Fall Colors (10/7/2009)

As I enjoyed the beauty of the fall colors in Athens from my porch, I couldn’t help but wonder why the reds, oranges and yellows were so beautifully dispersed in a visually pleasing mosaic?  There were interestingly, patches of green pines that broke the pattern and grew instead in clusters.

I suspect that the biologists could give me some mechanistic explanation of how the pines change their environment so that only other pines can survive in their proximity, and that the oaks, maples and dogwoods coexist in a form of symbiotic relationship.

 

I wonder if this is how God specifically designed it, so that we could enjoy seeing the mosaic of color in the fall, and enjoy walking on a carpet of needles beneath a pine grove. 

 

Maybe God also intended to give us an illustration of humanity.  There are some who co-mingle, enhancing their environment with diversity.  Is this not what God has designed for his body, made of many members, but united in one purpose?  Yet there are those as well who promote uniformity, discouraging that which is different, like the pines.

 

Which am I?

Monuments (May 7, 2009)

Man universally has a desire to be significant, to leave a legacy, to make monuments.  I see this in myself, and in others; a drive to do something enduring, to make a mark on the world, to make my life count for something bigger than life itself.   Is this a God given desire, or a result of pride due to the Fall?  Or has the Fall distorted what God created? 

I suspect that God has implanted into us, maybe as part of his image, the desire to do something of significance.  There is a satisfaction we derive from a job well done, a new thing created, or something restored or improved upon.  Pride certainly can take this and cause self elevation, rather than a healthy sense of contributing to community, of being a member of a body or organization where its members working together are productive.

 

As we think of judgment, and of the eternal state, what if (as suggested by Neo in A New Kind of Christian) judgment was the erasing of everything sinful, evil, wrong in our lives, these things being forgotten by God, and separated from us, as far as the east is from the west, leaving us only with the things that are good, right, pure, loving, etc. that we did in our life.  These things are the gold, silver and precious stones with which we enter eternity, stored up in heaven for us to rely upon when the earth is restored and united with heaven.  Our worthless thoughts and deeds, the wood hay and stubble, will be eliminated, as if by fire.  We will stand before God with our legacy, our monuments, our significant accomplishments.  These will be the things we carry with us into the eternal state.

 

During my younger years, my evangelical background taught me that the only thing we could take into eternity with us is people, those we helped “save” from hell, by contributing somehow to their salvation experince.

 

 

Ps 85:7-86:1

7 Show us your unfailing love, O LORD,

and grant us your salvation. 

 

8 I will listen to what God the LORD will say;

he promises peace to his people, his saints — 

but let them not return to folly. 

9 Surely his salvation is near those who fear him,

that his glory may dwell in our land. 

 

10 Love and faithfulness meet together;

righteousness and peace kiss each other. 

11 Faithfulness springs forth from the earth,

and righteousness looks down from heaven. 

12 The LORD will indeed give what is good,

and our land will yield its harvest. 

13 Righteousness goes before him

and prepares the way for his steps. 

 

NIV

Is Capitalism Christian? (2/21/09)

This question first brings to mind the ongoing debate in our family over whether “Christian” can be correctly used as an adjective.  Apart from that debate, can we ask if Christianity is compatible with (or some may even feel essentially linked with) capitalism?  Can we join the two as compatible, or even allies in philosophy and practice, or are they apples and oranges that simply happen to coexist?

What is capitalism?  It is a system of economics that thrives on competition, and “survival of the fittest”.  The concept “survival of the fittest” may invoke anti-Christian, pro-evolutionary sentiments in some, but some with a Christian heritage would see the concept of the “survival of the fittest” in the context of the created order of nature that serves a worthy purpose in the grand scheme of things (the purpose being most favorable if one happened to be among the “fittest”!).

 

Capitalism does favor “the fittest”; those with the best or most resources; capital, innovation, endurance, intelligence, education, experience, “savvy”, “luck of the draw”, etc.  Capitalism creates hierarchy; the winners and the losers, the richer and the poorer, the haves and the have nots. 

 

The underlying mechanisms that drive capitalism at their core values are individualism, desire, (greed?) and pride.  

 

To be fair, since the picture so far looks pretty negative, capitalism does promote hard work, usually tying the amount of work to the amount of success expected.  The Bible itself promotes work and effort with the anticipation of rewards based on the proportion of effort invested.  But what about the motivation for worthy work in the Bible?  Is this the same as the reason “capitalists” work?  

 

Another way to look at this is to ask, “What will the economy of the Kingdom look like?” We can get an idea of this from the Sermon on the Mount, and other passages of Scripture. 

 

Will there be competition in the Kingdom?  Will there be “survival of the fittest”?  Will there be marketing and advertising to promote one product over another?  

 

(This brings up another point about capitalism: the purpose of advertising seems to be not so much presenting a new product that might be of actual benefit, but more an attempt to produce discontent and desire, so that one might develop a sense of need of something that in reality, they are doing quite well without!)

 

It is difficult to fit these concepts into the eternal state where there is plenty for all, lack of need, promotion of community, not competition one against another for some personal or corporate advantage.  All will focus on the King.  

 

One might argue, “That’s fine for the future, but right now, capitalism seems like a pretty good system for Christianity to align with and collaborate with.  It does produce wealth that can be used to build churches, and send to missionaries (after we pay for our vacation condo, boat, cruise, etc.)”  That argument arises from the point of view of “the fittest”.  For the “fittest” to succeed, there are those who are at the other end of the spectrum.  There is some “trickle down” via the generosity of the “fittest” or via the opportunism of “the fittest” looking for a more efficient or cost effective work force.

 

From the point of view of the “unfit”, capitalism is pretty cruel, benefiting those who least need it, and who are least likely to share its benefits.

 

If as Christians …

You always have the poor with you! (7/17/25)

(Our men’s group is going through Shane Claiborne’s Irresistible Revolution, which has spurred quite a bit of discussion and thought!)

Growing up in my conservative fundamentalist Baptist church, I remember hearing this verse quoted, usually in support of capitalism and against socialism / communism.  It was thrown around as proof that poverty would never be eliminated, so why try?  If poor people were too lazy to work, why should others support them?  

How contrary that take on this phrase is with the broader teaching and context of Jesus! Look at the extended passage:

Jesus was at Bethany visiting the house of Simon, who had a skin disease. During dinner, a woman came in with a vase made of alabaster and containing very expensive perfume of pure nard. She broke open the vase and poured the perfume on his head. ⁴ Some grew angry. They said to each other, “Why waste the perfume? ⁵ This perfume could have been sold for almost a year’s pay and the money given to the poor.” And they scolded her.

⁶ Jesus said, “Leave her alone. Why do you make trouble for her? She has done a good thing for me.⁷ You always have the poor with you; and whenever you want, you can do something good for them. But you won’t always have me. ⁸ She has done what she could. She has anointed my body ahead of time for burial. ⁹ I tell you the truth that, wherever in the whole world the good news is announced, what she’s done will also be told in memory of her.” (Mark 14: 3-9, CEB)

 

Did you notice the context?  Did you notice what else Jesus said?

 

“You always have the poor with you; and whenever you want, you can do something good for them.”

 

Whenever we want, we can do good for the poor?  Do we want?  Do we ever want to do good to the poor?  Maybe during Christmas, and after a disaster!  But certainly not all the time!

How does our attitude square with the way Jesus taught and acted?  How does it square with Matthew 25: 31-46?  Read the whole section.  Let me point out that Jesus said:

 

I was hungry and you didn’t give me food to eat. I was thirsty and you didn’t give me anything to drink. ⁴³ I was a stranger, and you didn’t welcome me. I was naked and you didn’t give me clothes to wear. I was sick and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’

 

Yes, we will always have the poor with us, because we always have Jesus with us!  

 

Eschatology and Evangelism (2/3/09)

Today (1/27/09) I have begun reading Jürgen Moltmann’s Theology of Hope.  Already it has awakened a thought, answered a nagging question, and brought into focus a gap in my theology.

As I struggle through my “post-Evangelical” wanderings, I have wondered at the role of evangelism in my faith.  Moltmann points out that eschatology is not a disconnected future account but is a living motivation for the present.  The future hope is our present purpose.

We shall not usher in a time of utopia with our own efforts.  It shall not arrive until Christ returns.

My question and discontent, sowed from my fundamentalist, dispensational past, was, “Why all the fuss over the present which will be done away with anyway?” All we need to do is to secure the soul through a decision for Christ, obtained via presentations of “the gospel”.  All the efforts to change the world, to make a better place, would be wasted anyway, since it would all come to naught in the “great tribulation”.

This morning, though, the light dawned!  What more powerful evangelistic tool is there than to give someone a glimpse of the future here in the present?  What better motivation is there for someone to seek the Kingdom of Christ than to see and feel the effect of the Kingdom here and now in a world setting that conflicts with the Kingdom?  “A taste of heaven” on earth would only whet one’s appetite for more!

Thus, I am thinking, real evangelism, recruitment into the Kingdom, must involve living out the teaching of Jesus in the present in such a manner that we are salt that causes a thirst and a light that reveals the path to the future, and this involves action that creates communities of “heaven on earth”, outposts of the future that are tangible and desirable.

2/3/09

As I continue to read Moltmann, I try to formulate my thoughts:

It appears, according to Moltmann, that there are two errors commonly made concerning eschatology.

1) Man “presumes” that he can create his own utopia, bringing in the kingdom by his own efforts.  All attempts have so far miserably failed, because they are centered on man and his ability and effort.  2) It is thought that the eternal state is something unrelated to the present state.  That the eternal state is transcendent and therefore beyond our understanding.  This has origins in Greek philosophy where the material is considered sinful, inferior and only the spiritual is perfect.  Erroneous thinking says that we shouldn’t spend too much effort on trying to understand it, since it is beyond our ability to understand anyway.  We just need to get the motivation for living for eternity in the present.

My analysis on this is that the eternal state is what Israel was looking for; a literal, physical Kingdom made of literal, physical land, with a literal, physical King on this (restored) earth.  To this, man can relate and find motivation.  Toward this we can work, not in that we will complete the job, but in that we can set up “recruitment stations” where we live out the principles of the coming Kingdom in contrast to the principles of the present kingdom.  The people around us will then be able to see the difference, and make their choice, join the Kingdom to come (that is already with us, yet not complete), or live for the present.

Creation as Theophany (1/10/09)

In reading the chapter entitled Eschatology and Christology, Moltmann and the Greek Fathers, by Nicholas Constas in God’s Life in Trinity, I was introduced to an interesting concept that I would like to meditate on and record my thoughts.  The chapter draws heavily on Basil of Caesarea’s work, the Hexaemeron, a series of homilies concerning creation.

The chapter suggests that we should think of creation as a form of theophany, even parallel to the incarnation, an embodiment of the Spirit in material form.  We are not to see the creation as God, but a revelation of the transcendent God.  We are not to worship creation as an idol, but to see in it characteristics of the eternal transcendent God. (Note from 2025: this sounds like panentheism, as promoted by Richard Rohr.)

When God declared creation “beautiful” (they refer to Gen 1:8 in the LXX, which doesn’t correlate with Gen 1:8 in my Bible.  I assume they refer to God’s declaration that creation is “very good”) it refers not to the aesthetic beauty, but to the completeness and perfection of purpose in creation; creation will serve its purpose “beautifully” as it has been ordered and put together.

This is correlated with Ecclesiastes, and Solomon’s initial statement that “life is meaningless”.  If one looks at the order of creation superficially, without a regard for its transcendent revelation of God, one only sees futility in its cycles of life and death, of struggle and suffering juxtaposed to times of happiness and ease.  But when one sees its purpose, understands it as a revelation, an embodiment of God’s purpose, a manifestation of his Spirit, creation then takes on meaning, pointing us toward a future of hope, rather than a cycle of futility

 

Meditations on the Trinity (12/1/08)

I just began reading a book that has long been on my shelf.  Little did I understand or predict its importance.  A book on the trinity; how radical can that be?  I have believed in the trinity as long as I can remember.  Only into the second chapter, I am finding my thinking challenged, my paradigm stretched! 

 

To better solidify what I am reading, I need to write. I don’t yet know if I shall share these thoughts, or keep them to myself.   But if I do share them, they find origin in the book edited by Miraslav Volf and Michael Welker; an anthology of writings by various authors brought together in tribute to Jurgen Moltmann, a theologian who explored the trinity (whose writings I must soon explore!) and inspired the thinking of the authors to consider the trinity, and its implications for the church and theology.  The book is entitled, God’s Life in the Trinity.

 

The essay / chapter entitled The Social Trinity and Property, by M. Douglas Meeks has left me thinking, meditating, wondering about how important the concept of the trinity is in our practice of faith.  In the West, our theology has focused on the unity, the singleness of “one God”.  This one God is the creator of all, and therefore the owner of all.  He owes no one anything.  He gives, not of compulsion, but out of love and benevolence.  He lacks nothing, needs nothing.

 

So, the thinking goes, which has not been so obvious to me until I saw it in print, man (at least in the West), created in the image of God, must emulate God.  Since God owns all and owes nothing, man too should seek to own and not owe, the “American Dream” in a nutshell!  Perfect!  It is based in theology!  In our striving to own, we too should be benevolent, condescending to those in need, who have not yet reached the level of ownership and lack of debt(?) that we have acquired.

 

One big problem with this thinking is that it has turned everything into a commodity, property, to be sought after and acquired.  The individual and personal ownership have been taken to the extreme.  Justice, the experience of learning, and the maintenance of health have become commodities available to those who can pay.  Those who can’t, suffer their lack, and must wait for the beneficence of those who are higher or further along on the social ladder.

 

Is this really what God intended as an outworking of theology, of an understanding of “The Lord your God is One”?

 

But let us now consider the trinity.  God is three equals, living in harmony, without need, but giving to each other continually in love, a society of joy and satisfaction beyond anything we can compare in our fallen world.  God’s fullness of love is so great that it spills over into creation, and into his image, man.  We the image bearer of God, are to imitate our Creator.

 

How should that imitation take form?  Should we be seeking property? Ownership?Or should we be seeking the benefit and joy of all through sharing in common?  Should we be interested in true equality of justice, unhindered and even assisted opportunity to learn, and the ability to have physical needs met within the possibilities of our fallen world?  

 

How should our outworking of the image of God appear?

 

Lest you think I am speaking politically, let me dispel the thought.  I have no hope in “the sword” to solve the world’s problems.  “The sword” is a representation of the problem, man’s attempt to live apart from God’s rule.  God has ordained government but does not promise that world government will produce his Kingdom.  Whether we vote or not, and how we vote is a decision we must each make before God, with our consciences bare before his probing Spirit.  But let us not consider government as the source of our spiritual salvation or demise.  Remember that the cruel and oppressive Roman Empire was in power during the time of Christ and the early Church!  Yet the church grew!

 

Our job, the church’s job, regardless of the political climate or the governmental powers in control, is to reflect the love of Christ to one another within the body (that’s how we will be recognized!), and to let that love flow out in grace to those in need around us, not as a tool of power or coercion, but as a demonstration of the type of love that God shares in the trinity.  

 

Therefore, our focus / goal as image bearers of God should not be to obtain more property and to be free from obligation to others, but to share freely with others what God has given to us, and to sense an obligation, or better, a compulsion, born out of love, to serve those in need around us.  That is what the trinity is teaching me!

Is Healthcare a Right? (5/22/08)

As a physician practicing and teaching in rural, economically depressed southeast Ohio, daily I am confronted with the challenge of delivering health care to those who cannot afford to pay for it.  As I have considered the problem, with the influence of my experience as a missionary physician for 8 years in Honduras, I have made a few observations.

First and foremost is the issue of rights and responsibilities.  Does an affluent society have the responsibility to provide for the health care needs of its citizens?  Does each citizen have the right to health care?  Does the citizen have the responsibility to take care of himself?  Does the society have the right to encourage or even enforce good health practice for its citizens?

 

Exercise of rights requires exercise of responsibilities.

 

Unfortunately, many of the people in impoverished areas lack the basic abilities to fulfill their responsibilities.  Many lack in education.  Many lack in initiative.  Many lack in the basic ability to choose well.  Why?  There are nature and nurture factors.  Many people simply need opportunity and a little help to overcome an apparent hopeless situation.  Once they see an opportunity, a possibility that gives them hope, they can begin down the road to achieving it.  Others are incapable of reaching beyond their situation, no matter how much help they receive.

 

Is our society responsible to help those who simply need some hope and direction? I think so.  Is our society also responsible to care for those who will likely never rise beyond their current circumstances.  I think so as well.

 

What would / should a system of health care to meet the needs of these folks look like?  First it needs to be simple, almost automatic.  When someone is impoverished, they can’t navigate or manage a system of paperwork and options.  They lack the initiative and often the transportation to do the things the system requires to apply for government assistance.  Often they are in a health crisis that prohibits them from doing anything for themselves.

 

What do you think?

Righteousness or Justice? (7/13/25)

Our biblical translators, although attempting to be literal in their translations, have been biased by their presuppositions, and therefore have influenced us by their bias.  One such instance may be the word we often see translated as righteous or righteousness.  See these passages in Matthew 5 in two translations:

⁶ “Happy are people who are hungry and thirsty for righteousness, because they will be fed until they are full. …

¹⁰ “Happy are people whose lives are harassed because they are righteous, because the kingdom of heaven is theirs.

Common English Bible

⁶ Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
    for they will be filled….

¹⁰ Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
    for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

New International Bible

Both of these translations use the word “righteousness”.  I am not a Greek scholar, but here is what I found about the word in Greek:

δικαιοσύνη dikaiosynē, n. righteousness, what is right, justice, the act of doing what is in agreement with God’s standards, the state of being in proper relationship with God:– righteousness (78), justice (3), right (3), what is right (3), it^S (1), justified (1), righteous (1), that is right (1)

This word in the NIV is usually translated as “righteousness” (73 times), but can also mean “justice” (used 3 times).  (It was pointed out by a friend in a men's group that we recently read a similar interpretation by Shane Claiborne in Irresistible Revolution, which may also have been in the back of my mind as I came upon this passage in my personal study. It is certainly not original with me!) 

I don’t know about you, but for me, with my fundamentalist Baptist background, I tend to think of “righteous” and “righteousness” as focusing on my own individual behavior.  That encourages a very individualistic response to these verses.

However, “justice”, for me, sounds more communal, or social, and carries a different connotation.  Look again at these passages with the substitutions:

⁶ “Happy are people who are hungry and thirsty for justice, because they will be fed until they are full. …

¹⁰ “Happy are people whose lives are harassed because they are just, because the kingdom of heaven is theirs.

Common English Bible

⁶ Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for justice,
    for they will be filled….

¹⁰ Blessed are those who are persecuted because of justice,
    for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

New International Bible

These verses now carry a different meaning, a different focus, with a completely different set of actions that I feel encouraged to implement.

How about for you?

 

Dave Drozek, with

Faith Reconsidered

Do You Feel God’s Pleasure? (10/8/07)

(To my medical students and colleagues, and everyone else as well!)

 

Eric Liddle, the runner / preacher / missionary featured in one of my favorite movies, “Chariots of Fire” says to his sister that he was created to run, and that when he runs, he feels the pleasure of God. 

 

This is great theology.  To fulfill your created purpose pleases God!

 

Do you please God?  Do you feel the wonder, the pleasure of God as you study the human body with the purpose of bringing healing to those who suffer?  Do you feel the pleasure of God as you evaluate and treat your patients?

 

In those moments when my heart and mind are correctly aligned with the Creator, I feel the pleasure of God; I become wrapped up in the joy and fulfillment of my purpose when I perform surgery.  What a great privilege to be the hands of Christ, administering healing, restoring and redeeming a suffering person, made in the image of Christ, from the consequences of the fall that hinders his material body. 

 

I participate in the work of Christ, his Kingdom work, restoring the fallen world!  I feel the pleasure of God!

 

How about you?

Just think about it! (7/27/07)

I am a newcomer to the Athens medical community, so my perceptions and facts may be inaccurate, but I see something happening that because of my “newness”, I feel relatively detached from and may qualify as a fairly objective observer.

After living in Honduras, my political and social perspective has changed; so greatly at times that it almost scares me!  I am becoming increasingly disenchanted with capitalism, although I can’t offer a reasonable alternative, apart from the Kingdom of Christ.

 

I have become acutely aware of the tremendous waste of resources that capitalism has created via its duplication of services in the process of competition and pursuit of wealth.  Let me illustrate with the situation as I see it here in Athens, Ohio.  Remember, I am a newcomer, and these are my perceptions based on limited facts.

 

For years there was one hospital in town serving the needs of the community.  Then it became “the thing” for surgeons to build surgery centers.  Why?  $$$:  so they could get a bigger piece of the pie, make more profit, rather than let the hospital get it all.  So, the hospital, cutting its losses, saw it was a better deal to partner in the surgery center than to compete with it.  Services, space, equipment, etc. were then duplicated.  Neither the hospital nor the surgery center now has a full schedule.  Both employ more employees than would likely be needed if the facilities were combined. Certainly there is a loss to the hospital, the community, and society in the duplication!  

Why?

 

Now, even though the community is shrinking, and more health care is being delivered out of the area as people head for Columbus for the high tech medicine that is not available locally, another player has entered the scene!  Holzer clinic is triplicating services!  Another surgery center, another set of imaging equipment.  More offices, etc. 

Why?  

$$$!

 

But what is the real cost?  Is there really a benefit to the community?  Does the competition offer better services?  What if all those resources, all the money spent on duplication was channeled another direction?  Could we all better benefit from a different allocation of resources?

 

This situation is replicated all over the country and the western world, not only in health care, but in all sorts of goods and services.  Look at all the empty office buildings, factories, shopping centers, restaurants and strip malls!  More were built than were needed; more than could be sustained and maintained. Competition led to survival of the fittest, and the death of the weak.  Our cities and towns are battlegrounds of capitalism, littered with the remains of the casualties of the crusade for materialism.

 

As I mentioned earlier, my time in Honduras has changed my world view significantly.  Having lived most of my life in the land of the plenty, and seven years in a land of poverty, I can’t help but wonder, compare, ponder.  What does God think?  What will His world look like when the Kingdom becomes visible?  Is that not what He desires from us in the present?What is my role as one individual?  What is my responsibility?

 

Just think about it!

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