone a place to live. Getting a house does not give someone dignity or freedom from the scrutiny of police officers. Nor does it provide a means of income. There are a variety of issues that caused folks to end up on the street in the first place: social disconnection, mental illness, health, addiction, and especially the need for paid labor. The homeless want to care for themselves, they just need the opportunity to do so, on their own terms.

The first step is making homelessness legal
In order for the homeless to receive their rights as citizens and the opportunities for them to help themselves, they need to no longer be criminals. As long as it is illegal to camp near the services they depend on, they will be unable to sleep well, which means that they will never be able to deal with their issues. The medical community, the mental health community and the military all agree that lack of sleep causes a person to become disoriented and make poor decisions. As long as the camping ordinance exists, then the homeless will be treated as criminals because of the tragedy of their lives.

Please allow the homeless to be citizens.
Stop Hobophobia.

Steve Kimes
Pastor of Anawim Christian Community

For more information about the dehumanization of the homeless, please check out:
http://www.nowheretolayhishead.org/dehumanization.html

Denominations and Limiting Jesus

Jeff Long posted: I used to think that Mennonites had a cultural identity problem because their name did not denote meaning, but only connoted it. I now realize that this is just as true for Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopals and Foursquare. Their names don't denote any meaning either. These titles only have meaning to their members.

I believe that for those who grew up in a denominationally affiliated church it has become a pseudo-ethnic identity for them. I believe that members make adult decisions to be Presbyterian, Methodist and Lutheran because they grew up that way and it is their heritage even though their individual beliefs and practices aren't consistent with Reformed, Wesleyan, or Anglican heritage and theology.

We have followed in the footsteps of Europe and slid into a post-denominational era.

This raises serious questions about the roles that identity, historical heritage and denominational affiliation will play in church planting, evangelizing and discipleship.

What will it take for us to be faithful to the Anabaptist and more specifically Mennonite tradition now that our denominational names are societally meaningless and not useful in naming our congregations.

My response:
We should never have been about being "Mennonite" or "Anabaptist". We should have always been followers of Jesus as Lord. This means, in a sense, re-inventing the wheel with every baptism. What following Jesus in my context will look different than yours, and a homeless follower's life will look differently than a doctor's. Why limit ourselves to denominational titles? That actually limits conversation, rather than encouraging it. We should have more discussions about how we specifically follow Jesus rather than putting ourselves in a denominational box that limits our following Jesus to a stereotype.

Yes, it is good to work together, and it is good to be in community. But should that community be limited along denominational lines? Denominational support has borders. Mennonite money is limited to Mennonite groups, even if solid Anabaptist work is being done among the Presbyterians, the Methodists or, God forbid, non-denominational groups. Why should we narrow our focus to only one group of followers of Jesus? Are we not ALL one?

A Tithe is Too Little

Steve received an email, asking, "Should we tithe or not?"

Here's my response:
My views are complicated because I've been thinking about this for a long time, but I'll summarize:

1. Jesus does not require a tithe, but everything-- Luke 14:33 "No one can be my disciple without surrendering all of their possessions."

2. Jesus doesn't request that money goes to churches but to the poor-- Luke 12:33-- "Sell your possessions and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven."

3. The early church received generous donations, which were distributed to the poor-- Acts 2:43-44, Acts 4:34-35

4. Some of the poor are teachers of God's word, and they deserve their livelihood for their work received-- Matthew 10:10; Galatians 6:6

5. Some of the poor are our own family, whom we have a responsibility to care for-- Mark 7; I Timothy 5:8

Thus, the Scripture seems to teach:
We should give money to the poor, first to our families, then to provide our teaching pastors a livelihood, then to the poor in the church, then to the poor out of the church. In reality, if we really hold to this, then we should have little money left over for unnecessary things.

I hope that helps.

Will You Not Listen?

Hey man, would you please send me biblical proof that we need to listen other as part of our spiritual growth...assuming its true. -Gordon

Listening to other believers is not only part of our spiritual growth, in a general way, but actually a part of our salvation--
Matthew 18:15-17-- The one who does not listen to a brother or the church is to be counted as a gentile and a tax collector-- one who is no longer a part of God's kingdom.
Matthew 10:14-15-- Whoever does not listen to prophets will be treated as Sodom
James 5:19-20-- The one who speaks to a sinner, helping them to repent, saves that person.

Also, forgiveness is not just between us and God, but is a process that includes the church--
John 20:23; Luke 17:3-4-- We are to be part of the process of forgiveness

I Cor. 6:1-5-- The church is supposed to be mediating between brothers

I John 3:15-18; Galatians 6:10; Matthew 25:31-46-- We are to be assisiting each other in need; If we don't we don't love God, and we will be punished on the final day

John 13:34-35; John 15:12-13-- We are supposed to love one another-- and this love is to be reflected in giving up our lives to each other

All of this is to prove that the Christian life is life in community. We can't ignore each other, we have to pay attention, we have to connect, we have to love. Our very salvation depends on it.

However, we do not just listen, but we also discern what each other is saying-- I John 4:1; I Thessalonians 5:21-22. Thus we need to check what others say by the word and by other believers.

So, in summary, we are to listen to other believers, it is a part of our salvation. If we refuse to listen, we will be judged by God. And yet, we need to have discernment in listening, taking care that what believers tell us is really God's word.

Abortion and Mediation

I have two comments on the abortion discussion in general:

I am often disturbed by the lack of understanding between the two main viewpoints. They are each based on a philsophical (NOT religious, unless you are Catholic) answer to the question: When does human life begin? One viewpoint says that human life begins at conception, and that such a human being deserves all the rights and privleges of humans. The other point of view realistically says that human life– as far as rights and privliges go– begins at birth. In the ancient pagan world, human rights didn’t exist until much later in the human development. So, philosophically, there are different points of view. For the first point of view, it makes sense that the fetus has equal rights– not more than– to the mother, and so both should be treated with respect. The second point of view, while honoring all life, gives preference to the mother, and all points follow from that.

The main issue is to understand that the point of view opposed to the one we hold is not evil incarnate, but simply a different point of view. If we react harshly to those who disagree with us, then we will never come to agreement, or even compromise.

And this leads me to my second point. The responses in the abortion debate in society in large has been so dramatic and extreme, that it makes discussion about the subject almost impossible.

Could it not be that Anabaptists, with concern for mediation and peacemaking, could open up this discussion to all, trying to understand the other point of view, even while disagreeing with it, setting aside the propoganda and seeing the true human feeling and compassion on both sides?

I have hope in some of the present discussions about public policy, seeing possibilites that both sides might agree to having abortions reduced by reducing poverty, and increasing opportunities for well rounded education about sex and contraception.

Judging the Culture of Oppression

Joe responds to Top Ten Acts of Oppression:
It seems to me that it is fairly obvious these are at the very heart of the things that offends God. I’m not too bothered about arguing over the other stuff - which seem to me like straining a gnat to catch an elephant.

For me the problem is that by existing I am deeply entrenched in a lifestyle which oppresses. Like it or not, people exist in terrible conditions so that I can enjoy a lifestyle characterised by the pursuit of leisure.

I can’t speak for God, but I honestly can’t see him blaming people for being within a structure they didn’t create. But I think he will blame us for knowing that our lives are oppressive and not doing much about it.

It is one thing to identify an evil institutional structure and quite another to work out what to do about it. This seems to me to be the great question of our time - if we claim to have something to do with Jesus of Nazareth, how can we continue to live like we do?

Joe:
I understand your perspective, and I deeply appreciate it. It is one the main focuses of my life since as a teen I spend time in Kolikut (Calcutta) and Bangladesh. I am a part of a wealthy, oppressive nation, and what is my response to it.

I personally don’t feel that God is so much judging us for being a part of our culture, but is calling us to be free of it. Jesus isn’t in the judging business, but in the deliverance business. So when he told the rich young ruler, “Sell your possessions and give to the poor,” he was calling him to be free of what was oppressing him.

So, for me, the response I have to God is less in speaking out against injustice– although I do that– but in living a lifestyle that frees me from being oppressive, a lifestyle that sets me apart from a culture of leisure and spiritual and cultural narrowness.

Killing the Innocent in War

Regina responds to Top Ten Acts of Oppression:
Perhaps the reason a liberal democracy was such a wonderful idea was because people helping people was alway the best and most Biblical way.

If you were oppressed by Saddam Hussein would you be wishing America would not have spent billions of dollars to free you? That seems like it goes along with your social liberal philosophy. EVERY war kills innocent people, read about WWII but that doesn’t make it a waste….. Read Romans 13.

My response:
Regina:
Every human is not only an individual, but a whole society, of thoughts, cultures and endeavours. Every human is a little piece of God. Should any society or group decide that a number of innocents are worthy to be killed, not by their own choice, then it is not only a tragedy, but a travisty. It is a disaster for a whole culture, if the death of innocents is so casually accepted then justice is turned upside down and we have accepted the Big Brother who tells us that the lie is truth.

I have read Romans 13. It says that a government holds the sword, not to harm innocents, but to strike fear in those who do evil. I have also read Romans 12 that says that we, who believe in Jesus, need not take vengeance, because that is God’s job, not our own. God himself will judge those who determine that the life of the innocent is unimportant.

Read Psalm 82.

The OT and the NT

Top Ten Acts of Oppression as quoted in Young Anabaptist Radicals:
All references are from the ancient Hebrew prophets:

1. Refusing to defend the needy- Isaiah 1:17, 23; Jeremiah 5:28
2. Stealing from the poor- Isaiah 3:14-15
3. Unjust judgments against the poor- Isaiah 10:1-2
4. Not assisting the needy- Ezekiel 16:49
5. Taking interest for loans- Ezekiel 18:15-17
6. Enslaving a people- Amos 1:6
7. Excessive violence in war, especially against innocents- Amos 1:13
8. Excessive rent against the poor- Amos 5:11
9. Accepting bribes- Amos 5:12
10. Turning away those who need shelter for a night- Amos 5:12

Daylight replies:
You are absolutely right in your scriptural basis against acts of oppression. I wonder though. If I posted a list of Old Testament scriptures to build a case against homosexuality, abortion, or to support such things as the death penalty and war, you might reject my list under the notion that we are New Testament people now. Why do liberal Christians have one list of favorite Bible causes and conservative Christians have different list? Both lists have a common source. Just asking.

My response:
I have to admit, that while I am deeply interested in the Hebrew Scriptures, I don’t often use it as a source of moral truth, except when it explains what Jesus was saying. Jesus (and especially his brother James) spoke against the oppression of the poor. However, the definition of this, he depended on the Hebrew Scriptures, just as he depended on the Hebrew Scriptures for the defninition of “porneia” or sexual immorality. So this list is in the way of a definition.

Also, although I know that there are “liberal” and “conservative” Christians, I don’t find that divide to be helpful. There are people who use the Scriptures for their own ideologies. I have no interest in them. I think that kind of interpretation of the Scripture is not only wrong-headed, but boring. I find truth in Jesus, and so Jesus is the way to interpret the rest of the canon. We understand him first, and then the rest of Scripture makes sense.

Two Jesus'

Folknotions asks on Young Radical Anabaptists: “the Jesus of the gospels, not the Jesus of theology” Could you clarify this distinction? Thanks.


The Jesus of theology is the Jesus discussed conceptually in intellectual circles, churches and Bible studies. This is the many “historical Jesus’” (although there have been many honest attempts to find the “real” Jesus), the Jesus of orthodox doctrine, the Jesus of deity alone, the Jesus who rules and who only loves in the abstract. The Jesus of theology has been developed over two thousand years, and has increasingly made Jesus, as a person, more philosophical and able to put in a box. Although this Jesus is arguably greater than the Jesus of the gospels, he is less “touchable” and more moldable by whatever concepts we find most dear within our own worldview.

Perhaps the Jesus of the gospels is more static, but he is more touchable, more realistic, and more difficult to conform to our notions of morality and reality. The Jesus of the gospels always challenges our thoughts and who we are. The Jesus of the gospels never panders to us, or tells us what we want to hear.

But the Jesus of the gospels is the one who looked with compassion at the rich young ruler. The Jesus of the gospels is the one who drew in the sand when asked for judgement. The Jesus of the gospels yelled at his disciples. The Jesus of the gospels insulted the Pharisees. The Jesus of the gospels cried to God to change the plan they had determined upon already. The Jesus of the gospels didn’t know everything. It isn’t just that this Jesus is human– he is real.

Jesus and the Bible

Posted by Tim N, on Facebook:
My awareness of how I read the bible has been strongly shaped by my experience of British Anabaptism through working Anabaptist Network. The second of the Anabaptist Network's seven core convictions is: Jesus is the focal point of God’s revelation. We are committed to a Jesus-centred approach to the Bible, and to the community of faith as the primary context in which we read the Bible and discern and apply its implications for discipleship.(read more from the AN) Naming an Anabaptist value as a "Jesus-centred approach to the bible" helped me to understand some distinctive of my own Mennonite tradition

I just read a book that talked about this approach to the Bible, but the Jesus he was speaking of is a theological Jesus-- the Jesus of the creeds. This isn't exactly an Anabaptist approach. The theological Jesus can just as well be a construct in our minds. The Jesus of the gospel is a real Jesus, one that we can disagree with at times, but one that is worthy to be acknowledged as Lord of our lives, not just the world.

Discussion on Death to Self

“The outflow of the Spirit depends upon death to self.” -Donald Gee

Phil replies on Facebook:
I usually know when the Spirit is at work because it's the direct opposite of what I think I would want or desire. It also speaks to me when the message is in opposition to the things of this world like money, security, luxury, etc.

Julie replies:
Oh yeah...whenever I have a knee-jerk reaction to something I know it is time to re-think my position...

Emmet replies:
Rather than "death to self," "life to self" - that is, the self choosing G-d's life. G-d does not want us merely to vacate and become a finger-puppet for the divine; G-d wants us to become better us's, in communion with him. This takes more than pulling the trigger. This takes ongoing active investment of our selves. Let the self live to receive the spirit.

Cat replies:
I am inclined to agree with you, Emmet (hi, nice ta meetcha!)Death to self-will, not self itself. I hear in Christian teaching and lyrics all the time the prayer to "disappear." But I wonder if that is really God's heart. God wanted us to be ourselves enough to give us the gift of free will. That suggests to me that there is a wholesome, holy self we are to lay hold of. I wonder if we are afraid of the freedom to be ourselves?

Apathy and Hatred

Apathy is the bedfellow of hatred. Both are equally the enemy of love.

Phil replies on Facebook:
Yes and apathy can sometimes be worse than hatred. I think God would rather have us hate Him than not care at all... or be lukewarm.

I reply:
Not to disagree with your basic notion, but the basis for the idea that God would rather have us hate him, Revelation 3:16, when it speaks about the church being either "cold or hot" means that either cold water or hot water is useful-- good for drinking or cooking. But lukewarm water is the only one not useful at all. The apathetic Christian is like lukewarm water, as is the hating Christian-- neither does the will of God, which is love.

Death and Suffering

My original post on Facebook:
“The outflow of the Spirit depends upon death to self.” -Donald Gee

John Johnson comments on Facebook:
I was teaching Romans a couple of years back and was taken with the theme that Christianity is about death. I love the quote, "When Christ calls a man, He bids him come and die" (Bonhoffer). The "secret" to my progressive freedom in Christ seems to be tied to my acceptance of and submission to the reality that I am crucified with Christ. This leaps on into the radical doctrine that I am already righteous, not positionally, but factually. Unfortunately, the conscience "I" is rarely in step with the righteous "I." As this earthly "I" is killed off more and more, the "I" Christ has made me will show through more and more. When talking with religious people I love to point out that God doesn't want us "good," He wants us dead; and that is a much tuffer standard.

I reply:
Speaking of death of self, I'm beginning to realize that the main way Scripture talks about this is the embrace of suffering-- whether that be suffering for refusing sin, suffering from persecution or suffering for being in a place to preach the gospel. I'm still studying this.

John replies:
I'm working on suffering. One discovery is that I tend to avoid the emotional effects of suffering through "masking" so I won't feel the pain. It's a cop survival thing. But Jesus did nothing to mask the pain. He suffered the sufferings both outside and inside. Hence, under the heading of Things I Learned since Bible School in my FB Notes you read "Suffering hurts." Pretty profound discovery, huh?

Jesus, Not Religion

Gordon asks: When some says they dont want religion, they want Jesus. What are they really saying?

They mean they don't want organization-- they don't want anyone telling them what to believe about Jesus.

I can appreciate that, but I think that we all should at least be in conversation with the main traditions of Christianity. For example, anyone who denies the Catholic tradition without looking at it is poorer in their understanding of Jesus. Not because they should agree with the Catholic tradition, but because the tradition has been working through what Jesus means to them and what it means that He is Lord for 1700 years. That's a voice that should be heard. So "religion" is important, tradition is an important voice, even if it issn't the only one.

Basic Definitions

Gordon asks: What does it mean to be a christian?? What does it mean to be a God fearing person? What does mean to be truly devoted to Him?

Those are three different questions:
A. A Christian is one who has Jesus as his or her Lord. A cultural "christian" is one who claims some connection to God in the guise of a Christian worldview, even though that person may have no real spiritual life at all.

B. A God fearing person, literally, is one who's actions are changed due to a recognition of judgment. It is a person who is afraid of what God will do to them if they don't change their actions.

C. To be truly devoted to God is defined differently, even in different places in the Bible. Right now, my best understanding is: Treat God as the Lord of all, in worship, obedience, and belief and to treat other people as God's creation in His image-- with respect and care for their needs.

Should Pastors Plan Sermons?

A discussion under "Are Sermons Scriptural?" in MennoDiscuss:
a. Is there a NT basis for a single teaching elder in a church?
b. Were NT sermons extemporaneous or planned?

Of course, my opinions follow:
a. No. There is a basis for elders of a church-- whether one or more than one-- being able to teach (I Tim. 3:2). This might imply that the lion's share of teaching would fall on them, but not exclusively them. However, it is clear that within the church there were many different giftings and many people using those giftings in the church and many people had the same giftings and they all used them in public (I Cor. 14:26ff).
However, in order to prove that a church shouldn't have one pastor who does all the teaching, it should be asked if there is anywhere in scripture where this is not right. The only place I have is I Cor 14 again, which seems to indicate that everyone participates in the service who has something to say, but I don't know if this is proscriptive or descriptive. In general, I think that there isn't anything wrong with the practice, as long as the gifts of each individual are being used in the church.

b. They were both. Most sermons we have in the NT are extemporaneous, such as almost every example in Acts. However, Jesus had a set group of teachings that he presented in different ways in different occasions, but they were pretty standard. We have pretty much the same outline of teaching in Matt 5-7 and in Luke 6, in clearly different locations (unless you think that Matt and Luke invented the locations). Yes, there are differences, but the similarities are striking. Of course, Jesus also preached extemporaneously, but this wasn't his typical teaching style. When it says in Mark or Matthew "he taught" without any description of the teaching, we might assume that the teaching he gave in that location is presented elsewhere. It also says "he taught in parables in every place" in connection with the set of parables we have in Mark 4, which is almost the same as the expanded set in matt 13-- this set of parables he probably taught more than once.

The Wheat and the Tares (Matt 13)

Response to a discussion on this in MennoDiscuss.

I have heard it argued that this parable does not apply to the church, because the field is the "world". However, Jesus often uses the term "world" to mean the broader congregation of Israel (as we see clearly in John 15:19, that "the world" will hate disciples and in 16:2 "the world" casts them from synagogues). Thus, I consider Jesus' use of "the world" to mean the broader people of God, which would today include the church. So I think that today this parable is speaking of the mixed church.

This has an important application for church discipline. The owner tells the workers NOT to pull out the weeds, because they might, by accident, pull out the good plants as well. It seems that Jesus is saying that it is not for us to pull out those who do wrong from our churches. We teach, we train, we make efforts to mature and we protect the immature by showing and doing what is right, warning against the wrong. But who knows when the "evil" one in our midst might not become the one to repent?

It might seem that my interpretation here is in opposition to standard discipline passages such as matt 18, I cor 5, etc. It is not, however. We must discipline those who claim to be full disciples, making it clear to all the congregation what actions are acceptable and what not. However, this discipline is not supposed to be toward ultimate rejection, but ultimate re-acceptance. We need to take Jesus' and Paul's warnings about when we discipline those in the churches that in so doing we do not be judged ourselves. We must be gentle, we must be patient and we must seek the best for the one being disciplined. And, most of all, we must accept them at the first sign of repentance. After all, it is what God does for us.