liberal Archives - Lisa Colón DeLay

Guest writer at Everyday Liturgy

I’m very glad to have the honor of being the guest writer today at Thomas Turner’s blog:

Everyday Liturgy

Thomas wrote me saying,

I would love for you to contribute a 500 word (or so) post about how participating in a particular church or denomination has helped make you the Christian you are today. The purpose of this series is largely ecumenical, and looks at the positive you gleaned out of the experience. If you had a bad experience that turned into something good later on, I would think you could make a great post out of that…

Some of you may not know just how fundamentalist my roots are.

Here’s but one example:

Several people approached my mom to discourage her from marrying my dad. Why?

Because their offspring would be bi-racial.

Plenty of (fundamentalist) Christian groups at the time prohibited “inter-racial” dating and (obviously) marriage and pro-creation.

Southern Baptists were the slave-owning southerns who coined their monicker at the time of the American Civil War (to them known as “The War of the Northern Aggression”). Northern Baptists, as they were once called, later changed their name to American Baptist and became (typically) more progressive and liberal in their views over time.

Southern Baptists proliferated to many places outside of the the South (to the American North and through missionary work, to all parts of the world), but kept their name and, as you might guess, some of their same notions.

(To be fair, things have changed for the better, mostly. Today, folks in churches coming from that tradition run the gamut of very strict and conservative… “old school patriarchal imperialist southern” -if you will- to more gracious and relaxed in their dogma on issues of race, gender, and other matters.)

(By the way, my dad was Puerto Rican. Are you curious to see what he looked like? Here. Like most conversations about “race” –as if that was an actual thing– it’s really just vestige of a medieval mindset and a preoccupation about skin tones and/or physical features. Sadly, it still is and by people you would imagine would know better. But, I’ll tackle that in some other post.)

I wonder how many of them were relieved that I ended up having my mom’s light skin.

(This is were Obama and I are alike. Like me, he actually looks more like his mom than his dad. Trust me, it’s true. I notice these things! :) )

So, what was my journey and where do I stand now?

Give it a read and find out!

The Letter X: The Key to understanding the Bible (tribute to Dave Dorsey)

This post is part of the continuing series I’m doing to honor the late Dr David Dorsey.

Don’t forget to read the others:

1. Faith = Eggs in a Basket
2. Follow Mosaic Laws?

The letter X.

It’s the shape of something. It’s the shape of the structure of how the Pentateuch (and Joshua) was composed. It was authored carefully with a structure that helped ensure it was remembered in a world where people memorized stories and rarely wrote them down or read them.

Chiastic refers to the letter X (“X” is Chi, in Greek, of course).

Check out the wikipedia article on ancient literary structure:

a field that Dave contributed to that is likely one of his most enduring legacies.

It shreds the 18th century theory, borne out of cultural ignorance and literary ignorance of ancient texts. One that has prevailed for too long: The Documentary hypothesis. (This theory came about when a French medical professor (Jean Astruc) thought the Pentateuch was very oddly written. No, he wasn’t a biblical scholar or historian, sadly, but he read the Bible and wanted to postulate. (Soon after, German liberal scholars jumped on his theory, expounded on it, and proliferated it as it aided their objectives in the 19th Century.)

Reading the non linear narrative form had him confused. He postulated that multiple authors at different times probably wrote the text and then it was cobbled together. After all, some things were mentioned twice, but how could that be? Must be a mistake or proof of multiple authors lending their two shekels.

Modern narratives are written in a linear form, usually, hence the puzzlement.

Astruc was a bright man, but his acumen was clearly restricted to the medical sciences. He had never pieced together that all the ancient texts tended to be written this chiastic way as a memory aid because they had been transmitted orally at first, sometimes for many hundreds of years. The book of Job is a very good example of this. It dates back to long before Abraham.

Thankfully, our understanding of the ancients is much improved now and it’s easy to spot this same structure in ancient tales like the Iliad and the Odyssey, for instance. Perhaps it is because of the stronghold of liberal bias in the scholarly world that this poor rabbit trail tends to still be esteemed. (Truth be told, its prevalence also works toward discrediting or tempering aspects of the Bible which is a happy agenda for a great many scholars.) So, this 18th century misunderstanding still prevails.

As one understands the chiastic structure of the bible, the main points are easily underscored. The Mosaic Law for instance, centers on the importance of protecting the weak (in that culture: females, foreigners, the the poor classes), the marginalized, and the outcast. The Law then, is an excellency picture of the heart of God that should be the same as ours.

So Remember:
The climax and thrust of a passage in the first 6 books stands out in the middle and the supporting text flanks it on either side. A sandwich of meaning: the meat is in the middle.

If you’d like to understand it for yourself here’s the best book for that:

In my final tribute post, I’ll share about Dorsey’s most famous archeological discovery. It’s a great story!

Thinking Class: 1st session

(POSTER BELOW)

I look around at the wars of words, the polarizing gridlock that has shutdown the Federal government (as if that could truly happen) and listen to talking heads both liberal and non liberal spew illogical nonsense. But then I realize! Most of what I hear is illogical and most arguments are irrational.

Let me explain.

Most things people say are opinions and are therefore unreasonable (in the true sense of the word: “lacking reason”). Because opinions tend to be based on emotions or other arbitrary factors they lack logic. In two to four seconds on any cable news station you’ll hear it.

This situation becomes even more apparent as you learn Critical Thinking formally.

When I learned about critical thinking and logical fallacies in depth in graduate school, I thought, why didn’t they teach us how to think in high school or at least in liberal arts university? (I mean isn’t the whole point of education to help you to think better? Apparently not…Silly me.)

So, yes. We literally are not taught to think well. Usefully. Thoughtfully.

That’s because it turns out that teaching people how to think independently is wildly dangerous and threatening. (Crazy, right?!)

It can upset the balance of power. That means it’s considered far better to cultivate “sheep” that follow the herd directed by the powerful instead of helping people think well using critical methods. So, we have the predicament best epitomized on cable news. Screaming and hysteria and irrational arguments aplenty! The crazies are running everything it seems.

When we stop simply believing what we are told and follow a true logical format to discover main arguments or separate opinion from facts, it can cause…wait for it…thoughtful questioning. Empires have fallen for less than that!

Critical thinking is rare and utilizing it may necessitate that answers involve reason. Serious repercussions indeed!

Why would a school (or any group exerting power) purposefully put itself in a position to be knocked off its pins by newly rational thinkers? Well, they avoid that very thing. The point is to engender obedience and conformity: Teach people in a (factory-style) system that gets them to think how we want them to and agree with us, otherwise it’s anarchy, and we can’t have that!

(See why thinking well is so rare?)

Imagine: What if you think something out of sync with your club, church, political party, or social sphere? Look out. A bumper crop of fallacies will likely be lobed at you like poop grenades! You are SUPPOSED to keep in line. Gosh, duh…you are not accepted for your ability to think outside the expectations and presuppositions of your group. So, remember, if you plan to use critical thinking be prepared to be demonized.

The worst threat of all for anyone in power is to encourage independent thinking, let alone teach it. Learning logical fallacies can lead to innovation and change and much apple cart upsetting. It’s a threat to media outlets, propagandists, governments, authorities, parents, policemen, and nearly every institution.

Below is the first poster I designed to teach (critical) thinking. Stayed tuned for more coming in the next few days.

If you’d like more people to learn how to think better, pass it along.

It could help someone.

(click to enlarge)

Click here for an extensive list of fallacies.

To see the other posters I’ve done on fallacies, use the sidebar and search for “logical”

Answers to your Social Media Questions: Part II

Glenn Halog via Compfight

Tisha asks…

“I’ve noticed that my tweets don’t get passed on (“re-tweeted”). It’s frustrating because I want to share what I’m doing, but I can’t get the word out. What’s the best thing to do?”

Thanks Tisha. There are a few things you can do to get retweeted, but it’s important to remember how a lot of people view social media. Many users don’t like being “sold to”…That means continually putting out commercials about what you’re doing. Plenty of people build ongoing relationships through social media, and just like when a person goes to a party and then irritatingly only talks about himself, social media bulletins that are only announcements and promotions can get tiring too.

So, Vary what you post. and….
• Give good advice.

• Follow up with others who might be having a hard time.

• Offer to help

• or refer your followers to good information, pertinent news, and resources.

• And best of all retweet good stuff from others.

Don’t think because your aren’t always getting retweeted that you’ve failed. Add some humanity to your social media endeavors and hang in there for the long haul.

In truth, Retweeting isn’t as popular as when Twitter first began. Now, people are a bit more selective in what they pass on.

Jonathan asks…

“With the election climate heating up, I’m noticing a lot of people expressing their political views. Some are really heavy-handed. Rude, even hateful. I know who I want to win the election in November, and sometimes I see something I want to pass on, but I’m afraid of alienating my online friends or contacts…the relationships I’ve been building might get hurt by what I send out there. Where’s a good place to draw the line with politics and social media?”

Hi Jonathan.

I know exactly what you’re talking about. Last Presidential election I actually de-friended a few obnoxious political junkies who insist on spewing all their opinions while shutting down dialogue. They were just too thoughtless, and I felt like I had to do it for some peace. When Social Media turns into a shouting match it’s a big bummer.

Politics is one of those issues that get people all hot and bothered. Their deepest values and concerns may be wrapped up in the issues of the latest political topic, so it’s easy to understand why things get so hyped up. It’s tricky ground to be sure.

This is just my opinion but I think how you decided to voice your political leanings depends on why you use social media.

If it’s just a way to contact friends I think moderate conversation is fine, and maybe even worthwhile. It’s the tone and attitude of your postings that makes the greatest impact. Try to be prudent.

If, on the other hand, you use social media mainly for business, networking, or sharing your goods or services, you may want to refrain from making sweeping declarations or picking sides. You may event want to abstain for politics and polarizing issues all-together.

Contrary to popular notion, rhetoric doesn’t work to change minds.

Your opinion won’t mean much of anything outside of a relationship context that’s been developed properly in regular life.

Consider refraining especially if your audience is larger, and may not know you and your intent intimately. They come from different backgrounds and they’ve likely had differing experiences than you. What might seem normal to you can be foreign to them. Off-putting.

Instead of posting something off-putting in the heat of the election cycle, hold back and be judicious. Save your opinions for smaller or more private circles, unless the advantage is hugely in your favor to do otherwise. (And I can’t right now imagine what that circumstance would be.)

Thanks for the questions!

Hey readers…do you agree with my advice?
Share your hard-earned wisdom or any thoughts on the subject.

Click to read PART 1 of “Answers to your Social Media Questions“

Capacitarianism: Final Gender Post in Series

Post IV
“Capacitarianism” (Transcending the worn out terms “egalitarian” & “complementation”)

I’m drawing this proposal series on gender and the church to a final post. Well, final for now. (I’ll leave room for a sequel series, just in case…)

Plenty of other recognizable names will be shedding light on this topic in the weeks and months to come. Let’s hear if they have anything new to add.

Among all this discussion, I do realize not everybody will be encouraged to push toward a better understanding of gender as it relates to God’s plan of redemption. Plenty of times we talk, and we talk, but we don’t move our positions. We just dig in.

Though many times we learn too little, something much worse can happen too: Talk stays talk.

In the end, talk of men or of angels doesn’t about to anything but noise, if it cannot be a reality of love, enacted. Action, far more than arguments or dialogue is what transforms.

I have no doubts that these issues about equality, roles, church, gender, and what-have-you will be wrestled by laity, theologians, and debaters…ad nauseum. I hope it’s been clear that my point in these four posts was to cast the topic in a new light, and see if we could think bigger than our current terms afford us. Either way, like life, it is all fleeting…just as King Solomon proposed.

For now, I will leave you with these following 5 offerings below, (and I welcome your own additions, or other comments, in the comments section below).

The 5
As we encounter these gender-themed topics and the church; and as we continue dialogue here, or elsewhere, please take these 5 suggestions into consideration.

1. Don’t use the Bible as a weapon. A fine line will be crossed when we use Bible verses as “backing” for our position, and claim we are “being Biblical”, while at the same time cherry picking words and phrases that support what we’ve already been told, or are wont to personally believe.
The Brass Tacks are this: Interpretation of the Bible must well mirror the nature, attributes, and over plan of redemption that is God’s. One’s view on gender must articulate God’s Story.

…Some of you may say the Bible IS a weapon! Yes, the Bible is called the “Sword” of the Spirit, but first let that sharp thing pierce (convict) your own heart, or protect your heart from Evil. Please don’t go chopping away wildly and cut off ears, or other things…

2. Don’t assume or concede that just the two main positions are the only viable stances in contemporary times (i.e. egalitarian and complementation).

I, for one, will not be compliant to this tact, nor will I adopt either view fully as I dialogue, especially as a prerequisite to having a conversation on the topic.

3. Admit the “answer/s” about gender, and church roles, and how this plays out in typical Kingdom living are hard to find, not cut and dry. I don’t think we can learn from each other, or from God, if we have it all figured out.

4. Don’t let old and worn out terms and ideas corner you, or make you give up on what God has called you to do. God seems to call us to do things that swim upstream, and go against convention or tradition. Make the love of God, and devotion to God your aim.

5. Find common ground. As others have wisely said in the comments sections that egalitarians, complementarians, and the rest of us, (usually) want to please God, live for him, respect the Bible, and enact grace. If we take time to find common ground, we will realize there is much more the same, especially in our intentions, than we first realized.

The Word of God encourages us to live in harmony with each other, and have unity in the bond of peace. This is far harder to dispute than any gender-related position! If you error, do it on the Love (not division) side of things.

Peace to you.
-Lisa

PS (To read the other 3 posts on this topic, start here or here.) Your contributions to the topic are quite welcome.