21st October 2007

The Misuse of "Radah" (dominion)



source

‘Radah’

In Gen 1:26-28, God uses the word ‘radah’, a Hebrew word that is often translated as ‘have dominion over’? But we Western Christians (and Jews?) have misunderstood its meaning. It is a word that is used only a dozen times in the Old Testament, and thus is rather special in its meaning.

We have taken it to mean ‘dominate over’ just as a mediaeval ruler or potentate would dominate over his subjects, using them for his own ends, his own pleasure, his own prestige, his own wars, etc. But an examination of ‘radah’ shows that this is NOT the type of ‘dominion’ that we are called upon to have over the creation. For example, ‘radah’ is used in Ezek 34:4, which shows the wrong type of ‘radah’. The use of ‘radah’ there shows that God condemns such an attitude:

“Woe to the shepherds of Israel, who only take care of themselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled [radah] them harshly and brutally.” (2-5).

Whilst we might argue precisely how this applies, I am here referring to it at a higher level, namely that it shows the heart of God, whose image we are made in. And that image is tied up with our ‘radah’ of the creation.

Our ‘radah’, of the creation, is not to be with harshness and cruelty and selfishness. Our ‘radah’ is to be, not for our own sake, but for the sake of the one ruled, that is, for the sake of the creation. We should heal those parts of creation that are sick, bind up those parts that are injured, bring back those parts that are straying, search for those parts that have become lost, as it were.

So we ‘radah’ creation to represent God to it, to develop and refine and beautify it for its own sake, rather than for ours. (cf. the notion of Love: giving for the other. God is Love.)

Note: This Creation Mandate has never been rescinded. It is still in force for us, even in this gospel period.



The Creation Matters to God

In Genesis 1:26-28, God gives humankind ‘dominion’ over his Creation. Many have seemed to assume this justifies our ‘domination’ of Creation. The ‘domination’ we have exercised has had the following characteristics:

  • We have treated the Creation as though it were ours for the taking and use.
  • In particular, we have treated is as mere raw materials to satisfy our desires, and our economic-technical systems.
  • This has often - in all cultures - led to cruelty in our dealing with animals.
  • Even when we have not been brutal, we have usually treated the natural Creation as a mere backdrop to the human drama, of salvation (if Christians) or of progress (if materialists).
  • Thus we have not usually allowed that Creation has any meaning in its own right.
  • The above points have been exacerbated in some Christians who have assumed that the physical Creation is under a curse and will be done away with, so it does not much matter, in eternal terms.

Here is an exposition of passages of Scripture that show that the Creation is important to God, and should also be important to us. Ecological damage is an evil in God’s eyes. And the creation will be redeemed just as humanity will be. A similar message, though in a different style, can be found in a wider discussion of why Christians in particular should be ‘green’.

Gen 1:26-28, Gen 2:15: The purpose, role of humanity

The purpose, role of humanity: to cultivate, guard, steward, manage - for the sake of God and of the creation itself. See next.

(NB. Westminster confession: Chief end of Man: to glorify God and enjoy him forever: no: to steward the Creation.) (Link also with: we are God’s representatives, ambassadors, sons, trusted servants: to show him forth, be like him, have his attitudes. Also God is Love)

Gen 1:26-28, ‘Radah’

What is ‘radah’, the Hebrew word used in Gen 1:26,28 that is often translated as ‘have dominion over’? It is a word that is used only a dozen times in the Old Testament, and thus is rather special in its meaning.

We have taken it to mean ‘dominate over’ just as a mediaeval ruler or potentate would dominate over his subjects, using them for his own ends, his own pleasure, his own prestige, his own wars, etc. But an examination of ‘radah’ shows that this is NOT the type of ‘dominion’ that we are called upon to have over the creation. For example, ‘radah’ is used in Ezek 34:4, which shows the wrong type of ‘radah’. The use of ‘radah’ there shows that God condemns such an attitude:

“Woe to the shepherds of Israel, who only take care of themselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled [radah] them harshly and brutally.” (2-5).

Whilst we might argue precisely how this applies, I am here referring to it at a higher level, namely that it shows the heart of God, whose image we are made in. And that image is tied up with our ‘radah’ of the creation.

Our ‘radah’, of the creation, is not to be with harshness and cruelty and selfishness. Our ‘radah’ is to be, not for our own sake, but for the sake of the one ruled, that is, for the sake of the creation. We should heal those parts of creation that are sick, bind up those parts that are injured, bring back those parts that are straying, search for those parts that have become lost, as it were.

So we ‘radah’ creation to represent God to it, to develop and refine and beautify it for its own sake, rather than for ours. (cf. the notion of Love: giving for the other. God is Love.)

Note: This Creation Mandate has never been rescinded. It is still in force for us, even in this gospel period.

Psa 97:1, Psa 98:7-8, Psa 96:10-13. Creation delights in God.

Various psalms like those mentioned expect various parts of creation to delight in God and in his justice. The seas are to roar, trees to clap their hands, etc.

While these passages are picturesque, they do express a truth: that creation rejoices in God and God’s ways. Each thing ‘rejoices’ in the way appropriate to it; e.g. a tree would ‘rejoice’ in the way that a tree can, and so on. Each thing rejoices because God’s ways bring health, bounty, true prosperity, shalom.

All creation, including human and non-human together, find that God’s ways are good, and to be shouted about.

Romans 8:19. Creation and God’s ‘Sons’

Romans 8:19 says that all creation waits with eager longing, groans, until God reveals his sons.

The Greek word for ’sons’ is not that used for ‘children’ or ‘make offspring’, but is ‘hios’: those who are like the father in attitude, will, decision-making tendencies, etc. The father of those times would, when he reckoned his male child had come to this state of maturity, take his son to the public place and announce “This is my son”. Meaning “I trust him to choose, behave, decide like me, and will stand all his promises he makes.”

God has sons, those who come to the maturity in Christ in such a way that we have the attitude, will, decision-making tendencies that God himself has. God is Love; his sons will be love, rather than selfishness. This links with the type of ‘radah’ that we should display.

Now, this makes sense of Romans 8:19. As we saw above, God’s creation ‘rejoices’ in God’s ways, when it is treated as God would. So, in this period in which creation suffers the harm caused by selfish humanity who exercise wrong type of ‘radah’ over it, it is eagerly longing for those human beings who will truly be God’s sons (hios) and behave towards it like God would.

So, when God’s sons are revealed (or appear on the scene), the creation rejoices. Because they are like God, and will treat it like God does. Or like God would. (This links too with our role and purpose, and the idea of being God’s ambassadors and representatives.)

‘Tsedeq’

Now, what is this way in which God would treat the creation? The clearest understanding of it is the Hebrew word ‘tsedeq’, which is translated both justice and righteousness. Paul Marshall has defined ‘tsedeq’ as ‘Maintaining right relationships among all things in the created order.’ (For fuller discussion of this, see tsedeq.html.)

Note that it is relational rather than individualistic or state-centred in meaning. Note also that it goes beyond legal frameworks. Note that, though translated ‘righteousness’, ‘tsedeq’ is not goodness; though translated ‘justice’ it is not legal judgement or retribution. Both are tsedeq. The meanings we normally apply to ‘justice’ and ‘righteousness’ are distortions, arising from what happens when we start with the presupposition that the Creation is of no value. If it is with all creation, then all creation is important. Let’s see if that is so.

Jer 12:4. Ecological results of our sin.

This verse clearly shows that ecological harm comes from sin and evil in human society. It links ecology with righteousness. We tend to think that God is only interested in righteousness, and does not want us to be too concerned about ecology. But in fact they are closely intertwined.

The Lord’s care specifically for non-human creation

But does God really love and value his creation? All we have above so far is a deduction that he does; are there any scriptures that show clearly that he does love and value his creation?

  • Jonah 4:11 The Lord can concern specifically for animals
  • Psa 145:9 The Lord has compassion on all he made
  • Psa 36:6 Men and animals are in your care
  • Lev 25:7 God has care for wild as well as domestic animals
  • Lev 26:34 The land itself enjoys rest
  • Lev 26:43 .. even without people
  • Prov 12:10 We are to look after animals

Job 38. God has purposes beyond humanity.

But maybe God only values his creation because it provides food and resources for humanity? And, without humanity, it has no meaning? While it is certainly true that humanity is the pinnacle of God’s creation and that without humanity creation was only ‘good’ and not ‘very good’, God’s words in Job 38 and 39 show that God has purposes in his creation that do not centre on humanity. These two chapters are saying, in effect: “There are wild things, Job, that are important to me, even though they are not useful to humankind and even a threat to humankind.”

Rev 11:18. “Destroy those who destroy the earth.”

In Rev 11:18 we find an interesting plea by the angels to God in his role as final judge. They say “the time has come to destroy those who destroy the earth.”

And who is destroying the earth today? We are, those of us for whom manufacturers used to create refrigerators filled with CFCs, those of us for whom electric power is created that brings global warming, those of us who use our cars without thinking and when we could walk or cycle, and thus produce greenhouse gases, those of us who demand cheap food from all over the world and thus indirectly the destruction of rainforests and local communities, those of us who demand low taxes so that Government does not properly clean our waste, and the seas become polluted, those of us who … are, by our expectations, habits, demands, are forcing others to destroy the earth.

Heb 1:1-3, John 3:16, Eph 1:10, Col 1:20. Salvation goes beyond humanity.

We tend to think that the end state is concerned with Christ and humanity (e.g. Christ and his Bride, the mass of saved humanity). But Hebrews 1:1-3 says that Christ will inherit ‘all things’, not just humanity. Note also the integration of these ‘all things’ with humanity and forgiveness in these verses.

(So, if we mess up the creation, with pollution or by driving species to extinction, as we do, then we are damaging Christ’s inheritance. We claim to love him; do we? Or are we carelessly letting his inheritance be less than it would otherwise be?)

Notice also that that famous verse John 3:16, tells us that God so loved the world; that is, the creation, not just humanity. It specifically does not say “God so loved humankind that he gave his Son…”.

In Col 1:20 and Eph 1:10 we find similar sentiments: The whole universe is to be reconciled with God, summed up in Christ, not just humanity.

Rom 8: Creation will one day be set free from its bondage to decay.

But is not the creation to be burned up at Christ’s second coming? Not if Romans 8 is true. Rather, it will be set free from the tendency to decay. It will share the glorious freedom of the sons of God.

Notice Matt 24:37-41. When Christ comes again, “One will be taken and the other left.” Who will be left? We assume that the righeous ones will be taken from this earth, to escape it, and the wicked ones will be left, and destroyed. But look a few verses back; Jesus very explicitly compared the future division of humanity with that in the days of Noah. There it was the wicked who were taken away; the righteous were the ones who were left.

The problem is that for centuries we have assumed that the creation is unimportant to God, and will be destroyed; that idea has more to do with pagan Greek thinking than with what is revealed in Scripture. In fact, the earth will survive (though renewed and resurrected just as we will be).

This post is a continuation of:

The Meaning of Life, All of Creation and Worship

Sphere: Related Content

posted in God, Religion, christian, ecology, environment, faith, morality, native american, politics, purpose, social comment, spiritual warfare, stewardship, theology, worship | 0 Comments

17th October 2007

I Then Shall Live


Here is one of the most powerful songs I’ve heard in a while. Hope it gives you a blessing. It made me shed tears.

Lyrics:

I then shall live
as one whose been forgiven
I’ll walk with with joy
to know my debts are paid
I know my name is clear before my Father
I am His child and I am nolt afraid
so greatly pardoned, I’ll forgive my brother
the law of love, I gladly will obey
I then shall live
as one whose learned compassion
I ‘ve been so loved, that I’ll risk loving too
I know how fear builds walls instead of bridges
I’ll dare to see another’s point of view
and when relationships demand commitment
then, I’ll be there to care and follow through
Your Kingdom come around and through and in me
Your power and glory let them shine through me
Your hallowed Name, O, may I bear with honor
and may your living Kingdom come, in me
the Bread of Life, O, may I share with others
and may You feed the hungry world through me
Amen!!!!

Sphere: Related Content

posted in Christ, God, Hope, Love, Religion, christian, co-existence, discipleship, diversity, peace, peacemaking, prayer, purpose, spiritual warfare, spirituality, theology, video | 0 Comments

11th October 2007

Proverbs 16- Words To Live By

Proverbs 16

1THE PLANS of the mind and orderly thinking belong to man, but from the Lord comes the [wise] answer of the tongue.

2All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the spirits (the thoughts and intents of the heart).(A)

3Roll your works upon the Lord [commit and trust them wholly to Him; He will cause your thoughts to become agreeable to His will, and] so shall your plans be established and succeed.

4The Lord has made everything [to accommodate itself and contribute] to its own end and His own purpose–even the wicked [are fitted for their role] for the day of calamity and evil.

5Everyone proud and arrogant in heart is disgusting, hateful, and exceedingly offensive to the Lord; be assured [I pledge it] they will not go unpunished.(B)

6By mercy and love, truth and fidelity [to God and man--not by sacrificial offerings], iniquity is purged out of the heart, and by the reverent, worshipful fear of the Lord men depart from and avoid evil.

7When a man’s ways please the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.

8Better is a little with righteousness (uprightness in every area and relation and right standing with God) than great revenues with injustice.(C)

9A man’s mind plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps and makes them sure.(D)

10Divinely directed decisions are on the lips of the king; his mouth should not transgress in judgment.

11A just balance and scales are the Lord’s; all the weights of the bag are His work [established on His eternal principles].

12It is an abomination [to God and men] for kings to commit wickedness, for a throne is established and made secure by righteousness (moral and spiritual rectitude in every area and relation).

13Right and just lips are the delight of a king, and he loves him who speaks what is right.

14The wrath of a king is as messengers of death, but a wise man will pacify it.

15In the light of the king’s countenance is life, and his favor is as a cloud bringing the spring rain.

16How much better it is to get skillful and godly Wisdom than gold! And to get understanding is to be chosen rather than silver.(E)

17The highway of the upright turns aside from evil; he who guards his way preserves his life.

18Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

19Better it is to be of a humble spirit with the meek and poor than to divide the spoil with the proud.

20He who deals wisely and heeds [God's] word and counsel shall find good, and whoever leans on, trusts in, and is confident in the Lord–happy, blessed, and fortunate is he.

21The wise in heart are called prudent, understanding, and knowing, and winsome speech increases learning [in both speaker and listener].

22Understanding is a wellspring of life to those who have it, but to give instruction to fools is folly.

23The mind of the wise instructs his mouth, and adds learning and persuasiveness to his lips.

24Pleasant words are as a honeycomb, sweet to the mind and healing to the body.

25There is a way that seems right to a man and appears straight before him, but at the end of it is the way of death.

26The appetite of the laborer works for him, for [the need of] his mouth urges him on.

27A worthless man devises and digs up mischief, and in his lips there is as a scorching fire.

28A perverse man sows strife, and a whisperer separates close friends.(F)

29The exceedingly grasping, covetous, and violent man entices his neighbor, leading him in a way that is not good.

30He who shuts his eyes to devise perverse things and who compresses his lips [as if in concealment] brings evil to pass.

31The hoary head is a crown of beauty and glory if it is found in the way of righteousness (moral and spiritual rectitude in every area and relation).(G)

32He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, he who rules his [own] spirit than he who takes a city.

33The lot is cast into the lap, but the decision is wholly of the Lord [even the events that seem accidental are really ordered by Him].

Cross references:

  1. Proverbs 16:2 : I Sam 16:7; Heb 4:12
  2. Proverbs 16:5 : Prov 8:13; 11:20-21
  3. Proverbs 16:8 : Ps 37:16; Prov 15:16
  4. Proverbs 16:9 : Ps 37:23; Prov 20:24; Jer 10:23
  5. Proverbs 16:16 : Prov 8:10, 19
  6. Proverbs 16:28 : Prov 17:9
  7. Proverbs 16:31 : Prov 20:29
Sphere: Related Content

posted in Church, God, Nuance, Self, Sin, christian, design, discipleship, faith, forgiveness, morality, peacemaking, philosophy, politics, prayer, purpose, spiritual warfare, theology | 0 Comments

6th October 2007

What we should learn in school (by G.Kawasaki)


What we should learn in school (by G.Kawasaki)

Compare your answers to what you learned after a few years in the workforce. It seems to me that schools often teach the opposite of what’s necessary for the real world. Perhaps in school people have plenty of time and no money, so long papers, emails, and presentations are not a problem. However, people in the real world have plenty of money (or at least more money) and no time. This is a list of what I wished I learned in school before I graduated.

1. How to talk to your boss. In college, you’re supposed to bring problems to your teachers during office hours, and you share the experience of coming up with a solution. In the real world, you’re supposed to bring solutions to your boss in an email, in the hall, or in a five-minute conversation. Typically, your boss either already knows about the problem or doesn’t want to know about it. Your role is to provide answers, not questions. Believe it or not, but in the real world, those who can do, do. Those who can’t do, share with others who can’t do.

2. How to survive a meeting that’s poorly run. Unfortunately, it could be a while before you run meetings. Until then, you’ll be a hapless victim of them, so adopt these three practices to survive. First, assume that most of what you’ll hear is pure, petty, ass-covering bull shiitake, and it’s part of the game. This will prevent you from going crazy. Second, focus on what you want to accomplish in the meeting and ignore everything else. Once you get what you want, take yourself “out of your body,” sit back, and enjoy the show. Third, vow to yourself that someday you’ll start a company, and your meetings won’t work like this.

3. How to run a meeting. Hopefully, you’ll be running meetings soon. Then you need to understand that the primary purpose of a business meeting is to make a decision. It is not to share experiences or feel warm and fuzzy. With that in mind, here are five key points to learn about running a meeting: (1) Start on time even if everyone isn’t there because they will be next time; (2) Invite the fewest people possible to the meeting; (3) Set an agenda for exactly what’s going to happen at the meeting; (4) End on time so that everyone focuses on the pertinent issues; (5) Send an email to all participants that confirms decisions reviews action items. There are more power tips for running good meetings, but if you do these five, you’re ahead of 90% of the world.

4. How to figure out anything on your own. Armed with Google, PDFs of manuals, and self-reliance, force yourself to learn how to figure out just about anything on your own. There are no office hours, no teaching assistants, and study groups in the real world. Actually, the real world is one long, often lonely independent study, so get with it. Here’s a question to test your research prowess. How do you update the calendar in a Motorola Q phone with appointments stored in Now-Up-To-Date?

5. How to negotiate. Don’t believe what you see in reality television shows about negotiation and teamwork. They’re all bull shiitake. The only method that works in the real world involves five steps: (1) Prepare for the negotiation by knowing your facts; (2) Figure out what you really want; (3) Figure out what you don’t care about; (4) Figure out what the other party really wants (per Kai); and (5) Create a win-win outcome to ensure that everyone is happy. You’ll be a negotiating maven if you do this.

6. How to have a conversation. Generally, “Whassup?” doesn’t work in the real world. Generally, “What do you do?” unleashes a response that leads to a good conversation (hence the recommendation below). Generally, if you listen more than you talk, you will (ironically) be considered not only a good conversationalist but also smart. Yes, life is mysterious sometimes.

7. How to explain something in thirty seconds. Unfortunately, many schools don’t have elevators or else students would know how to explain things in a thirty-second elevator pitch. Think mantra (three words), not mission statements (sixty words). Think time, not money, is the most important commodity. Think ahead, not on your feet. At the end of your thirty-second spiel, there should be an obvious answer to the question, “ So what?” If you can’t explain enough in thirty seconds to incite interest, you’re going to have a long, boring career.

8. How to write a one-page report. I remember struggling to meet the minimum page requirements of reports in college. Double spacing and 14 point Selectric typewriter balls saved me. Then I went out into the real world, and encountered bosses who wanted a one-page report. What the heck??? The best reports in the real world are one page or less. (The same thing is true of resumes, but that’s another, more controversial topic for unemployed people who want to list all the .Net classes that they took.)

9. How to write a five-sentence email. Young people have an advantage over older people in this area because older people (like me) were taught to write letters that were printed on paper, signed, stuck in an envelope, and mailed. Writing a short email was a new experience for them. Young people, by contrast are used to IMing and chatting. If anything, they’re too skilled on brevity, but it’s easier to teach someone how to write a long message than a short one. Whether UR young or old, the point is that the optimal length of an email message is five sentences. All you should do is explain who you are, what you want, why you should get it, and when you need it by.

10. How to get along with co-workers. Success in school is mostly determined by individual accomplishments: grades, test scores, projects, whatever. Few activities are group efforts. Then you go out in the real world the higher you rise in an organization, the less important your individual accomplishments are. What becomes more and more important is the ability to work with/through/besides and sometimes around others. The most important lesson to learn: Share the credit with others because a rising tide floats all boats.
What about freeloaders? (Those scum of the earth that don’t do anything for the group.) In school you can let them know how you truly feel. You can’t in the real world because bozos have a way of rising to the top of many organizations, and bozos seek revenge. The best solution is to bite your tongue, tolerate them, and try to never have them on the team again, but there’s little upside in criticizing them.

11. How to use PowerPoint. I’ve seen the PowerPoint slides of professors—it’s no wonder that most people can’t use PowerPoint to sell hybrid cars when gas is $10/gallon. Maybe professors are thinking: “This is a one-hour class, I can cover one slide per minute, so I need sixty slides. Oh, and I’ve written all this text already in my textbook, so I’ll just copy and paste my twelve-point manuscript into the presentation.” Perhaps the tenure system causes this kind of problem. In the real world, this is no tenure so you need to limit yourself to ten slides, twenty minutes, and a thirty-point font—assuming that you want to get what you want.

12. How to leave a voicemail. Very few people of any age leave good voicemails. The purpose of a voicemail is to make progress towards along a continuum whose end is getting what you want. A long voicemail isn’t going to zip you along to the end point of this decision. A good model is to think of a voicemail as an oral version of a compelling five-sentence email; the optimal length of a voicemail is fifteen seconds. Two power tips: First, slowly say your telephone number once at the beginning of your message and again at the end. You don’t want to make people playback your message to get your phone number, and if either of you are using Cingular, you may not hear all the digits. Second (and this applies to email too), always make progress. Never leave a voicemail or send an email that says, “Call me back, and I’ll tell you what time we can meet.” Just say, “Tuesday, 10:00 am, at your office.”

One last thing: the purpose of going to school is not to prepare for working but to prepare for living. Working is a part of living, and it requires these kinds of skills no matter what career you pursue. However, there is much more to life than work, so study what you love.

Sphere: Related Content

posted in Self-Image, The Art of War, order, philosophy, politics, purpose, social comment | 0 Comments

6th October 2007

The Creator’s Design Vs. Teddy Roosevelt’s "Words of Wisdom"

In response to these “words of wisdom” by Teddy Roosevelt;

(”But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile…We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language…and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”)

S.S. says:

In one very small area of what is now called “Northern California” there once existed at least 110 different “language families”. These “families” were as different and distinct as Italian is from Vietnamese in nearly every case. Yet these diverse groups found a way to co-exist in relative peace and harmony for thousands, if not tens of thousands of years. This is just one example from Native America that disproves the thesis that a collective continental grouping of people must homogenize language and culture to survive or function smoothly. In fact, this xenophobic drive for homogenization only leads to “genocide of the mind” (if not actual genocides of human groups) and a culture that devours everything in its path. The natural state of God’s good, nurturing creation is in fact one of diversity…infinite diversity in infinite combinations…not of homogenization, mechanization and industrialization.

Sphere: Related Content

posted in God, Religion, christian, co-existence, diversity, ecology, environment, ideology, native american, peace, philosophy, politics, purpose, stewardship, theology | 0 Comments

21st September 2007

One Tree Hill - U2

We turn away to face the cold, enduring chill
As the day begs the night for mercy love
The sun so bright it leaves no shadows
Only scars
Carved into stone
On the face of earth
The moon is up and over One Tree Hill
We see the sun go down in your eyes

You run like a river, on to the sea
You run like a river runs to the sea

And in the world a heart of darkness
A fire zone
Where poets speak their heart
Then bleed for it
Jara sang - his song a weapon
In the hands of one
whose blood still cries
From the ground

He runs like a river runs to the sea
He runs like a river to the sea

I don’t believe in painted roses
Or bleeding hearts
While bullets rape the night of the merciful
I’ll see you again
When the stars fall from the sky
And the moon has turned red
Over One Tree Hill

We run like a river
Runs to the sea
We run like a river to the sea
And when it’s raining
Raining hard
That’s when the rain will
Break the heart

Raining…raining in your heart
Raining into your heart
Raining…raining into your heart
Raining, raining…raining
Raining into your heart
Raining…
Raining your heart into the sea

Oh great ocean
Oh great sea
Run to the ocean
Run to the sea

Sphere: Related Content

posted in Love, Nuance, Pain, Sin, christian, media, music, peace, purpose, reconciliation, social comment, spiritual warfare, spirituality, video | 0 Comments

19th September 2007

He Reigns- Newsboys

I have been suffering and struggling for the last few days with some of my own private tortures. I had dinner tonight with my father and had a wonderful and relevant conversation. I was just driving home from dinner and my mind began to unravel a bit with the things I have been wrestling with. I felt on the edge. I was cruising through the radio stations looking for something to distract me or else give me a bit of hope or encouragement … something to dull the pain… I caught the very beginning of this song… a song I had never heard before. After a few bars I began to cry… I cried in mixed joy and sweet pain. I nearly had to pull over. It was a powerful, cleansing cry. I needed that. What an awesome tune. It was just what I needed. It brought me peace. I am grateful.

He Reigns lyrics:

It’s the song of the redeemed
Rising from the African plain
It’s the song of the forgiven
Drowning out the Amazon rain
The song of Asian believers
Filled with God’s holy fire
It’s every tribe, every tongue, every nation
A love song born of a grateful choir

It’s all God’s children singing
Glory, glory, hallelujah
He reigns, He reigns
It’s all God’s children singing
Glory, glory, hallelujah
He reigns, He reigns

Let it rise above the four winds
Caught up in the heavenly sound
Let praises echo from the towers of cathedrals
To the faithful gathered underground
Of all the songs sung from the dawn of creation
Some were meant to persist
Of all the bells rung from a thousand steeples
None rings truer than this

It’s all God’s children singing
Glory, glory, hallelujah
He reigns, He reigns
It’s all God’s children singing
Glory, glory, hallelujah
He reigns, He reigns
It’s all God’s children singing
Glory, glory, hallelujah
He reigns, He reigns
It’s all God’s children singing
Glory, glory, hallelujah
He reigns, He reigns

And all the powers of darkness
Tremble at what they’ve just heard
‘Cause all the powers of darkness
Can’t drown out a single word

When all God’s children sing out
Glory, glory, hallelujah
He reigns, He reigns
All God’s people singing
Glory, glory, hallelujah
He reigns, He reigns

Sphere: Related Content

posted in Self-Image, Suffering, christian, discipleship, faith, forgiveness, peace, prayer, purpose, reconciliation, spiritual warfare, spirituality, theology | 0 Comments

17th September 2007

Thank You for This Earth


Thank You for This Earth

O God,

We thank you for this earth, our home; for the wide sky and the blessed sun, for the ocean and streams, for the towering hills and the whispering wind, for the trees and green grass.

We thank you for our senses by which we hear the songs of birds, and see the splendor of fields of golden wheat, and taste autumn’s fruit, rejoice in the feel of snow, and smell the breath of spring flowers.

Grant us a heart opened wide to all this beauty; and save us from being so blind that we pass unseeing when even the common thornbush is aflame with your glory.

For each new dawn is filled with infinite possibilities for new beginnings and new discoveries. Life is constantly changing and renewing itself. In this new day of new beginnings with God, all things are possible. We are restored and renewed in a joyous awakening to the wonder that our lives are and, yet, can be.

Amen.

Sphere: Related Content

posted in Religion, christian, design, discipleship, diversity, ecology, environment, metaphysics, native american, peace, peacemaking, philosophy, politics, prayer, purpose, theology | 0 Comments

14th September 2007

Mark Driscoll on American Idolatry

Sphere: Related Content

posted in Christ, Nuance, Religion, Self-Image, christian, discipleship, faith, morality, prayer, purpose, social comment, spirituality, theology | 1 Comment

13th September 2007

The New Great Commission, from the American-Christian Perspective

Have a look at an interesting editorial from the Baylor University’s, J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies.

The author is Dr. Charles McDaniel of the University Department of Church-State Studies.

But, before you venture off to some exciting blog with scantly clad co-eds, let me temp you with my unique brand of theology.

That’s right, in lieu of slightly dressed blonds, brunettes, and red-heads, I give you God and philosophy.

I have been thinking about this publication (Journal of Church and State) since reading on this very blog, Mr. Starr’s post from late last night, about the James Dobson radio program.

Dr. McDaniel looks at the Iraq experiment from a totally secular and carnal angle.

Albeit it does appear that he comes down as saying that “the Iraq war is wrong”, the Doctor never asks the question if Jesus Christ, or if the Holy Father, or if the Holy Spirit want a “democratized” world. Therefore, I would have to presume that he believes that the answer to these questions are either irrelevant or that it is self-evident.

What passage does one turn to for the Creator’s opinion of the various carnal forms of secular government.

I appears to me that Dr. McDaniel seems to be encouraging Americans to come up with an objective standard for who we should “help” with democracy, rather than addressing the issue of humanity’s need for eternal redemption.

It is a curious way of dealing with discipleship. This editorial title, Winning Hearts and Minds, is interesting, considering the fact that he’s not talking about winning souls for Jesus.

What Dr. McDaniel is talking about, is instead, that “we” should be converting folks to an American economic, social, political, & cultural system.

I might ask; ‘who are we’?, Should we see ourselves as citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven or as Americans? And what happens when our American citizenship opposes our Kingdom of God citizenship? Do we hold our American title close to our hearts and push the Spiritual away? Do we ever read Luke 16:13 or Matthew 6:24;



“No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other, or
be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and
money.”
Holy Bible : New Living Translation. 1997 . Tyndale
House: Wheaton, Ill.

The contention of Dr. McDaniel is an obvious attack on Christ’s charge to the disciples in Matthew 28 and Mark 16, albeit passive, it is an attack nonetheless, on the Great Commission.

  • 15 And then he told them, “Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone, everywhere…”
    Holy Bible : New Living Translation. 1997 . Tyndale House: Wheaton, Ill.

Anyway, here are the scantly clad words of an American-Christian.

Winning Hearts and Minds
by Dr. Charles McDaniel

A troubling aspect to the present reconstruction of the world order is the fine line in decision-making either to “win over” or “wall off” the hearts and minds of a people. Terrorism is said to have forced our hands in these decisions; yet the criteria by which one national or ethnic group is granted entry to the global society even as others are rejected remain largely undefined. The strategic interests of the industrialized world undoubtedly are a factor, but caprice appears to influence these choices as well. Some, like the Iraqis, are selected for democratization, a process that includes the modernization of that country’s institutions and major capital investments in its infrastructure. Other peoples, such as the Palestinians, are written off as a lost cause. Their fates are the internment camps like the ones being constructed by the Israeli government in its system of settlements, inaccessible highways, and concrete walls. Chechnyans, Tamils, Punjabis and many other ethnic and religious groups are potential candidates for this system that Professor Marc Ellis of Baylor’s Center for American and Jewish Studies has described as “ghettoization.”

How is it that Iraq was selected to become the beacon of democracy in the Middle East? Did it arrive at some undefined threshold of suffering that triggered Western (and specifically American) intervention? Does it pose a greater threat to the global order than North Korea or Iran? If Operation Iraqi Freedom was initiated for humanitarian reasons, how can we now resist intervening in the ethnic cleansing presently underway in Sudan? If it was a utilitarian decision, how much longer can we avoid action to curb the obvious threat posed by Kim Jong Il? Did American policy-makers weigh the probability of success against the investment required for Iraq’s liberation and determine that Iraq is the best use of the developed world’s limited democratization resources? These questions do not result from cynicism or second-guessing; they are intended to point out the need to arrive at consistent methods by which we target nations for “value reconstruction” and the necessity for constant reassessment of these efforts.
Many of the claims used to justify the Iraq War are true. Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator who posed a real threat not only to Iraq’s neighboring states but also to populations within its borders. He exhibited the willingness to use the most heinous weapons against Iranian soldiers and even his own people and assuredly would have done the same to Israelis, Kuwaitis, Jordanians and others had he been given the opportunity. Yet the Saddams of the world have persisted throughout history. He will assume a position in the pantheon of political infamy alongside Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, and others who, sadly but assuredly, will follow. The brutality and irrationality of particular regimes must be elements of the decision to forcibly democratize an oppressed people, but they should not be exclusive criteria.

The calculus by which we target nations for future liberation is, in certain ways, a repugnant analysis that will often defy humanitarian instincts. Utilitarianism, for example, in the project to achieve global democracy, is a necessary, albeit distasteful, tool. It involves recognition that some nations are of greater value to the global democratization effort than others. But the utilitarian approach itself will have negative consequences at least in winning the “hearts” of a people. Those left behind because their value to global strategic interests is insufficient or because the probability of success is too low will likely become the seedbed for future terrorism. This realization heightens the necessity of choosing wisely in these efforts. Moreover, it amplifies the need to better distribute the world’s limited democratization resources. We need to design tertiary methods for democratic expansion to those countries where direct intervention is deemed inadvisable for whatever reasons. Failure to do so, just as the dichotomy of present decision-making (to intervene or abstain) will result in a dualistic world of good and evil and the perpetual construction of ethnic and religious ghettos.

The decision to “wall off” a people is a conscious choice to establish a perpetual enemy, irrespective of the wrongs or threats that contributed to that choice. It is a conscious judgment, not a twist of fate. It is a decision of political finality that asserts the futility of politics. Moreover, the choice to ignore one nation’s need for political reconstruction renders somewhat arbitrary the decision to win over the hearts and minds of another people who, by measures beyond the national interests of developed countries, are no more deserving than those denied entry into the community of nations. Yet such painful decisions are inevitable due to the persistence of disenfranchised peoples and totalitarian regimes.

How do we go about winning the hearts and minds of a people? The first challenge in answering that question is defining exactly what we are winning them to. Liberal or illiberal democracy, a Western or Islamic economic system, a constitutional or Shariah-based legal order-any combination of these are possibilities. Lack of clarity in specifying the end-in-view may be catastrophic in its consequences. Yet Iraq and other societies targeted for reengineering must have a hand in their self-definition to achieve legitimacy and have any possibility of success. A fine balancing act is necessary in determining the degree of external definition and involvement required for the reconstruction of a nation’s social institutions. The more detailed the level of involvement, the finer the balance necessary for success in winning hearts and minds. These are complex issues indeed and require the very “nuance” in decision-making that the administration has recently dismissed.

If the goal of the Iraq War is to win the hearts and minds not only of Iraqis but of all people oppressed in dictatorial or fundamentalist regimes throughout the world, then we must seek multiple vantages from which to observe our efforts with some detachment. We must attempt to assess this infinitely complex project not only from the perspective of those being democratized but also from the viewpoints of those left behind and even those who are hostile toward it. The “opportunity cost” of the Iraq War is that of not distributing democratization resources to other countries in similar straits. Moreover, we must ask whether institutional reconstruction of selected countries is either wise or, more crassly, cost effective. In both spreading democracy and eradicating terrorism, is it prudent to place so many of our eggs in the basket of Iraq? More importantly, is it possible that our sheer determination will be our undoing-that American involvement in the reconstruction of Iraq’s civil and political institutions will ultimately backfire for its cultural ignorance and excessive confidence in the power of collective reason? Many of those now supporting American participation in the institutional reconstruction of Iraq are of the same political ilk as their conservative predecessors who correctly professed the impossibility of the centrally planned state. Cultural reengineering projects on such a grand scale are rarely successful in history.

The immediate decision has been made. We are in Iraq and will remain there until something has been accomplished. But the ongoing and noble enterprise of spreading freedom in the world must deal with massive cultural complexities; thus, it will require constant reassessment and revision to changing circumstances. Political concerns may work to stymie that objective analysis. Election campaigns will place a premium on the need to paint rosy our efforts in Iraq and elsewhere, regardless of realities. Domestic politics, therefore, emerges as perhaps as great a threat as fundamentalist factions or mass anti-Western sentiments to the success of these foreign policy initiatives. It would be ironic indeed if candor regarding our successes and failures becomes the ultimate casualty in the campaign to spread freedom and democracy. And it will be tragic if the desire to “save face” in Iraq perpetuates policy dogmatics that prevent necessary adaptation along the learning curve of democratization.
Sphere: Related Content

posted in Iraq, democracy, ideology, politics, purpose | 1 Comment

  • What's Happened since...?

  • July 2008
    M T W T F S S
    « Dec    
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • Fine Music