ArmandoHeredia.com

Cardboard Astronaut 2.0 Kindle Edition

Download Cardboard Astronaut for Kindle from Amazon.com

Order a Kindle version of Cardboard Astronaut 2.0 for only $8.00. Go to Amazon.com

Poverty’s Lovers…

“Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime.” –Aristotle

Poverty, the breeding ground for ignorance, has been the catalyst for many individual crimes and rebellions, with subsequent coups of third world governments; but revolution and crime are not the only children of poverty. If poverty is the parent, he can choose between two lovers, passive acceptance and ignorant rebellion.

Passive acceptance is accepting without participating in the decision process and not resisting or arguing. There are those who, through ignorance, have concluded that there is no hope for change. Many of these people allow life to pass by with no thought that anything could be different. For thousands of years the lowest caste of the Hindu religion was made to believe (through violence if necessary) that they had no hope. Their job was to passively accept their fate and live in abject poverty. In America, there are people, like the poor in the Appalachians, who have not been relegated to a caste system that keeps them in bondage, but to a state of poverty and a cycle of ignorance that is just as insidious and effective as a socio-religious decree. They exist and perpetuate their muted life to the next generation, ignorance birthing ignorance, passively accepting their fate because they have no mechanism to engage for change.

Most crimes committed in American cities are committed by impoverished young men who have found themselves in a desperate struggle for more than material wealth; they are in a struggle for an identity that is larger than the poverty that keeps them bound to governmental assistance and crime ridden housing projects. These acts of violence can and should be seen for what they are: the natural response of a person who is “fighting the system that keeps them down.”

The violence is the symptom; the true problem is that they are in the midst of an ignorant rebellion. The term “ignorant” in its Latin root means “not aware” and is the state of being without knowledge. In many communities the lack of quality education afforded to children along with the apathy of their parents in regard to becoming educated is the root cause of the problem. Many come to see violence as an escape from poverty through the glamorization of drug use and gang persona by rappers like 50 Cent or Eminem. It can seem so much easier to rise above poverty and obscurity by selling drugs or leading a gang, than by staying in school, especially in a school that has a low quality of education, and becoming educated.

In a larger context, many national governments have been overthrown by rebellions only to be replaced by men or women that are as corrupt as the despot that was removed. The subsequent government is sometimes as bad or worse. The reason this can and does happen is because the populace at large was not educated. They have no more knowledge to work from than they did before the rebellion they were a part of was “successful.” As the new government begins to assert its dominance through oppression, a new generation of rebels gathers to fight again.

There is a third lover, one whose child is the beginning of hope, her name is informed resistance. Ignorant rebellion and informed resistance are not the same, they are not even related. Where ignorant rebellion is a reaction, usually violent, to a situation; informed resistance is a preconceived action. It is based in understanding, through knowledge, because of education and takes a course that transcends the barriers of both poverty and ignorance. If we were to study the lives of men and women who have risen above poverty or succeeded in spite of violent surroundings, we will see people who are not violent, who are not rebels, but are usually peacemakers who fight using ideas, not fists or weapons.

Our job as parents, educators and citizens, is to promote education to the next generation. Our foreign policy as a nation should be education first, than financial aid. We are the stewards of the children entrusted to us; let’s empower them to be informed resistors. They need to know that they can resist oppression and bondage only when they do it from the firm foundation of knowledge.

Can Christianity be boring?

Copyright Armando Heredia. 2009

Absolutely. Christianity as a “social convention” is about logistics.
Logistics: the planning, implementation, and coordination of the details of an operation.
So, what happened to Christianity is that as it moved to the center of society and became a part of culture, the things that made it incredible and compelling were removed so that it could be acceptable to most people.
Instead of Christianity being a force that shapes and reshapes society around us based on a dynamic relationship that allows God to move through His people, it becomes a set of plans, ideas and concepts.
You don’t have to get rid of any of the ideas that are explosive, you simply need to segment them and keep them from coming together or limit the quantity that is accessible. The world is naturally explosive. We don’t have to “invent” anything see an explosion. We have to understand what to bring together or what to keep apart.
An important thing to realize is that the way we define something can determine how we handle it. If we are asked to carry something that is labeled “explosive” we usually hold our breaths, keeping it at arms length while we tiptoe carefully. If it is labeled as a bio-hazard we put on gloves and face masks, etc.
The problem we have with Christianity is that we have been given the wrong definition. We think Christian means “Christ-like,” if that is the case than your religion defines Christ. Is the “best” Christian the “best” example of Jesus? There are too many definitions of what a “good” Christian is and almost none of them would incorporate the things that made Jesus so compelling in the first place.
So, what does “Christian” actually mean?
It means Christ follower.
Just like a scientist isn’t a science-like person, we would reject automatically that science could be exemplified by a person. A scientist isn’t becoming science he is exploring it and its possibilities. To a scientist, like Albert Einstein, science was about more than the logistics. He said, “I want to know God’s thoughts; the rest are details.” Einstein is probably the most famous of all scientists yet he realized that the ultimate discovery of knowledge and science is uncovering God’s thoughts.
Is science boring? It depends on what you are doing and what elements you are putting together. Is Christianity boring? The same answer applies, it depends on what you are doing and what elements you are putting together.

Is “Holiness” Subjective?

A young Bible college student sat down with me a few Sundays ago after church. We had a discussion about a topic I taught during our 18twentysix session called Where will the Church Go From Here… If You’re Driving? (Click to read the notes.)

The basic premise comes from a book called The Deviant’s Advantage by Ryan Matthews and Watts Wacker. Using their model I traced the movement of 20th century Pentecostalism from the fringe all the way to social convention. The challenge in the session was to be deviant (as in straying from the norm) in their approach to expressing Christ to a world that has been jaded by traditional and institutional Christianity.

During our discussion the topic of “holiness” came up. I put it in quotes because we had a differing opinion on what was meant by the term. We were not discussing “holiness,” in fact we were discussing standards, which are infinitely different. There was a facebook discussion with his friends (of which I am not one) about “holiness” with him asserting that he had spoken with someone (me) and found my ideology “humorous.”

“If someone told you that standards are what your [sic] convicted of, what would you think?”
Several disparaging posts later he said: “Oh trust me guys I’M IN! But just had someone tell me that today! thought it was humorous”

Below are the notes a session I will be teaching on the topic “Is Holiness Subjective.” The approach in this document is very academic. I hope to record an audio of the session which will include Scripture references.

Is Holiness Subjective?

Part 1

Without God there is no holiness. This being said, the idea or concept of “holiness” is objective, with God being the center and focus of the concept. When we pursue holiness we pursue a specific object, God.

Objective -  being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject, not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts;

Subjective – existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought, pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual, placing excessive emphasis on one’s own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.

The problem that we have is that we try to take a concept that is objective and filter it through a process or set of rituals that are subjective.

So, standards, or the process in which we pursue or display our “holiness” are subjective.

There are five filters (probably more, but we’ll use these for this discussion) listed below in series.

1. Condemnation
2. Shame
3. Guilt
4. Conviction
5. Love

Condemnation

1. The act of condemning.
2. The state of being condemned.

Shame

1. Disgrace
2. The painful feeling arising from the consciousness of something dishonorable, improper, ridiculous, etc., done by oneself or another

Guilt

a. The fact or state of having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, esp. against moral or penal law; culpability: He admitted his guilt.

b. A feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense, crime, wrong, etc., whether real or imagined.

Conviction

1. A fixed or firm belief.
2. The state of being convinced.

Love

1. The benevolent affection of God for His creatures, or the reverent affection due from them to God.
2. Devotion

Part 2

The reasons we pursue a standard can be:

1. Religious – dictated by a particular religious ideology. Monastic Orders, Nunnery, Standards of dress and/or behavior specific to a particular group or entity that may or may not have specific Biblical origins or substantiation.
2. Cultural – Peer group acceptance, accepted norms within a culture segment, whether religious or secular. A culture can and usually does require an adherence to some standard of conformity. Skaters, punks, jocks, preps, these are culture segments that are not religious (overtly) that require conformity to a particular code. There are cultural “norms” that are considered “standards” for the culture member to follow. These can be explicit or implicit.
   1. Explicit – fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal
      To say a person must wear a certain style of clothing or be excluded from the culture or to demand a rigid adherence to a particular code, like not using electricity or modern conveniences, would be considered explicit. Most groups have behavioral practices that are conveyed with the expectation that they will be followed. Consequences will be meted out if these norms are not followed. This is not necessarily bad in itself, obviously we have cultural norms that protect society and Scripture itself is very explicit about behavior that is acceptable and/or unacceptable.
   2. Implicit – Implied or understood though not directly expressed
      To shun a person who does not conform to a belief or practice that is not openly expressed or taught or to assume that through the culture mass an idea will be understood by a new adherent would be considered implicit. It is implied that for me to be a part of your culture group I must wear “x” brand of clothing. The implication is that men must be clean shaven to be a part of a particular religion, though it is not stated emphatically

   3.   Relational – Of course the relational aspect of subscribing to a particular standard of behavior whether dress, activities or ideologies can be both religious and/or cultural due to the fact that it is done in relation to something or someone else. Or, and this is the crux of the whole discussion, the relational aspect can be transcendent.
   Transcendent
   a. Going beyond ordinary limits; surpassing; exceeding.
   b. Being above and independent of the material universe. Used of the Deity.

So, if and when we pursue God our “standard” of holiness transcends religious or cultural dictates and are above the ideas that cause or use shame and condemnation to force conformity. This happens because we shift our focus away from temporal and finite things that are subject to culture and shift according to popular opinion and instead focus on a relationship with an infinite and unchanging God

Conviction, guilt and love become the subjective means that we use as individuals to pursue a relationship with a holy God. The idea of a standard is not wrong, unreasonable or unnecessary. In fact we abide by them in one form or another everyday; however, the standards are subjective and should never replace the object that they are intended to guide us to.

In conclusion then, holiness is not subjective since it has a specific object, which is God. Standards are subjective and are dependant on a variety of social, religious and cultural factors as well as our own understanding and experiences.

God, through our conscience allows us to feel the guilt of sin. Through His word, preaching and/or supernatural methods He convinces us (conviction) of our need to change our minds, activities and/or lifestyle (repentance) to be able to remove anything that would hinder our relationship (love) with Him. He is the object of the pursuit and the process will change over time as we are convicted of different things through maturity in Christ.

Jesus For President Excerpt.

Cardboard Astronaut

I would elect Jesus to be the Most Potentate Generalissimo International Superintendent of the First Holy Non-Denominational Denomination of the World in the Name of Jesus, except for the fact that He did so many things (on purpose) that would disqualify Him from even getting on that ballot.

He wouldn’t even come to see the election. I know the scripture says that if two or three are gathered together in His name He will be there in the middle of them, but that doesn’t mean He’s there for the election.

All the hoopla that we make about our religious politics is ridiculous. I’ve seen and heard men that would turn on their best friend over some political stance or position they hold within their religious organization.
I’ve heard (and said) some of the stupidest things about the superiority of the particular persuasion of religion I subscribe to or even some dogma that is held within that persuasion. I’ve heard “godly” men spew hate and angry rhetoric against people who don’t agree with them about their pet policy. Of course, Jesus knows all about it and is on their side, 100%.

Right.

There are men that are always looking to start a new party or a new sect and fly the Jesus flag over their idea as if Jesus is the one that gave it to them. If you asked Jesus He probably wouldn’t know the particulars because He wasn’t involved in the planning or the process. He’s just the catch phrase that we use to justify our desire to be in control. We wouldn’t make it in the secular political arena because we are too ignorant about what is going on in the world around us, but we want to bump chests and make declarations and control people so we just start us another political group and call it the church.

One religious group had a resolution they were trying to pass at their national convention a few years ago, it failed and a bunch of preachers got angry and left the organization to start their own party. The funny thing is that this year the same resolution passed and a bunch of preachers got mad and left the organization to start their own party.

It was kind of sad to see the hate mail that was sent out in the “name of Jesus” from some of these so called believers. It was more than sad, it was sickening. Of course, Jesus was on their side (both of them) and absolutely approved of their stance (both sides) and their behavior (both sides) and was going to lead their group to a glorious future (both sides) to infinity and beyond (both sides) and the other guys (both sides) were going to go to hell because they were W-R-O-N-G and E-V-I-L (both sides). How stupid.

No, Jesus would never do as the head of a religious entity, because he wouldn’t be any good at it. If He was going to do it, He would have to do it right. He would have to check the little box that said He was 100% behind the agenda of the poli-church He was elected to lead and I seriously don’t think He would be willing to do that. I don’t think He would even be willing to sign our membership forms.

You know where it says, “I promise to obey all of the teachings of the pastor and do what is expected of me to uphold the image and traditions of the (insert religious entity here).”

What if the pastor teaches something I don’t agree with and cannot substantiate with scripture? What if there are things about the religious traditions that are, gasp, wrong? Yeah, I think Jesus would have a problem with that, too.

The problem with elected officials is that they have a term that ends at some point and the majority picked them so the majority expects to be able to have some input into how they are governing in their elected office. Anytime there is an election process, Jesus is disqualified, because as earlier stated, you don’t elect a king, he is enthroned, and religion isn’t ready for that. We don’t want a king, and we certainly don’t want the King, we just want a catch phrase that makes us right.

Not happening.

From Cardboard Astronaut.