yes, dave, this is less. at least for a couple of us. if not for you that is fine. there were some good comments made in this regard here:

comments

http://www.theooze.com/blog/2004_03_01_archive.html#107971811841631172

thanks, jason.

peace to you both.
--dan ( theyblinked at hotmail dot com ) on 4/9/2004; 8:13:20 PM

Dan Steigerwald:
>Ouch! Cynic or prophet, or
>a little of both I suppose?
>I feel your frustration, which
>I too share.

Hello Dan.

Thanks for your thoughts. I don't think of myself as either cynic or prophet. Mostly I think of myself as dad. This is what really drives me. My identity as father and the responsibility I feel to not leave my progeny with canned, homogenized answers and institutions that address questions and situations that seem less and less plausible.

Really I am not frustrated. I am quite happy, actually. This little hodge-podge of language should not be misconstrued as a desire to serve Molotov Cocktails at your next communion service. It is really just a reflection of my local reality. If it has no relevance to the Hague than certainly do not take any of this to be important. Then again, it may have a bit of relevance here or there and if so consider where and to what extent.


>But are the
>divisions so discrete as you
>make them?

I am very interested in your comment about discrete divisions. What would you say are the discrete divisions that I am making in this piece?


>You're suggesting a new way
>that disregards what's authentic
>in the old "order".

I hope not. Really, my hope was to communicate a bit of simplicity into the over-programmed lives of our religious corporations and challenge the notion that what it is to be spiritual is most appropriately engaged within the sanitized halls and often emasculating programs of our dominate institutions.


>Much must be
>cast away, but many people are
>just doing their best for Jesus
>in a confusing mish-mash of ideas
>and ideologies.

So true. Really, this piece is a reflection of some of what a few of us in our local area are casting away. To those who are just doing their best for Jesus, I salute you. Nevertheless, I will suggest, with my life and words, that there are other options.


>Don't knock 'em
>dead and dishonor what's real
>behind us. Honor what's good,
>point to the not-so-good and
>move on to a better future.
>Direct more of that righteous
>anger toward solutions, not
>toward hurting your own Body.


Death and dishonor are certainly not on my to-do list. I don't see this piece as particularly angry, but that is the beauty of differing perspective isn't it? I would be interested in hearing how you think these simple words might be construed to "hurt the Body."

Blessings.

Dan.
--dan ( theyblinked at hotmail dot com ) on 4/9/2004; 8:08:01 PM

Lee Underwood:
>I have to say I was not able to get far
>in your article before I was offended.
>You use the term "occupied Palestine".
>This should be offensive to any person
>who follows the God of Israel and His
>Son, Jesus


Well, Lee, what can I say? We disagree.



>First of all, "Palestine" did not come
>into existence until 70 A.D. after the
>Romans renamed the area (it never was
>a state) of Israel, and portions of
>current-day Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.
>It was named after Israel's enemies,
>the Philistines. To say Jesus lived
>in "Palestine" is historically inaccurate,
>aside from abominable. He lived in Israel.


Well, again, Lee, we disagree. I believe that using the language, "occupied Palestine" provocatively communicates the experience of marginalization known by Jesus and his people under Roman rule. That this marginalization seems also to, ironically, somewhat mirror the current political debacle in Israel is that much more reason to use such language from my perspective.

Describing a region as either Syria Palestina (Latin), Palestina [פלשתינה] or Eretz Yisrael [ארץ־ישראל] (Hebrew) or Filasteen [فلسطين] (Arabic) is to roughly speak synonymously of a particular set of geographical coordinates.

I agree that the identity-positions implied by our language are important. I simply do not agree that there is one "biblical" set of language which one must use--especially when it comes to such transient things as the language used to describe tribal and national boundaries as they morph over the millennia.

It may be very important for us to periodically use language that we are not accustomed to, that throws us off and causes us to reflect. I think that, as evidenced by some of the feedback I have received over its use, "occupied Palestine" has done this for us in this case.


>Secondly, to use the term "occupied
>Palestine" infers that the Jews of today
>do not have a right to the land of Israel,
>which is completely unscriptural.


Christians can disagree over such things, but your assessment of my language is simply wrong. My language implies nothing of the sort.



>It would help the writer make his originial
>point clearer if he would stick to the facts.
>If you do not think the land of Israel is
>important to God, consider this: there are
>more references to the regathering of the
>Jewish people to the land of Israel than
>there are to Messiah Jesus and His coming.


Facts are interpreted events, my friend.

Weighing importance by taking a textual poll, while a favorite homiletical device, does not carry the weight you would like to imply.

This article did not address Israel. That you made your comments about nothing other than a topic I did not address speaks to the axe you seem predisposed to grind, but does little in the way of extending the conversation around the issues brought up in this piece. I would be interested in any comments you have that address the content of the article.

Best regards.
--dan ( theyblinked at hotmail dot com ) on 4/9/2004; 7:39:30 PM

I have to say I was not able to get far in your article before I was offended. You use the term "occupied Palestine". This should be offensive to any person who follows the God of Israel and His Son, Jesus

First of all, "Palestine" did not come into existence until 70 A.D. after the Romans renamed the area (it never was a state) of Israel, and portions of current-day Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. It was named after Israel's enemies, the Philistines. To say Jesus lived in "Palestine" is historically inaccurate, aside from abominable. He lived in Israel.

Secondly, to use the term "occupied Palestine" infers that the Jews of today do not have a right to the land of Israel, which is completely unscriptural.

It would help the writer make his originial point clearer if he would stick to the facts. If you do not think the land of Israel is important to God, consider this: there are more references to the regathering of the Jewish people to the land of Israel than there are to Messiah Jesus and His coming.
--Lee Underwood ( leeu at cfl dot rr dot com ) on 4/8/2004; 3:09:12 PM

Ouch! Cynic or prophet, or a little of both I suppose? I feel your frustration, which I too share. But are the divisions so discrete as you make them? You're suggesting a new way that disregards what's authentic in the old "order". Much must be cast away, but many people are just doing their best for Jesus in a confusing mish-mash of ideas and ideologies. Don't knock 'em dead and dishonor what's real behind us. Honor what's good, point to the not-so-good and move on to a better future. Direct more of that righteous anger toward solutions, not toward hurting your own Body.
--Dan Steigerwald ( Dan at crossroadschurch dot nl ) on 4/8/2004; 12:15:08 PM

blah blah blah. This is less? "Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share "1Tim 6:18
--dave ( dlambert at fcwa dot org ) on 4/8/2004; 8:34:09 AM

viva la revolucion!
--jason ( hungaryjay at yahoo dot com ) on 4/6/2004; 10:51:08 PM