Christian Art Carnival

I'd like to see more on-line Christian art in the blogosphere. To that end, I will be hosting a Christian Art Carnival for this season of Advent/Christmas. Entries should be your own work created in the calendar year 2005 and should be related to Christmas. Artwork should be in jpeg or gif files hosted on your own web space (I might not have enough room to host everybody's artwork). Links are due by the end of the day on December 24, 2005 and should be submitted by email to christianartcarnival@yahoo.com. Please use the email subject "Christian Art Carnival Entry" and include the URL of the artwork, your name as you would like it listed, a description if you'd like one to appear with your artwork, copyright/permissions info, or whether public domain.

I will post the Christian Art Carnival at the new Christian Art Carnival blog on Wednesday, Dec. 28, 2005, God willing. Please no more than one entry per person. Since no prizes are on the table, no other restrictions apply. In the unlikely event of inappropriate submissions, I'll retain the decision on whether to link to a piece in the Carnival.

All you artists out there, hope to see you at the Carnival! If you're friends of an artist, please help spread the word.

Update 12/02/2005
The email address above has been changed to a new email account specifically for the Christian Art Carnival. A new blog has also been created to hold the results, though a link to the Carnival will be posted here.

Fellowship and Fulfillment

Fellowship is a deeply Christian concept. Outside of Tolkien, in modern times there is not much focus on it. But consider this: Without fellowship, a friendship is shallow, a marriage is a failure, a family is a shell; without it, we count our days as empty. Fellowship is an abiding type of love that comes near to a union of the souls. When looking at ultimate satisfaction in life, fellowship is our deepest need.

Like too many matters of the heart, it has been relegated to an area of things feminine and optional. The early church saw things differently:

They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to breaking of bread and to prayers -- Acts 2:42

The early church had the same commitment to fellowship as to the teachings of the apostles, breaking bread, and prayers. Most of the Christians I know are very aware of the need to devote themselves to the apostles' teachings and to prayers. Depending on the group of Christians, they may or may not devote themselves to breaking bread. But it is rare to meet a group that devotes itself to fellowship. It is neglected; we neglect our brothers sitting next to us in the pews. Some have ceased to come entirely.

Fellowship with God Himself

And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. -- 1 John 1:3

God chooses to give the world something we would hardly dare to hope: to have fellowship with God himself. God Himself is present in our world. He has bound himself to be present in his word, and in the breaking of bread, in prayers, and when we gather together in his name. In the Holy Spirit, God Himself is present even within us.

This is just a small part of what the Scriptures say about fellowship. My hope for now is this: to reclaim the rightful place of fellowship in Christian talks as the first step to reclaiming its rightful place in Christian life.

I've been tagged

And a kind thank-you to Sven/Steven for something a little lighter to blog about today. He tagged me with this "Seven by seven" meme:

1. Seven things to do before I die
2. Seven things I cannot do
3. Seven things that attract me to (...)
4. Seven things I say most often
5. Seven books (or series) that I love
6. Seven movies I watch over and over again (or would if I had time)
7. Seven people I want to join in, too.

Seven things to do before I die
I'm such a dreamer but as Popeye used to say, I yam what I yam.
1. Write the definitive, God-honoring work on comparative religion
2. Restore respectability to an orthodox Christian mystic tradition
3. See my children become mature, God-loving adults instilled with a love of truth, a sense of humor, and a deep sense of fairness
4. Arrange for Chinese translations of Athanasius' On the Incarnation and Eusebius' History of the Church
5. Establish mercy missions in my city to be "hands of Christ" for providing medical care for the poor and for meeting the needs of local people hurt by any disaster that was worthy of making the news (e.g. house fire)
6. Improve my proficiency in Arabic.
7. When I find my days are numbered shortly anyway, go recite the Sermon on the Mount and other selections from the gospels in Arabic in Mecca during the annual pilgrimage. It won't be a pretty end, but who wants to go out in a nursing home anyway?

Seven things I cannot do
1. Be satisfied with only the 7 things on my "to do before I die" list
2. Pass up chocolate
3. Spend less than an hour inside a book store
4. Care whether the garage is clean
5. Get the hang of knitting, no matter how patiently BH tries to teach me
6. Stay awake through another chapter of Brothers Karamazov
7. Quit blogging at a reasonable hour

Seven things that attract me to (...)
Now, since my husband left me and has since remarried, I don't think I can remarry in good conscience. So these comments are on a man that I admire very much, though I keep that to myself since I wish him the best and don't want to waste his time.
1. He is the most forgiving person I have ever met
2. Honest
3. Outgoing
4. Fun-loving
5. Knows a hundred good movies to watch
6. Doesn't take himself too seriously
7. Passionate about taking good care of people

Seven things I say most often
1. Don't interrupt your brother.
2. Don't interrupt your sister.
3. Stop picking on each other.
4. Much better.
5. Not again.
6. Really, just stop it.
7. Thank you.
(Entire sequence is repeated at odd intervals during the day.)

Seven books (or series) that I love
1. LOTR (J.R.R. Tolkien)
2. Travels (Marco Polo)
3. Chronicles of Narnia (C.S. Lewis)
4. A Christmas Carol (Charles Dickens)
5. Dilbert (series/Scott Adams)
6. Carry On, Mr. Bowditch (Jean Lee Latham; #1 childhood favorite)
7. Indian Captive (Lois Lenski; #2 childhood favorite)

Seven movies I watch over and over again (or would if I had time)
1. LOTR
2. Apollo 13
3. Wrath of Khan
4. Riverdance (Michael Flatley/Jean Butler)
5. Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein
6. Monk (TV mystery series)
7. Gilligan's Island re-runs (don't know if TV series count but I hope so)

Seven people I want to join in, too.
1. Metacrock
2. Dawn Treader
3. The guys over at the CADRE
4. Darrell Pursiful
5. Richard Hall
6. Diane
7. Silas Jones
(Some of you are old friends, and some of you are commenters or people I've met around the blogosphere and just wanted to meet.)

And as they say no offense taken if you don't join in.

"Fighting" AIDS and the deaths caused by morally silent Christianity

World Vision, a Christian group, recently published on Five Ways to Fight AIDS. They note that in the last year an estimated 3,100,000 people have died of AIDS, which is more by a huge margin than the tsunami and the hurricanes combined. Their suggestions? 1. Pray; 2. Sponsor; 3. Be an Advocate; 4. Run, Walk, Bike, or Swim; 5. Spread the Word.

The World Vision article is typical of many, and the remainder of this entry does not concern World Vision in particular, but the general "morally silent Christian" approach of which they are an example. Of that approach, it is all very kind and well-intentioned. But it is not helpful in stopping the spread of AIDS in the same way as reducing the top risky behaviors -- IV drug use and promiscuity. This morally silent stance is supposed to be non-judgmental. And it is. It's also directly culpable in letting people continue at high risk of death, so that millions more are expected to die.

It's no big surprise when some secular groups are against what Christians would recognize as morality. Despite the obvious destructive effects of drug use and promiscuity, secular groups are slow to speak against these actions because of their determination to be anti-religious, even if that stance costs millions of lives a year by current estimates. It is, perhaps, testimony to how intense is the secular hatred of religion that they will not consider "monogamous and drug-free" among the solutions. This despite the fact that simple monogamy and refraining from drug use would be the most cost-effective and long-lasting way to solve the problem. Still, that is not even permitted serious discussion. The permissive approach looks at the root of the problem and absolutely refuses to tackle it. This ensures the continued spread of the disease. Due to the constraints of reality, the "preventive" measures will occasionally fail, but promote the continuation of the exact behaviors that spread this deadly disease.

It may be predictable that secularists take this approach. What is less excusable is when Christian groups consign millions of people to die because they are afraid of being called names. Who cares if people call us names if we are saving lives? Are we really so frightened of name-calling, or so naive as to think the anti-Christian bias from the secularists will stop if only we won't condemn today's popular pet sins? Do we really think we're doing a favor to those at risk of dying by allowing them to feel unjudged in their destructive behavior? Do we imagine they'll thank us when they're dying that at least we didn't speak up when it could have helped? Or are we so confused about morality ourselves that we're unwilling to preach it in order to save lives, as if that were not among the legitimate purposes of morality?

The best thing we could do for high-risk AIDS areas is to send missionaries to teach forgiveness of sins and new life in Christ's name, and to stop living decadent lives. A condom protects you from AIDS today but not when the box is empty; monogamy protects you from AIDS for free and forever. Clean needles protect you from AIDS while you have a supply of clean needles; not shooting up protects you permanently.

I hope to follow up in the future with why Christians must reclaim monogamy as a good message.

Celebrate Thanksgiving: Give Native Americans Something to be Thankful For

1. Personal: Start your Christmas shopping at a Native American gift shop. If you have funds for more than just shopping, make a donation to a Native tribe. Many have housing or job-building projects that could use more funding.
2. Group: Purchase land adjacent to a reservation and donate it to the Native tribe.
3. Government: Work with elected officials to create a program whereby new state parks or national parks are created and put under the guardianship of the Native Nations.

Note: Some members of the Native Nations are a bit tired of the "guardian of nature" schtick, but many embrace it as their rightful heritage. It ought to at least be a choice.

---

When the Europeans first came to this country, the Native Americans welcomed them. I do not know what they expected, but this was surely not it. And typically what follows next is hand-wringing, but not constructive. The main non-rallying cry has been, "What can we do now?" But "what can we do now?" is only a call for inaction if there is no answer. If we can rightly be ashamed of our forefathers' blindness, we can also rightly be proud of their accomplishments -- but none of that is actually helpful.

The answer is not for people of non-indigenous descent to go back to Europe (Asia, Africa). Things have gotten a bit more complicated over the centuries. The Karankawa tribe who used to live on the land where I now sit -- they are entirely extinct. My children, on the other hand, are 1/8 blood Cherokee, though they have never applied for tribal papers from the Cherokee Nation.

The answer is not to spend all our time wringing our hands over the wrongs of the past. Neither is the answer to sweep the wrongs of the past under the rug. Do we share the blame for the wrongs committed by our ancestors? I'd say the answer is: We only share in the guilt if we see the injustice and take no action. The injustice is not only a past event but a continuing reality, and when we take no action we share that guilt.

But is there any action to be taken? If we cannot give the land back, and we cannot go back to Europe, what remains? I would go back to the original observation that the Native Americans welcomed us; they did not begin by thinking we should go back to Europe or that we should have nowhere to live in their land. But they did seem to think they would be treated with justice and treated as friends, and they did seem to think they would have a better lot than we have since given them. (Some have noted that the Native Americans were not actually any more peaceful than Europeans, just less well-armed. That's probably true enough, but amounts to hinting that might makes right, which is not an ideal that I'd choose to support.)

I'd respectfully submit that our Thanskgiving Celebrations are best if we also give the Native Americans something to be thankful for. Help them have the same prosperity we enjoy in their lands. That, I think, is more what they had in mind when they welcomed us.

Revelation: Sabbath and Jubilee

When we try to understand the Biblical book of Revelation, we are plunged into rich symbols and intriguing mysteries. I’m sure this depth and interpretive enigma is more than just part of the book’s appeal, but also part of its design. Part of the message we are supposed to understand is the fact that there are mysteries too great for us, beauties we have not yet imagined, realities we have not yet grasped. The book of Revelation keeps us honest in our pretensions to have neatly analyzed all there is to understand about The Ancient of Days.

But sometimes there is a hint, in all those rich symbols, of things we have already understood – or have already had explained to us. One symbol used repeatedly in Revelation is the number 7. As often as the book repeats the number 7, the book’s goal must include fixing that number firmly in our mind in the picture of the end of all things. So what does the number 7 mean?

The Bible has already told us many things using the number 7 as the reminder or key. In the beginning of the Bible, the number 7 is tied to the completion of a good work, to the fullness of time. It is linked to the time of rest. In the ancient ceremonial laws of the Torah, holy time is often counted in sevens. Each seventh day is designated as a time of holiness, a time which is blessed. The first feast of the year lasts for seven days. Seven times seven days come before the next major holy day. The next major holy days – including the Day of Atonement – fall in the seventh month of the calendar, so that seven is the number associated with forgiveness and atonement. Every seventh year was a year of rest for the people and the land. After seven times seven years there was ordained a Year of Jubilee when debts are forgiven, those in bondage are released, and lost inheritances are restored to their former owners. In the prophet Daniel, seventy times seven years is the fullness of time before Messiah comes. In Jesus’ teaching, seventy times seven times is associated with forgiveness of sins.

So the number 7, one of the main symbols of Revelation, is known to us. Seven has long been the favored number for the fullness of time, for blessing, and for rest. It is the number designating the time for things to be restored to how they were meant to be. Seven is the number assigned to the time for the forgiveness of sins, the cancellation of debts, and the release of those in bondage. Seven has been the number for the time when those who lost their homes and inheritance came back home, restored to what was once their own by God’s decree that that’s the way it should be. “Seven” has always been God’s promise for the blessing he has stored up for the fullness of time.

Comparative Religion: Goodness and Harmony with Nature

This is a continuation of a previous post on comparative religion. The first part laid out the general approach of looking for truth and goodness, and some of the problems that come up in understanding "truth" and "goodness." This part explores one of the side-paths: the view of "goodness" as "harmony with nature".

The question of "harmony with nature" came up previously, and right away we meet some interesting questions if we define "good" as "harmony with nature" and "evil" as "disruption of harmony with nature." If nature includes people (and who would say that it doesn't?), then can anything be done by a person be out of harmony with nature? If an action is not "natural" for a person, then where does it come from, if not from human nature? And if it does come from human nature, how can someone say it is not in harmony with nature? I'll expore these questions a little bit more.

We know that some wild animals, such as wolves, might kill one of their own pack simply to achieve dominance. Certain parts of human history read very much like the behavior of territorial pack animals, ever seeking dominance and territory to gain some sort of advantage within the pack or amongst the packs. So what is the relationship between what is natural and what is right? Again, for the moment I will leave open the questions raised so that we do not miss too much ground as we do our exploring. I will simply say that someone would be wrong to imagine that I am condoning humans acting like pack animals simply because I have not yet covered the various approaches to the question. Various religions leave open ways for man to have an ambiguous place in nature so that man, even if natural, is not necessarily in harmony with nature. In some understandings, restored harmony with nature, or restored union with Ultimate Reality, is the final goal of religion. If (on the traditional Western view) nature is a self-revelation of God and God is Ultimate Reality, then we find a lot of similarity amongst several different religions though not to the extent of sameness.

On the topic of harmony with nature and its relation to goodness, another approach deserves mention here. The example may be familiar but still worth review. Suppose -- what I earnestly hope is not true -- that a doctor were to tell me that I have cancer. Suppose that, to preserve my life, it were necessary that some part of my body be removed, and that the doctor should take a knife to me for this purpose. It might be argued that there's some sense in which the cancer is natural since it occurs in nature, and also some sense in which I see the cancer as not good since it tends to destroy, even to the point of destroying its own host. The doctor's decision to perform surgery and remove the cancer is a decision that takes it for granted that certain cells have more right to live than other cells, that some are healthy and some are unhealthy. It seems obvious when we think of cancer that any part which tends to destroy the whole has got to go, regardless of any debate over whether it is natural.

Still, is cancer "natural"? In the normal course of things, the body repairs and renews itself with new cells made after the pattern of the ones before. These cells, built on the same pattern, work well with the whole. If a healthy body does not typically produce cancer, is cancer still "natural"? If cancer is said to be natural at all, then it is only natural in the context of an unhealthy, destructive system.

On the subject of goodness as harmony with nature, we will want to keep an eye on not only whether something occurs naturally, but also whether it occurs naturally in a healthy system, and whether it tends to benefit the whole or to attack, destroy, or weaken the whole. We will also want to keep an eye on the pattern that produced the nature in question, and whether something is in keeping with that pattern.

More to come on the topic of comparative religion, exploring with goodness and truth as the basic guideposts.