religion

I’m Christian – or at least, I was – but whatever ideas you might have already about what it means to be Christian might not apply to me. I mean they might. It just depends what ideas you associate with “Christian.” There’s a whole mixture of ideas, good and bad, attached to that term. Only some of them apply.

Over the years I’ve blogged bits about religion, and you can find those blogs posts right here or you can also browse via: http://housefulofchaos.com/category/religion/

Theology

Bible, politics and society

Biblical interpretation

Christmas

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Christy's Houseful of Chaos

15 hours ago

The cat decided to help with the drywall. Do we find a way to smooth the rest of it out and leave this? ... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook

Christy's Houseful of Chaos

21 hours ago

Close-up examination of pictures of local rabbits confirm that there are multiple different rabbits in the neighbourhood. This one is not the one that hangs around our house.Photo by James Knockleby. ... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook

Christy's Houseful of Chaos

22 hours ago

Matthew 5 – 7 is an incredibly important part of the Bible and, like most of the Bible, can be used for good or evil. That is the section known as the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus is portrayed as Moses on a mountain giving the people another interpretation of the law. Like the Leviticus laws attributed to God through Moses, the laws center around a commandment to love and be perfect. Yet in Matthew the laws are made stricter; everything is intensified. “You have heard it was said to the ancients, ‘Do not murder’ and ‘Anyone who murders will be subject to judgement’ but I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother is subject to judgement.” (Matthew 5:21-22a). Likewise adultery is expanded to count anyone who looks at woman with lust. A rule about giving a certificate of divorce that would allow a woman to remarry is recast as not divorcing a woman – a later editor may have added an exception for cases of sexual immorality. A commandment not to break one’s oaths is expanded to not needing oaths but letting your every word be equally binding. Instructions to love your neighbours are expanded to love one’s enemy.I grew up believing that the Sermon on the Mount was beautiful. What could be better than to embody God’s love for the world? What could be better than to love one’s neighbours and one’s enemies. Surely God would protect those who tried to follow his will?I tried to love my neighours. I tried to love the people who teased and bullied me in school. I believed that their actions were in response to my failing to love perfectly enough. I tried to be selfless, perfect, caring. I tried to not be greedy. To forgive everyone anything. Later I learned there were problems with that approach. Later I learned the damage it did to me as a person.Later I learned interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount that suggested perhaps the text was advocating for nonviolent resistance. Perhaps when people attributed to Jesus the idea of turning the other cheek when someone slaps you, they were talking about a way of forcing the other person to punch you, treating you as an equal and not a subordinate. Perhaps when people were advised to let someone have not just their tunic but their cloak as well, one was shaming the person, forcing them to see one’s nakedness and at the same time making them at fault with laws forbidding them from leaving you naked. Perhaps… perhaps these were nonviolent resistance methods that worked in 1st century Palestine. On the other hand, perhaps they weren’t. And if they were, how do they translate to modern society?I had a student in my secular Bible studies classes a few years ago who really challenged me on the Sermon on the Mount. “Those sound like excuses, trying to keep Jesus in the right here,” she said. She drew my attention to the fact that even if some people try to reinterpret the texts as urging loving but firm resistance, the majority of the people who read them are being encouraged to accept abuse. She was right, of course, and it has helped me to think about how I teach the text.If you’re not allowed to be angry, how are you going to recognize and name wrongs? How are you going to take action? If your religion tells you that you must reconcile quickly with your brother, then it gives your brother power over you. If it tells you that looking with lust is adultery, it makes everyone guilty for normal sexual urges.“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth” might be wise advice for people to give when they want to discourage people from revolting against the Roman empire – actions that could get them killed – and instead encourage them to trust that better times will come, but what kind of advice is it for people today?I found myself thinking about the text today because I saw more memes with people urging others to be nice and be loving. And I thought… yes, we need to be loving, but we also need to be careful. The call to “be nice” and “be loving” cannot be put so high that we encourage people to accept abuse and wrong doing.I remember reading about the idea that isolating sexual predators leaves them as sexual predators, unable to rebuild their identities and do anything with their lives. I remember reading that communities need to find ways of welcoming them back, if they are repentant, and helping ensure they can feel loved and accepted without resorting to trying to oppress others. I have read good things about churches doing this type of work.I have also read things about people who have had to leave their churches, because they were being asked to forgive and love those who had abused them. I have read about people having to cut off connections with their extended families because the families wanted to continue to embrace the people who had abused them. Life is complicated, and I have no answers. ... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook

Christy's Houseful of Chaos

1 day ago

This is something I wrote four years ago...I am reading right now a book about the history of the United Farmers and Farm Women of Alberta in 1909 - 1921. I read it reflecting both on how I can include bits of its history in the book I'm working on and also on how they organized successfully.Before the UFA there were two organizations. The AFA (Alberta Farmers Association) and the S of E (Society of Equity). When in 1905 both groups presented separate to the Tariff Commission the AFA used talk of the freedom of trade while the S of E spoke in terms of capitalists and labour. Both were trying to argue for the same platform, but from different perspectives.When the two organizations joined together to be the UFA they included a mix of people. Many farmers worked as wage labourers sometimes and many farmers were accustom to hiring others. So the organization had times where resolutions were put forward arguing on either side, and there were always some people disappointed.However, the group grew partly by focusing on small things. They sold binder twine, worked to get roads open, worked to extend where the telephone lines reached, helped out when one another were sick or injured. They worked for small changes. I'm sure that would have ticked off a lot of people who would have thought they should have focused on the big things. They did want to deal with big things too.I think about this now reflecting on organizing for change - something I haven't done in a few years now. When I was involved, there were always people who were frustrated that our victories were just small symptomatic victories - bandage solutions, that helped a few people. Yet those bandage solutions were the types of things that helped grow the UFA. They were winnable. If the UFA had just focused on the (at least temporarily) unobtainable things they wouldn't have been able to grow the movement large enough to make the change they wanted. Many participants in the UFA had a strong class awareness and advocated for class changes, but if they had rejected people of other classes (mainly the upper class) they wouldn't have been able to grow the movement. Of course one can't focus on growing a movement to the point where one forgets what the movement was about, but by focusing on the little changes they could have victories, rejoice in those and show others that the group is worth being part of.#politicalactivism #CommunityBuilding #activism #bethechange ... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook

Christy's Houseful of Chaos shared a video from the playlist Christy Knockleby Talking About Literature.

2 days ago

I've been thinking about the South Sea Bubble again recently, partly because I've been reading about Charles II and his financial mismanagement. He would give away the right to all the taxes on certain things to various mistresses of his. I'm not sure that was unusual or not, but it really didn't help the government finances. He died in 1685, so there were several more decades before the South Sea Company was formed to try to deal with the national debt, and I don't know how his successors managed their finances. That's one more gap in my knowledge I hope to fill in shortly. There's a cute Extra History animated video about the South Sea Bubble that I recommend people read, and one of the things it mentions is Britain still trying to pay off debts from centuries ago. We really, really need more debt forgiveness in the world, so governments can concentrate on meeting people's needs now rather than trying to pay for the mistakes made generations ago. ... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook