Practices that lead to Virtue

Practices that lead to Virtue: Confession & Forbearance --> Patience & Meekness

My old mentor, George Verwer, would apologize even when he knew the wrong done, was not his doing. I would watch in amazement.

What I learned: Confession is a practice that doesn't always require the correct details to be fruitful and healing. Confession sometimes asks us to absorb incommensurate guilt and in rever

se practice forbearance as a rite of passage into the kind of maturity that invites unsuspecting onlookers to learn from. We don't always know who's looking at our library.

What I need to do: Confess as a lifestyle, not just when the details require me to. Confess when I don't always need to. Absorb shame when it's not always fair. Forbear when I deserve justice. Resist when I want restitution. Trust in the cathartic prayers of the imprecatory Psalms and learn to sleep on it. Don't trust immediate pain and don't follow anxiety's treasure map.

God in my box

At the end of the day, I think we've all got God in a box...some of us are just learning to leave the lid open.  

N.T. Wright Interview @ The Gospel Coalition

This is an excerpt from an interview with N.T. Wright by Trevin Wax on his blog, hosted on The Gospel Coalition website.  In the same interview, Wright is asked about Steve Chalke's book, The Lost Message of Jesus.  This is a wonderful introduction to Wright at a time when he was just finishing up some great work and was on the cusp of publishing one of his best known books to date, Surprised By Hope. Enjoy!

Trevin Wax: In your opinion, has scholarly criticism of the New Perspectives in America, such as Carson, Piper, Moo and others, have they been fair? Or have they misunderstood the New Perspective?

N.T. Wright: I think Carson has misunderstood it. The big book, the first volume that he edited, Justification and Variegated Nomism, a collection of fine essays by fine scholars. But I have to say, in the bit at the end, where Carson sums it up, he actually goes way beyond what those essays actually say. And it’s interesting… he takes a few swipes at me there without even footnoting. It’s as though I’m sort of hovering in the background as a big boogeyman who’s going to come and pounce on people and so, he’s got to ward him off.

And I know Don quite well. We were graduate students together, he in Cambridge and I at Oxford in the 1970′s. We’ve been friends on and off for many years. And I just don’t understand why this is eating him the way it is.

Piper is in a different category. He graciously sent me an advance manuscript of his book which is critiquing me and invited my comments on it. I sent him a lengthy set of comments. I’ve only just got on email about two days ago the book in the revised form and I haven’t had a chance to look at it yet. So I cannot say whether he’s being fair or not at this stage.

But I do know that he has done his darndest to be fair and I honor that and I respect that. People have asked me if I’m going to write a response, and the answer is that I don’t know. I’m kind of busy right now. But I maybe should, sooner or later.

Moo is in a different category again. Doug Moo, I would say, is a much greater Pauline scholar than either of the two I just mentioned. One of the things I really respect about Doug Moo is that he is constantly grappling with the text. Where he hears the text saying something which is not what his tradition would have said, he will go with the text. I won’t always agree with his exegesis, but there is a relentless scholarly honesty about him which I really tip my hat off to.

Being Fully Human As Jesus, Not Just Jesus, Is The Answer

"To depend on Jesus too much forfeits our ability to actually become like Jesus. To become like Jesus too much forfeits our ability to really depend on him."

What is the problem then? To truly encounter the living, embodied and relational Christ is to do so as one pursues full humanity.  As humans we are prone to seek out cultural heroes that will replace our responsibility in the world.  We project onto to them qualities, powers and superhuman strength that allows us to forfeit the strength that we as humans actually have for something that doesn't exist in order to avoid the difficult encounters that we as humans are requires to have in our strength.  Our heroes exist as buffer zones between us and the Real.  The Real wants us to realize that which we already have, potential bound up in the human race and to become fully human in order to discover that strength.  The problem is - we don't want that, so we look to super-humans to do if for us.  


In-between our incompetent humanity and super-humanity, there is a place that God calls us to called full humanity.  So why don't we want to be there?


I think the problem is that we don't really want to encounter the "other" more than we encounter ourselves. We truly don't want to have a true encounter, we want the benefits of an encounter, but not all the comes with the encounter.

So the solution is and has been, to be fully human. To be fully human is to not depend on Christ so much that we cannot become like him, but also not be so much like him that we cannot depend upon him. Somehow there's a balance in the midst of that tension that we should be seeking to experience, though the journey there will never allow us to "finally arrive." I think the journey of holding the tension between the desire for transcendence and immanence is like a metronome and our wisdom grows as we cross the center of the metronome more frequently.


Christ's mission wasn't just to save us, but also to release us into what it means to be fully human as he became fully human after the resurrection. That longing to be fully human is the balance between transcendence and immanence. We forfeit that longing when we shortchange ourselves for only (or mostly) attaining the benefits of primarily transcendence or primarily immanence. Conservatives generally focus more on the benefits of transcendence (God's glory is everything) and Progressives tend to focus more on the benefits of immanence (Human Flourishing is everything). Holding a tension between the two for our experience in the world seems to be the best solution rather than prizing one more than the other.


So, the impulse to focus mostly on "God" can actually shortchange our ability to really worship him with all of us (embodied human experience) as Scripture guides us to do. Love of God and love of Neighbor are one and the same in the Greatest commandment

The Canon of the Church is not Closed

Arguments and positions abound regarding the authority of Scripture.  The basic argument for its divine authority is that for a period of time, God authorized the inspiration of human authorship for his divine revelation in written form.  God gave a window of time through which the Bible could be authoritatively authored by human beings on his behalf.

That time closed at a point when the last New Testament book was what theologians call, "canonized" or "canonization."  When you hear people speak about the Canon of Scripture - "Canon" basically means that a fulfilled library of texts are collected, ascertained as to their authoritative nature (by the historic church) and then given a status of being "canonized" thereby closing off other options for what can be authoritative.  When it comes to the Bible, the current belief is that that time of decision making for which books belong and which don't, closed up shop long ago.  It's a done deal.

So what about the Canon of the Church?

Many believe that church tradition is one of the authoritative voices that coincides with Scripture's authority while others believe that the tradition of the church is at least authoritative on some level even if it isn't on par with Scripture.

Whether that is true or not, if we are understanding the authority of the church in a similar paradigm that Scripture itself operates in, then we need to honor the fact that the Canon of the Church (tradition) is not closed.

Church tradition only offers us one side of the coin that Church as an interpretive community has to offer. If we are truly supposed to worship God in the New Creation as every tongue tribe and nation, then the "Church" universal has not completed its maturity into a full worshipping community.

The regnant voice of authority in Church tradition is lop-sided, incomplete, many times inconsiderate and ultimately juvenile.

Kenton Sparks in his new book, Sacred Word, Broken Word: Biblical Authority and the Dark Side of Scripture, appeals to Alasdair MacIntyres argument in Whose Justice? Which Rationality?  which states that healthy traditions are able to interrogate their own boundaries.  Sparks follows MacIntyre arguing that

"...the church needs to be vigilant not only in guarding its tradition (something it has often done well) but also in carefully considering where the tradition might be mistaken (something it has often failed to do)." pg 5.

If the church universal is the Church and the historical and local expressions of that body are adequate, yet radically incomplete shadows of the Church, then any tradition that espouses their own veracity and authority to the elitist exclusion of others both existent and forthcoming, does so with great audacity, insecurity and arrogance.  To mine the depths of a tradition in order to gain a sense of depth, authority and historical accuracy in one's worship and theological interpretation is absolutely necessary.  To assume that this gives one's community authority over others' communities of faith, ignores the Biblical trajectory of what the church, in its full expression, actually is.  

We are not the "Church triumphant", we are the "Church adolescent," still wet behind the ears with the infant baptism of the Church's birth.  For us to claim authority through our traditions, mere historicity, historical interpretive frameworks all the while ignoring the Church who are yet to arrive, to speak into reality and to interpret from their context, is naive.  

The witness of every tribe is needed to fully express our authority as a community.  The certainty of forthcoming contexts of the coming communities of faith only invalidate our high claims to authority in our communities.  

Without the voice of Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe, Australia's First People, Native America, Southern Asia, etc. - there is no voice of final authority in church tradition - the canon of the Church is not closed.  

The question remains - how then do the current local and historical expressions of the church claim authority through their tradition without making the mistake of impatience and regnant audacity discussed above?

Abraham Heschel on Phenomenology

"knowing what you see rather than seeing what you know."  Abraham Heschel

Local Churches = Para-churches

Thought #45 - Local Churches are actually para-church organizations.

Any community of faith that organizes and formalizes is a distinct manifestation or expression of the entirety of what it means to be church - thereby qualifying themselves as an aspect of what it means to be church.

Therefore, they cannot be what the church is in its entirety. This qualifies them as a para-church, not a church. Church then becomes more of a "way of life" that requires a distinct community of faith, but is not only a distinct community of faith.

All ministries, religious non-profits, development agencies, mission agencies...and local churches are actually all para-churches, but together they comprise the church.

God's Greatness vs. God's Goodness

Michael Wiltshire, our guest blogger for this series, will introduce "Get With This or Get With That" with the timeless issue of God's Goodness Vs. God's Greatness.

God: Great vs. Good

God is great, God is good: let us thank him for our food. Amen. As a kid, this little prayer was one of the quickest ways to get “saying grace” out of the way before a meal. I think most Christians have used it at some point to close-in on the time between them and their dinner. The idea of God being both great and good is a familiar one to most Christians as various hymns and prayers are constructed around it throughout church history. But have we missed an important distinction in our theology of God's love and glory?  

In his book, The Mosaic of Christian Belief, theologian Roger Olsen describes the church’s theological consensus on the matter by explaining, “Our God is both glorious beyond our understanding and perfectly good beyond any creaturely goodness.” God’s greatness is often attached to terms like sovereign, transcendent, and self-glorifying, while his goodness is communicated with words like self-sacrificial, compassionate, and loving.  Christians have sought to do justice in focusing on both descriptions of God by letting their theological framework be built in a way which can contain both sides. Their tendency to hastily join them together often ignores a critical distinction which must be made in order to truly understand and experience God’s greatness and goodness for what they really are.

In most cases, by lumping God’s greatness and goodness together, theologians and their followings have unnecessarily overemphasized one side over the other—and then sometimes tend to outright deny the other side altogether. When Luther saw a weakening of God’s greatness from the Catholic Church, he began to preach of a hidden God who is totally free of creation and may damn any man or women without reason. For Karl Barth, God was known as “he who loves in freedom” (Church Dogmatics 2/1) which would summarize his belief that God’s greatness and goodness are not at all in conflict with each other if we abandon all thoughts of projection. Maybe more recent evidence of the church’s failure to see this needed distinction is the evangelical uproar over Love Wins by Rob Bell—a book which in many ways suggests that part of God’s divine greatness eventually may mean that his goodness will win every human soul.

Here is our problematic struggle with making sense of a God both Great and Good: If a person begins and ends their theology with one aspect of God, they easily distort the other—and eventually even the one they began with—leading to a theological caricature of God. If one begins their theology with “God is great” they often envision God’s goodness to only be a manifestation of his greatness and vice versa. An outstanding example of this may be philosophical theism—a system of thought which popular Calvinist theologian Loraine Boettner (among Calvin and others) uses to assert that God purposefully predetermined every single event that would happen—including all acts of sin and evil—and continues to guide those events in order to maintain the fullest extent of his greatness. To many, such a God cannot truly be good whatsoever—and his greatness, in this light, becomes distorted as well.  Panentheism, on the other hand—which sees God in totally interdependent on the world—is another danger if the pendulum swings too far the in the opposite direction.

So how does one keep from overemphasizing one aspect of God? Again, there is a critical distinction to be made. God is equally Great and Good—but we cannot let those terms become fused to the point where they are totally interdependent on each other. In my opinion,we must begin to construct theology which allows both aspects to operate simultaneously and harmoniously.  This then requires letting God’s greatness and goodness remain in their paradoxical framework.  And while such a paradox may seem like sloppy theology to some, it is important to remember that speculation outside of what God has clearly revealed to us often may better lead to mysticism than poorly developed doctrine.  We must also see God as capable of self-limitation, if he chooses to do so. At the end of the day, our monotheism still requires distinction.

You Can Get With This or You Can Get With That

I'm excited to introduce the "This for Thas" series.  For some time, I've been fascinated by how ideas that have real consequences are used without understanding where they come from.

This series then comes out of a frustration with "distinctions" - real distinctions that make a ton of difference if they are heeded.

What the bugger am I talking about. Ideas that are meant to stand alone for very important reasons, many times will get lumped in with another idea and thereby lose their distinction. The problem with this, is well... I'd rather just get to it. To name a few...

Human Error vs. Human Brokenness

Holy vs. Sacred

The Gospel vs. Implications of the Gospel (with a video featuring Mark Driscoll)

Infirmities vs. Sin

Neo-Reformed vs. Neo-Puritanism (more recent)

Election to Salvation vs. Election to Service

Greatness of God vs. Love of God (Special Guest Bloggers on this one)

Simple vs. Simplicity

Tribes vs. Families


The hope for this series is to address the need to distinguish ideas that are usually lumped together.  By lumping these ideas together, we generally begin to define what one idea is (God's wrath) as more important and sometimes more defining than than its companion neighbor idea (God's love) is.  Hopefully the clarity we can achieve from this will help us approach our faith and other people with our faith more honestly and carefully. We can all agree that being careful is becoming more and more necessary in how we talk about God and others' beliefs in the public and private squares of our world.

Jesus ;) Religion - Why We Need All Three Vids (and a few more)

Youtube has lit up with Jeff Bethke's version of why he hates religion but loves Jesus.  His spoken word has stirred emotions, thoughts and not a few controversial convos and blog posts.  I hesitated to comment or even think about his performance but now that it is at over 15 million views within 10 days (uploaded on January 10th, 2012) and has been viewed by people all over the globe, I thought it was time.  I was also asked by a friend from South Africa what I thought - South Africa!  This video is a true example of how viral video works - amazing!  (Btw - I love the way the internet works)

I had hoped it would blow over and he would be an internet sensation which would lead us to the next one.  But this guy has staying power (10 days, I know, too early).  The reason I say that is that within a week and a half, two other prominent religious traditions have come out with their own responses done in a very similar fashion and with competent levels of quality.  I have enjoyed them all to one degree or another.

The First One - Jesus>Religion


I've generally been frustrated by the first film (Jeff Bethke's) that came out and didn't want to pay it too much attention - plus a lot of people liked it and if I said anything to critique it, I think it wouldn't do any good. What he says has so many merits, but it doesn't take into account God's choice of humanity and God's desire to work through human dynamics (i.e. religion) to accomplish his purposes. God doesn't hate religion, he enters more fully into it than we ever do and challenges its decrepitness and affirms its life giving elements thereby changing it into something even better.

Almost the entire O.T. Law and sacrificial system was borrowed from other "religious" structures present in the Ancient Near East cultures that surrounded Israel. If God hates religion, then he wouldn't embody it in order to redeem us. Does he hate religion void of intentionality, sincerity, and a heart for God - absolutely - but he doesn't hate religion de facto.

Isaiah 66 talks about how he detests their religious observances - the same religious observances that he gave for them to do and commanded them to do. Why did he reject them - because of the status of their hearts (which was evident in the deplorable actions that they displayed outside of the temple).

What this brother is hopefully trying to say is that religious observance as hypocrisy sucks, but it would be a mistake to say that religious observance itself sucks. I love religious observances and even when they take the place of my heart because I'm in a bad place or just rejecting my open invitations to encounter God, they keep me and for that I'm thankful.

Because as I continue to do them, that rhythm is usually the one thing that leads me back to a place of accepting the invitation of a real encounter with God. Religion will never be the problem - it is just a solution created by man that God accommodates and actually affirms but that doesn't always work. In the end, it is not meant to "work" - it is meant to keep us connected to life of God which is found in embodied and communal practices (=religion) as well as personal and sincere pursuances of the Divine Encounter (=Jesus).


The Second One - Jesus<3Religion


The second vid by Fr. Pontifex (Fr. Claude [Dusty] Burns) was surprising because Catholics are usually not that cool in their media distribution and yet PhatMass and Spirit Juice Studios are.  I agree a lot with what Pontifex presents in his explanation, but as a soft postmodern Christian with a profound trust in the goodness and sovereignty of God, I actually think we need all three vids in order to understand what God is saying and then a few more (which I'm sure are already forthcoming).


The Third One - Jesus>Religion: The Muslim Version

When it comes to the Muslim brother, the point about worshipping Jesus that he mentions more than once is actually true.

Richard Rohr, a catholic priest, says the same thing. There is so much about how he (the video dude) presents his ideas through this that is so well done and through provoking. At the same time, he's missing some obvious philosophical categories that could help his argument a lot. It was actually North African Muslim Intellectuals who helped us re-discover the great thinkers of Greece and the Ancient world. Christianity owes a lot to these Muslim thinkers. There was a time when they incorporated ancient philosophical thinkers into their understanding of the world and religion, but it seems they have stopped that. The Christian tradition picked it up from there and re-incorporated philosophy's categories back into our faith tradition which has allowed us to understand better the concepts like Trinity, sacrifice, etc...

God is not scared or bothered by any of these videos and I'm sure he enjoys the Spoken Word format. They are all required to encounter and understand who the Trinity really is, even the one from our Muslim brother. I don't follow Islam and can't agree with their conclusions about Christ, but I can still learn so much from watching his video that I need - though my filter will still be Scripture, the Church and its history, the narrative of God in my life and the extremely important life and words of Christ.


But yeah, in the end, I need all three of these vids and a few more.

When Paul Calls You a Saint?

He's referencing the Priestly class in the OT as now applying to the entire church rather than just to a clan of Israel. This may have been a shocker to hear in his letters as most of the people listening (Jew or Gentile) would understand that priests are a "special" class of people and not a title you hand out liberally. This could have made Paul's ongoing statement quite scandalous. My first thought is that it is somewhat of a rhetorical device, to call members of the church saints, to shock people out of their comfortable paradigms. That's just the rhetorical approach, but now some other considerations.


The first thing that comes to mind is that the priestly function was to, in a way, sacralize the world around them (make common things sacred). In the OT, there are three different classifications usually assigned to the "things" in the word - Holy, Common & Profane. 


The Holy was to be separated from the Common and protected from the Profane. 


The Common was to be kept from the Profane. Just because something was common or profane or holy didn't mean that its intrinsic value was in question or that it was necessarily intrinsically bad or good. It was a classification system that allowed the OT priests to uphold the Law. The priest's vocation was to uphold these categories and enforce them in the life of the Israelite community to maintain their fidelity and direction of worship towards Yahweh.

I can imagine that that role has been transferred to us in the NT church under the New Covenant because part of our role is to make everything "spiritual" and to be holy as he is holy. Now our being holy is not something that we depend upon another human being to do for us, other than Christ (our High Priest), but at the same time we are called into Christ's priestly role by co-priesting with him as we are also called to co-reign with him. Our priestly function is deep and complex in this world and takes a lifetime to discover and unpack as well as practice.

Making everything spiritual seems to be the function of "re-mythologizing" the world. C.S. Lewis did much of that in his works - to re-enchant the world with the enchantment that God meant for it to have. 


Sin has "dis-enchanted" the world from its original and potential beauty and potential towards flourishing. Our role as priests is re-sacralize the world and to give order to what has no order - to sacralize that which has been de-sacralized - to re-enchant a dis-enchanted world. This comes in forms of healing, renewal of all sorts, proper ordering of relationships, economics, social orders, systems, personal lives and communities, etc. 


When we talk about salvation and sanctification - we aren't just talking about getting saved and becoming a more moral person - we are talking about being re-ordered back into a way of being that we were meant for along with the rest of Creation and the Cosmos. It's all integrated. 


Romans 8 - creation groans in eager expectation for the revealing of the sons of God so that it can experience its redemption - because we are all connected - for good and bad. Once that process is begun in our lives, we are then called into a deeper participation in the life of God's re-ordering of the world as we are being re-ordered into the "image" we already bear.

Ordering the world to re-sacralize it is a macro-activity of the historic priestly role in the OT to order the world for the Israelites based upon the Law. Now the job is extended to the whole world through the NT church with the presence of the Holy Spirit and the power, authority and commission given to us by Christ in Matthew 28. 


So, what are we called to sacralize in the world around us and how should we attempt to do so carefully and respectfully?

Peter Rollins at the Brehm Center

Peter Rollins lecture at Fuller Seminary & the Brehm Center from Brehm Center on Vimeo.

Culture Redefined Away From A "Head" Start to an Embodied Start

To be a Prophet - voice, action and space

David Bazan and David Dark (author of the book, The Sacredness of Questioning Everything) conducted a discussion where they cover our perceptions of God on the Q Website.  You can listen to it here.  In the discussion they mention an Allen Ginsberg quote.  He (Allen) was asked, "how do you become a prophet?" He answered, "tell your secrets."

I have been instructed by good men and women that in order to build my credibility in a world where one's ease of life, respect and income depends heavily on one's credibility, that I need to do so through shrewdness.  I'm coming to the point where it's hard to accept that this is the way for me to live.  We each have a way to live and some are called to different journeys, journeys that others would never take or ever be able to take.

I don't want to be so tactful that I lose the ability to have a prophetic voice, but I don't want to be so tactless that I lose my voice.  Either way, becoming so tactful that one's personality convolutes to the point of not having one, can only end badly.  So with this, I want to talk about what it means to live prophetically.




One's prophetic identity is primarily retroactive - one can only know they have been so by looking backwards. Grinsberg's above quote is a bit of a contradiction - purposefully of course. We don't try to become a prophet, we live out our convictions honestly and candidly and bear our secrets instead of relying on shrewdness for the sake of credibility. Prophets could be shrewd but never to the point that their audience missed the point. A prophet, as I understand it, just lives and bears the weight of one's own life without secrets - only then will you  be heard, sometimes heeded but mostly unwanted as most prophets were.

A prophet lives as the cutting (s)word, but most people want half-pint prophets it seems. We want a word that is cutting but only if our hand is on the hilt. Many are drawn to conferences and speeches by the people whom they've dismembered to endure the verbal tirade and accept nominal responsibility only to return to our comfortable clamor. The prophet requires no attendance at their conference, because they usually come to you in living color and they don't allow you to return, because a true prophet strips us of our comfortable clamor by their near and compelling presence.

We have three choices it seems.  We can move away to avoid the prophet, only to be found again.  We can throw the prophet out or kill him/her or we can stay long enough for their presence to cut us deep enough for real substantive change. Prophecy is as much about presence as it is about the spoken word; a complete lack of it or a hyper version of it- either way, the space that they fill or don't fill cannot be ignored.


A prophet steps outside of the community to see differently that which needs to be seen.  In effect they are actually joining the margins.  They smell compromise and though they might participate to some degree, eventually they blow the whistle.  Standing on the margins allows them to never completely leave and by default, their presence remains prophetic.  The community throws stairs and stones and the tirade begins....trying with increasing effort and annoyance to push the prophet out completely.  


It's important to realize that prophecy is not just for "bad" people, it is for those who's insecurities rule their decision making power too often, who have forgotten to know themselves well enough to name and confess their secrets.  Parents, bosses, older brothers, school administrators, day-to-day dictators, the recluse - each and every one of us, given the power, will encounter insecurities, that without restraint, will cause us to need the prophetic in our lives.  


Sadly though, the community doesn't want the prophet to belong to them or their margins - they just want the prophet gone or quiet.  His or her words or actions are not the only problem - it is the presence of the prophet.  If a prophet tells his secrets, those that have their own are thrown off by the prophet's mere presence.  Someone who tells their secrets may tell yours.  The prophet's presence is a witness of the truth because a prophet who tells his or her own secrets is living out the truth of their own story so robustly that it can only compel some to do the same or repel others to do everything to avoid the path of honesty - even to the point of doing whatever it takes to mute the prophet.


Many times the prophet is killed or maimed by the community as they throw their tirades and dysfunction towards the prophet.  The energy and dynamics invested in this process actually pulls the community towards the prophetic voice.  The desire to repel the prophet only ends up pulling the community closer to the space the prophet inhabits.  Ultimately, the prophet is absorbed into the community along with the prophet's voice of witness and truth.  


Sometimes the prophet is absorbed by a mob rushing to kill him or her and at other times, the prophet's words and life take years to move the community towards him or herself.  After a time they are absorbed and the community is forever transformed eventually into what the prophet said, lived and inhabited many years earlier.  Prophetic voice, prophetic action and prophetic space - these elements will either compel us or repel us, as the prophet lives through them, whether they know they are or not.


To be prophetic, tell your secrets and inhabit the space God has given you - the rest will follow.

Integral Life for Christians

Coming Home: Leslie's Introduction from Integral Life on Vimeo.

Coming Home | Part 2: How Full is the Christian Path? from Integral Life on Vimeo.

How Gaming Can Make a Better World

3 Must Read Non-Christian Authors for Christians

1. Rene Girard



2. Daniel Quinn



3. Joseph Campbell

New Film About Myths and Joseph Campbell

Joseph Campbell's book, The Hero With A Thousand Faces, is one of the most landmark texts of the last century.  Many have seen their faith enriched through this text while others have found "freedom" from their faith through it while still others have seen their faith made more robust through his work.  Many of the most famous cult films have drawn their story lines from his well, including Star Wars, The Matrix and many others.

This new film displays the incredible and sometimes controversial gifts that Campbell gave us through his work.  If you have never read or heard of him, please watch this film and check out his books.  Whatever your view on Campbell, he has been one of the most influential men of the last century, not only for his own work but for how he influenced the work of so many others.  Please enjoy this film and if you get a chance this Christmas, I highly suggest going to watch it.  Happy Advent!


Finding Joe - Trailer V.7 from pat solomon on Vimeo.

William Blake on Thanksgiving

"I must create a system, or be enslaved by another man's"

Awaken to Your Divine Dignity, Don't try to Achieve it.

Watch Richard Rohr on PBS. See more from RELIGION & ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY.

“We cannot achieve our inherent dignity—our divine sonship and our divine daughterhood. All we can do is awaken to it and start drawing upon it, appreciating it, reveling in it. We live with an inherent dignity by reason of our creation, a dignity that no one has given to us and no one can take from us.

And it has nothing to do with our race or religion. Hindus have it and Buddhists have it and pagans in Africa have it. They are just as much children of God as we are. Objectively. Theologically. Eternally. Where else do you think they came from? Did some other god create them, except THE GOD? Their divine DNA is the same as ours. We deny our supposed monotheism if we believe anything else.”  - Richard Rohr