Differences (7/27/07)

Yesterday in a discussion group with students, I had a difference of opinion with a colleague that has caused me to think.  My colleague expressed his belief that politics and religion needed to be avoided in the context of the patient-doctor relationship.  On the contrary, I feel that faith plays an important part in that relationship and in health in general.

 

As I reflect on how my colleague expressed his point, I think I can understand why he feels the way he does.  Certainly, many people have used positions of authority to influence and even force upon others a particular religious viewpoint.  This stems from pride, often expressed as snobbishness and bigotry, and can lead to the worst forms of discrimination, such as genocide.

 

Even as I claim to be a Christian physician, that can conjure up all sorts of ideas based upon one’s past experiences and preconceptions.  But just as there is a tremendous spectrum in Judaism and Islam regarding the expression and integration of faith into life, so there is in Christianity.

 

As one who follows the Judeo-Christian tradition, I seek to follow the example and teaching of Jesus.  This, I believe, little resembles the religious or political expression of so-called Christianity that we see so often today in society.  

 

I believe that man is made in the image of God.  Each individual has worth because they are an image bearer.  Most, if not all of man’s attempts to relate to God through religious practices likely have some element of truth within, because all men bear the image of God.  The problem is deciding which part of it is true, and which part of it has origin in man’s faulty thinking, or even in his pridefulness.

 

I happen to believe that the approach to God that centers in Jesus is the correct one, but man has taken that approach down many divergent paths over the centuries.  I am not so naïve as to believe that what I may think is true is totally correct.  I just don’t know what part is incorrect, or I would change my thinking (I think)!

 

Thankfully, God is the judge, and he looks at the hearts and intents of man.  Part of my role as a true Christian, is to respect all men, because they bear the image of God.  I need to also respect other religious expressions, since they too most likely have some basis in and expression of the image of God. Certainly, Judaism deserves the utmost respect, since it is the foundation of Christianity.  Islam as well, shares some common roots with Judaism and therefore Christianity.  Differences there are, but they do not form a just basis for disrespect!

 

It was interesting to hear one of the characters in the most recent Harry Potter movie quote Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.  It was pointed out to Harry that the dividing line of good and evil is not so clear that we can say one is evil and another good, but that the dividing line of good and evil runs through the heart of each of us!  

 

How true that is!  I find that when I concentrate on the battle between good and evil that rages within my own being, I have very little time to pass judgment on others!

 

So, I still believe that faith has an important part in the doctor-patient relationship, and that my role as a physician may at times best be played out, not by instructing a patient in a particular religious expression, but, by inviting the patient to join me in a pilgrimage for truth, a quest to be the individuals that the Creator intended us to be.  I think, if God is who I believe He is, He will meet those who truly seek Him and guide them along the path.

The Word (6/9/07)

As I read the book The Post-Evangelical, by Tomlinson, I am being challenged to rethink many things that I have taken for “gospel” truth from my fundamentalist / Evangelical background.  I think I am a “post-evangelical” in the sense that I am questioning things that are at the core of Evangelical thought and teaching.  The very process of questioning things in Evangelical circles often forces one out of the camp, and into “post-evangelical” exile.  That is where I am wandering at the moment.  The book’s definition of “post-evangelical” fits me well.

 

However, I need to think through the myriads of issues this entails.  Today I read about the Word, and the dogma of inerrancy.  This is a major point of Evangelical doctrine that I must carefully consider.  

 

I again and again see and hear Karl Barth quoted.  I need to read some of his writings.  Unfortunately on the Internet I find much more written about him, than by him.  The descriptions of him are helpful, but I need to get to the source itself.  I will need to check some books out of the library.

 

He evidently has a paradigm, if I can reduce it to that, of The Word, as summarized by Tomlinson.  He sees a three-fold manifestation of The Word.  Jesus is the living Word, the Bible is the written Word, and we, the church, are the proclaimed Word.  That got me thinking.  My “modern” mindset liked this “system” of thought.

 

Jesus, as the Living Word, and perfect representation of God, did not fully reveal all there is about God to us.  To see Jesus, for example, one could not “see” the eternal nature of God. Jesus said that before Abraham was, he existed, but that could not be “seen” in his body or actions.

 

Neither did it mean that because Jesus ate fish, or sweated or defecated, that God does these things in his spiritual being.  To be literal, and say that everything Jesus did, God does, is ridiculous, and not in need of clarification, usually.

 

Well then, if we look at the written Word of God, the Bible, which is a collection of words, which are symbols of things, some concrete, some not, we need to keep the same thing in mind.  Jesus was the exact representation of God in things like his love, not in wearing sandals and a robe. How is the Bible the Word of God?  Is it in the literal detail of every word?  Certainly the words are important, especially in their context; but what is the meaning behind them?

 

Just as Jesus didn’t exactly reveal everything about God in a literal sense, being restrained in his deity by his human nature, can the Bible fully reveal God in its human language with all its limitations?  Can we, should we, be so dogmatic in our defense of every word of the Bible?  It was written by flawed humans, indeed inspired by God, but limited in their ability to fully reveal all that there is about God.  Even if they could come up with the right words, our minds fail to grasp all that they symbolize (Look at the book of Revelation!). To dogmatically stand on those written words in their literal meaning seems shaky ground.

 

Then, the third manifestation of the Word, the church, is most limited and flawed of all!  How can we as human beings reveal God to the world around us in any meaningful way?  Yet, that is what God has called us to do!  We are the body of Christ! (Again, a symbol.  We don’t literally have his blood flowing through us, or his nerves connected to us.)  We are to do the work of Christ, moved by Christ, our head, doing the things Jesus himself would do if he were here in our place.  If people imagined God was represented by our flaws and sinfulness, in a very literal way, then God would indeed not be much of a god at all.  

 

But there is something in true followers of Jesus that shines through their human frailty, and people who see and benefit from their sacrificial love have no problem “seeing” Jesus in them.  They usually have no problem confusing their humanness with the divine nature that flows through them.

 

So, as I contemplate the inerrancy of scripture, it seems to me more an argument of what God’s intent is.  Certainly He meant to say what was written, but have we (Evangelicals) missed the point by being too literal, too dogmatic about words, and missed the forest for the tree?

 

I don’t know!  But I plan to think about this for a while longer; and I want to read some of what Karl Barth has written.

 

 

Capitalism, Competition and Consumerism (12/6/2009)

(Written 12/6/2009, but still applicable?  What do you think?)

 

In the Little House on the Prairie series, Pa would say in the wake of his frequent downturns, “There is no loss without some gain!”  Maybe the reverse is also true?

 

What has the Enlightenment and its many social ramifications done to us?  We could all list many of the benefits: various forms of high speed transportation, mass production of products that only the elite once dreamed of, such as books, now commonly available in the homes of the lower and middle classes, telecommunication, illumination, microwaves, medical technology, and on and on.

 

In the “early days”, or so it seemed from the version of history that I learned as a child, many of these wonderful developments arose out of necessity, to alleviate the struggles of man and improve his lot while he pursued a better life, personal  liberty and happiness.  But have we crossed a line where the benefits to man are diminished, and maybe actually a detriment? (I am not even thinking about our weapons of war!  That is another topic altogether!)

 

In my limited world of understanding, which involves medicine, I see this in play every day.  As I now think about it, I recall that it was rather obvious while I worked in a research and development lab before I started medical school.  At that time however, my perspective was much different.  And maybe my perspective at the moment is actually more naïve, or simply cynical.

 

While working in the lab, we were not exploring some great new idea that would benefit mankind.  Rather, we were exploring an established technology, looking for ways we could tweak it enough to look original enough to allow us to apply for a patent and grab some of the market share from our competitor.  Now, understandably, I am sure there have been some great discoveries and advancements resulting from this approach.  But I wonder what the actual cost is?  How much of our creative ability and resources are expended in the name of competition that could be better served in other original and more productive endeavors?

 

I very acutely see this same competitive philosophy in practice in the field of medicine.  For example, the market is packed with Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs), powerful acid reducing drugs, all of which are relatively the same and interchangeable.  As its patent ran out on its PPI, a well-known pharmaceutical company came out with a new one! They made a minor alteration to the parent molecule, which they say has caused the drug to have a longer half life, which means it will stay in the system a bit longer, and therefore should have a therapeutic advantage.  Their sales agents have visited our clinic, buying our entire staff lunch, leaving samples of their product, so we can start patients on their new medicine.  They left literature and patient education material on which their product’s name is highly visible.  They hope that both physicians and patients will think of their product first, rather than the name of their competitors, and believe theirs provides a benefit over the growing number of generics now available.

 

I suspect the difference in products is more marketing than real!  Each company looks for some minor difference in their product which they “spin” to the medical community and the public as a great advantage.  Then, of course, the desired result is that their product will be prescribed, at a higher cost than the alternative generics that probably work just as well.  What are the real benefits?  What are the losses?  What else could we do with those dollars and research resources?  Are there not any original ideas that could be better explored?

 

Has marketing and consumerism taken us “over the line”?  Do we really need all the new stuff that is on the market?  Do the manufacturers and multitude of support businesses, such as the advertising, marketing and sales really have an interest in serving their customers?  Or is their interest really “the bottom line”?  Would our world be better served in some other way than “copy cat” technology that makes industry profitable?

 

Is there a way to find some (common, global) gain in this loss?

 

Thoughts from Athens,

 

Dave Drozek

What is God Like? (10/17/24)

 

I have struggled with the idea of panentheism, that God is in all things (not to be confused with pantheism, that all is god).  Richard Rohr, and others I have recently read speak about how God permeates his creation, that it is alive with God’s energy and ongoing creative power.  I suspect that I have felt resistant to this for possibly the same reason I have pushed back at those who like to refer to God as gender plural, or maybe I should say, fluid. God does sometimes resemble, and refer to him / her / their(?) self as a father, sometimes a mother.  After all, if the future of the church, made up of people, is neither male nor female, why should we limit God?

 

I think my problem is that I have been making God in my own image.  I think of him as a super “man”.  I only know of humans as the highest form of being, so he must be like a human, only better. 

 

This is not my problem alone but seems to be a universal problem of man.  We see it in the nascent nation of Israel, after experiencing a miraculous Exodus, considering their God as the strongest creature they knew, a bull, (in its young form, maybe since it was a new god?).

 

The writers of the Bible frequently describe God in anthropomorphic ways, attributing him with eyes, ears, arms, hands, etc.  And of course, God himself became man, because we just couldn’t relate to God as spirit, without a body. 

 

Have we moved beyond that?  Can we now relate to God without thinking of him as superhuman?  In general, I think not. We need the image of Jesus.  But I think that, at times, we may be able to transcend that and catch glimpses of a God who is beyond comprehension in human form.

 

Nature, or more expansively, all creation reveals God.  (I think the concept of panentheism is helpful here.) Reading Mary Oliver’s nature poems, watching my garden grow, observing the wildlife, hearing the rain and the wind, playing with my grandson, all reveal something about God, something that transcends the restrictive image of the superhuman manlike god up in the clouds.  I think it was Jürgen Moltmann who suggested (at least it is a concept my memory ascribes to him) creation is a theophany of the Holy Spirit.  When we see leaves on a plant stretching, growing, and even moving throughout the day to maximize their exposure to the sun, or we see birds flocking and migrating seasonally, we see the spirit of the living Creator energizing them.  In Colossians, it says, “in him, all things hold together”.

 

I think my (big E) Evangelical baggage and its wariness of the New Age movement and other “pagan” spiritual approaches, such as Buddism, Native American spiritism, etc., has hardened me against seeing God as Spirit.  The focus on Christ Alone, which has merit, has unfortunately tended to sound like Christ as man alone.  All truth is God’s truth, no matter who discovers or teaches it. I need to be open to the idea that those outside of narrow understanding of God might have some truth that is worth considering and incorporating into my faith structure.  

 

Maybe seeing God more as a spirit that permeates all of creation is part of that.  If true, what does that then mean?  How do I respond to that in practicality?  Not only should it influence how I interact with people, but how I also interact with creation.  Maybe St. Francis had the right idea after all!

 

Thoughts from Athens

10/17/24

Blogging

I like to write down my thoughts.  It used to be called journaling, but now seems to be called blogging, at least, that is, if you want to share your thoughts.

When I looked up “journaling” in Google, I found:

Journaling is the practice of writing down your thoughts, feelings, and experiences in a designated space, like a notebook or digital platform. It's a form of self-reflection that can enhance self-awareness, help manage emotions, and improve overall mental well-being.

I also found on Google that “blogging” is:

…the process of creating blog posts and publishing them on a website. The website can be owned by an individual or a company, and the posted content can be articles, photos or other digital media. Blogging often involves sharing long-form articles on a specific subject. Most blogs have a target audience, and bloggers often choose topics that interest their target audience. …

So, it seems, journaling is about self-reflection, while blogging is focused on others, motivated by either self-interest, such as gaining revenue or influence, or maybe just seeking community.  

There seems to be at least some trace of narcissism in the blogging process; “Others need to read what I am thinking!”  Or maybe, “I want my thoughts to last, to be out there, to affect others (because they are so important)!”

Does my desire to blog, to get my thoughts out there come from narcissistic pride?  Or can there be something altruistic tied in there as well!  Jesus assumed we would love ourselves when he said we should love our neighbors as we love ourselves.  Where is the balance?

Jesus told stories that were retold by others, and were eventually gathered into print.  He told his followers to be witnesses, which not only tells the story, but also recounts the influence the story had.  We read Paul’s letters (blogs?) that were intended to be read and passed around to others (no internet at that time!). In his letters, Paul wrestled with how to apply the teachings of Jesus to specific cultural settings.  Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James and others did the same.

The biblical authors may not have had any idea that 2000 years later people would still be reading their thoughts. Yet, they felt the need, the urgency to share their thoughts with people in their own time.  Were they driven by at least a little narcissism? They were, after all, human!  (Paul’s sometimes sounds a bit prideful, even though he denies it!)

I guess I am trying to justify my desire to blog. 

As a university professor and physician I was actually paid to process information and share my thoughts with others, person to person, live in class, via videos and in print!  I have had a lifetime of positive reinforcement for sharing what I have learned through my own study and practical experience.  That has been personally fulfilling, especially when I get positive feedback from students and patients, and see them living out what I taught.  

Now that I am retired, finding a bit more time on my hands, I have been reading more and listening to podcasts, which leads me to ponder the content in light of my personal experience.  That process includes “journaling”.  I still have the urge to teach so why not share my thoughts in a blog?  It might be of value to someone other than me.  And if not, no worries!  

So, as I blog, I plan 3 streams of thought:

1)        Reposting, hopefully in a more manageable format, Thoughts from Honduras, our communications with family and friends while we were missionaries in Honduras.

2)        Continuing thoughts from my faith journey as I have “deconstructed and reconstructed” (I didn’t know that was what it was called at the beginning) posted at Faith Reconsidered.

34      Ruminations from Retirement, from 2025 on, probably focusing on being a grandparent, and other themes related to aging and “The Golden Years”! I may explore my experience with Parkinson’s disease, and changing perspectives on life.

 

I’ll post this in all of these streams, and go from there!

I’m happy to dialogue one on one or in the blog stream.

Dave Drozek

I am Pro-Life! (5/11/2021)

As I write that statement, I must consider what that means in all its ramifications:

• Abortion

• Euthanasia

• Capital punishment

• Guns

• Wars and weapons manufacturing

• Poverty / Minimum wage

• Free trade / Fair trade

• Immigration / Refugees

• Diet / Global food distribution / Climate change

• Health care 

o Privatized / Socialized

o COVID vaccinations

• Globalism vs. Nationalism

• Taxes / Charitable contributions / Investments

• Politics

Jesus is Pro-Life!  

When asked what the greatest commandment is, he said:

• Love God

• Love you neighbor 

All the law is summed up in this!  

Loving your neighbor, is the practical outworking of loving God, since man is the image bearer of God.  To me, this is the essence of being Pro-Life!

As I consider what Pro-Life means throughout the Bible, I need to consider some things that help me clarify how to think about it.

God ordered genocide in the Old Testament.  He also gave a commandment about executing rebellious children. If I take these parts of the Bible seriously, then I need to wrestle with how this squares with my understanding of Jesus, since Jesus is God.  Is there a contradiction?

The answer I come up with is: Death is overrated!  

Death is a tool that the world uses to threaten others into submission, or to eliminate those who disagree.  For those who don’t believe in God, this is the ultimate end, and is fearful.

But for those who follow Jesus, death is just a passage into another phase of eternity, one that Paul looks forward to as “better”.  What’s the big deal, other than the process might be a bit uncomfortable for a time?  Jesus taught us to not fear death or those who can inflict it.

Another thought to add to the mix: I have read from reliable sources that infanticide was in common practice during Jesus’ lifetime on earth.  Families that couldn’t manage or didn’t want another child would leave it to die.

At least in the canonical Bible, it is never recorded that Jesus spoke anything about this practice.  

Can I possible conjecture that for a family in poverty, with little food to go around, allowing the death of a newborn was in some sense pro-life?  I have been taught since childhood that babies who die go to the presence of God.  How does the presence of God compare to a life in poverty, possibly unwanted or rejected?  Do we over-rate the death of a baby from God’s perspective?

Certainly, I do not mean to discount the grief of parents, family and friends over the death of a beloved child.

But, it seems indeed strange to me that those whose primary issue in voting is “Pro-Life”(meaning abortion), align themselves politically with those who are so anti-life in so many other ways!

I am indeed Pro-Life, but am compelled to think of this in a broader sense.  I see Pro-Life as loving my neighbor, who bears the image of God.  This includes loving a woman, who makes an agonizing decision to not bring her baby into the world.  I doubt Jesus would criminalize her, but would rather embrace her in her grief and fear, shed tears with her, and comfort her in the knowledge that her child will be safe with him.

Thoughts from Athens

May 11, 2021

Systematic Theology (11/21/2020)

Growing up in an Christian Evangelical, Fundamentalist environment, I was introduced to systematic theology at an early age. This really resonated with me, being an analytical thinker who wanted to know how things worked. I cherished my Scofield Bible, reading the notes in detail, which helped me make sense of the Bible. In AWANA Club, I learned the key verses for the doctrines of God, man, sin, salvation… This was a practical outworking of the admonition in 1 Peter 3:15: …Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect. 

As I went to a Christian college, I was more formally introduced to systematic theology, and became aware of competing versions, as the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate was constantly relived in the dining hall, chapel, and dorms. I settled in to the “4 point Calvinism” camp, and learned how to defend that perspective, often times not so gently and respectfully! 

The system was very comfortable. I had the answers in a neat package. I could recite the key proof texts, chapter and verse, to defend my position. 

Then I encountered life! 

As I experienced the real world, away from the sheltered halls of a Christian College, meeting other people who claimed to be Christians, but whom believed very differently, some with their own competing systems, some rejecting the systematic approach altogether, I initially dug in and defended my system as I had in college. This led to some division and discord, as I considered others who disagreed as possible heretics that needed to be outed, corrected and even denounced. 

Due to geographic limitations, in one community where we temporarily lived, we attended a church with a different system. We experienced the love of unity, accepted by those who simply followed Jesus, unaware of the details of my systematic theology, which was in conflict with some of the teachings of that denomination. This gave me pause, and caused me to reconsider my system. 

Actually, each phase of my life subsequently challenged my system further, causing me to see the flaws, the holes, the things that the system didn’t explain well, and how it didn’t fit neatly with real life experience. It was a bit agonizing! 

Don’t get me wrong! I greatly value and appreciate the system that helped me understand God and his creation! It gave me a comfortable place to learn and grow, to connect with God. But I had become guilty of the sin of the Pharisees: the system had taken the place of God himself in importance. In my pride, I felt like I had God figured out. I needed to defend my system in all its details, because if it unraveled, I feared that the foundational truth of my faith too would unravel. 

The underlying problem was that I had overestimated man, and underestimated God. I had thought that I, as a human, could make sense of the Almighty Transcendent God, and that I could fit God neatly into a box that I could carry around with me. How arrogant I was! How foolish! 

The change was difficult, heart wrenching, leaving behind my comfortable system, breaking with many things that I had held so dear, reshaping my whole paradigm of life and faith. 

To be clear, I never lost my faith in God, nor my confidence in my salvation through Jesus; but I did lose confidence in my own understanding of God. 

This has actually been liberating! 

Now I no longer feel that I need to have an answer for every question. I feel freedom to question God, to embrace uncertainty in faith, to trust through my doubt and misunderstanding, to more fully love and appreciate fellow seekers of God, no matter where they are on the path. 

Systems are good, but they are no substitute for God! For me, my system was the milk that nurtured me in my infancy; it helped me grow and thrive. Now, wherever I am in my journey, maybe in spiritual adolescence, maybe further on, I need, and crave, something with more substance. That substance is God himself, not seen through the lens of a system, but seen more clearly in focus through the lens of life. However, the lens that I use to see God is limited in scope, and needs to be directed to various locations to see yet another aspect of this immense, immeasurable God. That is the work of a lifetime, and I suspect, of all eternity. 

Dave Drozek 

Thoughts from Athens