Kethuvim

It means "writings." I write things.

9:59 AM

Why I'm a pacifist - part 6

Posted by Brad Polley |

I'll now mercifully end this series of posts by talking about something that bugs me about Christians.  I can't tell you how many times I've heard Christians say something to this affect, "Until Jesus returns, there will be no peace."  Beside the fact that that phrase makes me want to release my breakfast to the wind, it is patently ridiculous and unChristian.  


This phrase is uttered for two reasons as I see it.  One, because it is a simple copout that sounds Christian on the outside, and so most people accept it blindly as a pretty good explanation for why wars happen.  Two, because peacemaking is incredibly difficult in this world, and it is much easier to throw in the towel and wait to die so you can receive your eternal reward.

If our attitude is that nothing is fixable and the whole world is a sack of crap, then it is no wonder that the Church is so weak and feeble in this country.  It's no wonder that people would rather sleep in on Sundays.  We talk about victory, but to say that no peace will come until Christ returns sounds an awful lot like defeatism to me.  It's essentially saying that the battle for peace is lost, let's let big daddy Jesus fix it in his time.  Isn't the Church to body of Christ?  This means that we're called to fix things, being endowed with the power of the Resurrection as we are.  We are Jesus to a destructive and lifeless world, when will the Church understand this?  

Here's another thing I don't understand; the Church in America has become so militant and violence-minded, but the predominant NT picture of Jesus is one of a lamb.  Is a lamb a military sign?  It doesn't exactly strike fear in the hearts of enemies does it?  The lamb is a symbol of peace, not war.  How many sports teams have a lamb as their mascot?  None.  How many countries have the lamb as their national symbol?  None.  Jesus is called the Lamb of God.  His followers are called to be lambs as well.  

I want to conclude this whole broken series of posts with a passage from 2 Corinthians 10:

"For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does.  The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of this world."

We are not called to fight with guns, bombs, and fists.  We're called to fight our enemies with a spoon and a cup (Read Romans 12).  I look forward to the day when the Church lays down its arms and embodies the spirit of the Lamb.     

comments (1)

9:14 AM

Why I'm a pacifist - part 5

Posted by Brad Polley |

Alright, I'm almost done polluting you with my hippie ideals of actually loving people.  The next two posts will be the last, and they will be primarily used to tie up some loose ends.  


I would like to spend some time talking about the divine image in everyone.  In the book of Genesis, it gives the account of creation.  It's (at least to me) a fascinating Hebrew poem describing the origin of life.  It says that when God creates people, he breathes into their nostrils and they become alive.  Ancient rabbis believed, in fact, that because of this, every time a person breathes, they say the name of God.  What all of this says to us is that every human being (Jew, Christian, Muslim, Taoist, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, etc.) carries with them the image of God.  We are told in Genesis that humans were made in the image of God.  We all carry with us part of God.  It's my belief that if people would truly internalize this and understand it, conflict would cease.  If you view every person as an image-bearer of God, then enemies fade away.  In the same way that you can't kill someone that you really love, you can't kill someone if you see them as bearing God's image.  At least you shouldn't be able to do that.  If you can, then it is my opinion that you are something less than the human you were created to be.  

What about WWII?  This is a question posed to me by my dad.  It's a fair question and a good one.  He was saying that because we were attacked on our soil, we had to do something about Japan and about Hitler.  My response to the question is this: we'll never know if anything else would have worked because we only pursued one course of action against Japan and Germany, and that was violence.  Because of this, we can't really answer this question fairly.  

It needs to be stated that we've lost our creativity and imagination in this country (and maybe the whole world).  When an enemy arises, instead of looking to God to find a peaceful and creative solution, we instead look to Toby Keith for the latest redneck anthem of why we should kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out, and we rename our french fries, "freedom fries." We're so steeped in violence that it seems like the only way to go.  That's why the issue of pacifism makes most people squirm.  It's a totally foreign concept to a world that is saturated with violence.  If you don't believe me, look at what happened when Obama announced that he would try diplomacy with countries like Iran and North Korea.  Republicans went berserk.  How can you be diplomatic with our enemies?  

Could a peaceful solution have been found to stop WWII from happening?  Who knows.  We'll never know because we never tried.  Maybe it's time to try something different.  All of our wars have failed to bring about real peace anyway.  

Here's another thing I don't understand.  Most of the pro-war Christians that I know are also militantly pro-life.  Does anyone else see a problem with that?  The claim of all pro-lifers (of which I'm one, but I need to explain my stance one of these days) is that God prizes every life.  So my question is this, does God only prize life until they leave the womb?  Countless people have been killed as "collateral damage" (that phrase makes me want to puke) in wars.  Does God not care about them?  Or is it just Americans who count (technically speaking, the policemen and firemen who died during 9/11 could be considered collateral damage as well because they weren't the primary targets)?  If you're going to be pro-life, then you can't be pro-war, because it takes away life.  This is a ridiculous inconsistency that no one seems to be pointing out.  Pro-life can't just mean fetuses, it has to count for all human beings.  The stance by most American Christians in this is the definition of hypocrisy.  

comments (3)

12:28 PM

John Lennon, where have you been my whole life?

Posted by Brad Polley |

Well, he's been dead for nearly all of it, but that's beside the point.

I recently purchased the John Lennon album "Plastic Ono Band" and, after about five minutes, punched myself in the face for not purchasing it years ago.  I have to admit, I'm a fairly pedestrian Beatles fan.  I happen to think they're okay, but not great.  They remind me of a bit of Nirvana in that if they would have come onto the scene a year later than they did, no one would have cared. They were a product of the right time and the right sound for the time.  That having been said, they wrote some pretty stellar songs such as, "Norwegian Wood," "Eleanor Rigby," and "Come Together."  I've given this some thought, and I will now rank the most talented Beatles in order from greatest to Ringo.

1. John - Seriously, buy "Plastic Ono Band" and "Imagine" and prove me wrong.
2. George - "All Things Must Pass" is incredible and I almost put him ahead of John.
3. Paul - He may be the most popular and well-known Beatle, but the most talented he is not...and his whole persona bugs the crap out of me.
4. Santa Claus - I hate Christmas music, but it's still better than Ringo.
5. The organ-grinder cymbal monkey on the street corner - Still better than Ringo, and cuter too.
6. That kid with Downs-Syndrome from "My So Called Life." - Anything he would write would be better than "Octopus's Garden."
7.  Ringo - I've heard people claim that he was more talented than some think.  My response?  Um, listen to "Yellow Submarine" or "Octopus's Garden," retract your statement, and then go and stick your head in a vat of earwigs until they have cleansed your auditory synapses, therefore giving you the ability to reason good music from bad.

I've posted a poll on the sidebar to definitively determine the best Beatle once and for all.  Give me your input.

comments (3)

7:17 AM

When did I start taking drugs?

Posted by Brad Polley |

Until last night, the weirdest dream I had ever had was in high school.  I was flying on an airplane, but the airplane was shaped like a cat, and the flight attendants were mice.  Pretty weird stuff, and one of those dreams where you wake up laughing.  Last night was different however.


In my dream, my wife was pregnant again.  Ok, pretty standard dream considering she's been pregnant for the better part of two years.  Here's where the dream becomes anything but standard.  She started giving birth to the kids, but she was giving birth to them by half-squatting like a penguin.  So she gives birth to two kids in this manner, then she lays an egg.  This is a pretty good sized egg, and when the egg opens, out pops a Panda.  Then she gives birth to another Panda, followed by another egg which produces another Panda, then another Panda.  So if you're keeping score, that's two kids and four Pandas.  The rest of the dream consisted of me freaking out about vacation and trying to figure out how we were going to get our eight "kids" to Tennessee for vacation.  I also remember saying, "There's a show called Jon and Kate, plus eight on TLC, what about Brad and Mandy plus eight?  When are we going to get our show?"

I woke up an hour before my alarm went off in a cold sweat and couldn't get back to sleep.  I'm happy to report that, as of this morning, Mandy is not pregnant and we still only have two kids at home.  I've yet to find a Panda in the house.  I was also unaware that Pizza Hut was now putting LSD in their pizza sauce, but apparently they do.  This is the only way I can explain my restless night of Panda nightmares.

comments (1)

11:55 AM

Why I'm a pacifist - part 4

Posted by Brad Polley |

So how did the early followers of Christ respond to his words following his resurrection and ascension to heaven?  One thing is for certain, any reading of the NT will show that the early Church took very seriously the idea that they were Christ's body on earth.  Imbued with his Spirit, they sought to live out the words he taught and the way he lived, full of love, peace, and compassion.  In today's Church, I find very few Christians who truly understand how literal the writers of the NT were when they referred to the Church as the body of Christ.  It seems to me (and I've been in the Church my entire life) that the Church sees this idea as nothing more than a fuzzy notion.  However, the implications of the Church being Jesus' body on earth are huge.  If we are his body (representatives, hands and feet, etc.), then it is imperative that we seek to live out his teachings and his way of life in order to finish his work of rescuing the world.  This isn't just a nice, clean, and fuzzy idea, but a concrete reality that we must take as seriously as the first Christ followers.  So what did they have to say along the lines of pacifism?


"Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse." - Here again, we must enter into some history.  In our day and age, we don't take blessings and curses all that seriously.  The ancient world was a whole different ball game.  We throw horrible words and phrases around like, "I hate you" and "You suck," and, many times, don't really mean them at all.  In ancient times, a blessing was something you conferred on someone that set the pattern of their lives.  These were words that people believed God participated in.  So if you said to someone, "May your life and home be prosperous," it was assumed that God heard you and made this happen.  Curses worked the same way, but with opposite results.  To heap a curse on someone was to wish them the worst kind of life.  It was to heap bad things upon them and their household.  So when Paul (the dude who apparently wrote this letter) tells the Church to bless those who persecute them, he was definitely setting up a new way of living.  He was telling Christians to turn the tables on people who hated them by invoking a blessing on their lives and wishing them well.  Once again, this doesn't work in a war theology  You can't wish someone well and then blow them up or splatter their brains across the desert.  It just doesn't work that way.

"Do not repay anyone evil for evil.  Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone.  If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.  Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord.  On the contrary: 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.  In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.'  Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." - I was tempted to just let that passage speak for itself, but alas, the preacher in me just can't do that.  Paul says that "as far as it depends on us," live at peace with one another.  This means that we can't control the actions of other people, but we can control our own actions.  He calls us to fight with unconventional weapons.  He says that we are to fight with a spoon and a canteen.  If our enemies are hungry, we're supposed to feed them, if they're thirsty, we're supposed to give them something to drink.  So how do win a fight?  By not fighting at all.  On the surface, this looks like nothing more than laying down and losing, but it isn't.  It's winning through aggressive service to the ones who hate us the most.  How do you beat an idea?  With a better idea.

"Love is patient, love is kind.  It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.  It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.  Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.  Love never fails." - On the surface, it doesn't look like passage has anything to do with war and violence, but I ask this question: how can you fit blowing someone up into this passage?  If we're called to love our enemies, then this passage takes on a whole new revolutionary meaning.  Love always wins.  

"God is love.  Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.  This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus.  There is no fear in love.  But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment.  The one who fears is not made perfect in love." - Love is made complete when we live like Jesus here and now.  Jesus didn't fight back, if we are going to live like him, we can't either.  The reality is that fear is the root of all war.  We fear that something is going to happen if we don't act, so we lash out in violence.  The writer makes it very clear that fear and love are incongruous.  If we love our enemies, we don't fear anything they can do to us.  Jesus rising from the grave was a way of saying, "Now what?  You killed me, now what are you going to do?"  The worst thing that anyone can do to us is kill us.  But then what can they do?  Nothing.  They can't touch the soul.  

These are just a few examples of how the Church responded to the brutal Roman Empire in the first century.  There are many more examples, and I encourage you to look them up.  The next post will focus on what pacifism means and what it looks like.  We'll also talk about what author Shane Claiborne calls the prophetic imagination.  

   

comments (0)

8:00 AM

Why I'm a pacifist - part 3

Posted by Brad Polley |

In my mind, Jesus' words singlehandedly prove that his followers should be pacifists.  Regardless of any argument for war made by using the OT, it seems to me that the words of the person by who's name we are called should take precedence.  If we are going to be called Christ-ians, then his words should be of utmost importance to us.  So let's look at just a few examples of what Jesus has to say.


"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." - How can we be peacemakers and condone violence?  And don't try and use the argument that war brings about peace.  If that was true, then there wouldn't have been a WWII.  WWI would have worked and true peace would have been achieved.  More on this in a minute.

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for an eye, and tooth for tooth.'  But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.  If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."- The OT law stated that it was legal to take an eye for an eye, etc.  The thing about this law was that it was designed to be prohibitive.  It was set up so that if someone stole your goat, you couldn't cut their head off.  However, this is all made irrelevant by Jesus' words.  He's essentially telling us not to seek vengeance.  This passage about turning the other cheek is one that has caused great debate among Christians for years in this country.  I've heard on a number of occasions someone say that he didn't really mean it literally.  Let me tell you why he meant it literally.

In Jesus' final hours, there are a number of different incidents which show Jesus' seriousness on this point.  When Jesus is being arrested, one of his followers draws a sword and lops off the ear of one of Jesus' captors.  Jesus' says this to his follower, "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.  Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?"  Jesus' point of living by the sword and dying by it is another way of saying that violence only begets more violence.  The idea that violence can bring about true and lasting peace is ridiculous.  Look at history and the fact that a war has been going on since the beginning of time (and yes, some of those in the name of Jesus himself).  So my question is, where's all of the peace?  If violence and war achieved peace, why does there seem to be so little peace in the world?  The word "legions" in that passage also lends itself to a pacifistic ideal.  The legion was a unit of Roman soldiers.  He is saying that he could very well use violent and military means to save himself, but he refused. 

After Jesus is arrested, he sits before the ruling counsel and listens while they bring all sorts of false accusations against him.  The text says that they were mocking him, spitting on him, striking him with their fists, and slapping him.  Jesus' reaction?  Nothing.   

I've thought a great deal about what would happen were my kids to get beat up at school when they are older.  The reality is that Jesus wouldn't fight back with conventional violent means.  If I'm going to raise my kids in the ways of Jesus, I have to tell them to not fight back and to turn the other cheek.  It doesn't thrill me to think of my boys getting the crap beat out of them, but Jesus' way of life is the better way, and I must trust that he will take care of them.  

"You have heard that was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'  But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven." - This is the final nail in the coffin of this argument.  No one can truly love someone (in the unconditional way that Jesus proposes) and hit them, beat them, or kill them.  If that is possible than we also have to say that a father who physically abuses his children does it because he loves them deeply.  No one in their right mind would claim that, so why the double standard among Christ followers?  You absolutely cannot kill someone that you love, there's no way to justify that.  

The reality is that Jesus calls his followers to a new plane of living; one that looks like utter foolishness to the world.  When the world uses force, we use the power of love and prayer.  When the world comes at us with the sword, we come back at it with the cross.  That is the way of Jesus, and it must be the way of his followers. 

comments (1)

11:52 AM

Great video

Posted by Brad Polley |

If anyone ever wonders what makes this country great, watch this video.  It may be one of the funniest, and most bizarre, videos I have ever seen.


comments (0)

8:16 AM

Why I'm a pacifist - part 2

Posted by Brad Polley |

Inevitably when someone is defending a pro-war stance biblically, they immediately go to the Old Testament stories of Israel attacking everyone in sight.  They do this for two reasons: 1)It's easy, because the OT is full of wars and, 2)You can't even begin to make a convincing argument for war and violence based on the NT, so they avoid it.  


The OT is full of war.  Anyone has to concede that.  In fact, I still haven't completely reconciled all of the violence and how it fits in with the picture of God we receive from Jesus.  The OT is the written history of one country, Israel.  Despite the best efforts of the religious right to convince people, America is not the new Israel, so let's stop using that argument right there.  There is nothing in Scripture to support this idea.  I say this because all of the wars were fought in a particular time and place, with a particular country, Israel.  So when an American tries to use an argument along the lines of, "God told the Israelites to attack the Canaanites," I will look at them with glassy eyes and say, "And your point is...?"  

The OT was written thousands of years ago and it chronicles the life and history of people who lived thousands of years ago.  The culture was different, the people were different.  The entire nature of civilizations at the time was one of war and violence.  If God is trying to get people to understand the fact that he is the only God, he can't just come out and say, "Cease all war and violence" to a culture who is steeped in war and violence.  They would immediately reject him and we can wave bye bye to monotheism.  The Bible speaks of progressive revelation.  Here's what I mean by that.

On a number of issues, the Bible works from front to back in a progressive series of steps which lead toward an ultimate social (and godly) ethic.  To give an example, let's look at women's issues.  In the OT, there is a passage which states that women can be taken as spoils of war, but they must be treated fairly and with respect.  In our day and age, that sounds totally barbaric, but in ancient times, this was nothing short of revolutionary.  It was saying that women had certain rights, something that wasn't the case in ancient cultures.  Jesus continued working toward a broader social ethic of women being treated as equals when he had women followers of his ministry, we call these followers "disciples."  In first century Judaism, rabbis did not have women followers, Jesus (who was a Jewish rabbi) did.  The rest of the NT speaks of women having leadership roles in the Church, leading house churches.  Paul then says that in Christ, "there is no male or female," in other words, we're all equal.    

Did you notice the progression?  Instead of going from a barbaric custom straight to having a woman president, the Bible works toward the ultimate goal of equality in a series of steps.  I argue that the same applies to war and violence.  The OT may be full of violence and war, but there is no mention of God's people engaging in it in the NT.  If we are to call ourselves "New Testament Christians," then we have to refrain from violence and be against all war.  Next week we'll look at what Jesus and the New Testament writers have to say to their culture (and by application, ours) about violence.

comments (0)

11:16 AM

Hey Mississippi...

Posted by Brad Polley |

1968 called and it wants its society back.


Read this article about a high school in Mississippi that had its first integrated prom with blacks and whites this year.  You read that right.  For the first time, black and white kids were able to go to prom in the same building at the same time.  Congratulations Mississippi on this giant leap in civil rights...maybe 40 years late though.

comments (0)

2:15 PM

Why I'm a pacifist - part 1

Posted by Brad Polley |

Per Michael's request, I'm going to write a series of posts on why I'm a pacifist.  I have no idea how many posts this series will entail.  I understand how polarizing this issue is, but I feel the need to say what I think, and given the fact that the internet is the last great bastion of free speech, I will exercise my right.  If you're offended by what I say, I refuse to apologize.  No one in church apologizes to me when they spew out their pro-war rhetoric, so I will not apologize for my opposing stance.  If you don't like what I have to say, then just stop reading.  So without further ado, here's a completely non-academic view of why Jesus is calling his people out of a violent mindset.


I must say that I wasn't raised a pacifist.  I didn't spend my childhood days sitting in drum circles with adults, taking in the faint smell of peyote in the air.  I grew up in a fully Christian (whatever that means), ultra right-wing Republican home (thanks to W, that home is not so Republican anymore).  Politics wasn't discussed much in my home, but I do have very vivid memories of the beginning of the Gulf War.  I remember sitting the home of my aunt and uncle on Sunday night after church and talking about the war with them.  My uncle said, "We're kicking butt and taking names."  I remember feeling a huge swell of patriotic pride at those words and thinking, "Yeah, darn right.  Don't mess with the U.S.A."  In fact, I would say that this swell of pride marked the first 25-ish years of my existence.  When a war would come along, I would get this sense of America being the world's police force for good.  I never once remember questioning why a war was being fought, or whether there was another way, I just accepted that if the President of the United States saw fit to annihilate a bunch of people, then there was probably a good (and Christian) reason for doing so.  

When 9/11 happened, I was a senior in college and I remember sitting on the couch in my house watching the news and balling my eyes out.  I remember my dad calling to ask if I was okay, and I remember sobbing that I was scared.  I didn't know what to do with evil that huge (I've since realized that this kind of crap happens all over the world on a fairly regular basis, but no one in America cares unless it affects us).  When we invaded Afghanistan I remember feeling that familiar sense of pride.  I remember seeing footage of the bombers and thinking, "It's okay now Brad, everything is going to be alright."  Something had to be done as a response to 9/11, so I just figured that blowing up people who were indirectly responsible for blowing up our people seemed reasonable.

A shift began taking place when we invaded Iraq however.  Shortly after the invasion, it became clear that our reason for going to war (WMDs) was faulty and stuff started sliding downhill quickly.  I started wondering if we really had a good reason to invade, or whether there was such a thing as a good reason to invade a country.  Afghanistan was one thing, but this was another.  That was retaliation, Iraq couldn't be pigeon-holed so easily.  This is where I became less pro-war and more of a believer in just war.  My thinking shifted from war for any reason to war for some reason.  In my mind, there needed to be a perfectly good reason for attacking a country (Pearl Harbor and 9/11 for instance), before we proceeded to do so.  

My next shift occurred when when I started studying the culture behind the Bible's writings.  I started realizing that the Bible wasn't written for me, it was written for a particular people in a particular time and place.  This changed everything.  I stopped reading the Bible from a 21st century American perspective and started reading it from the perspective of the ancients in which it was originally penned.  Stuff like "Blessed are the peacemakers" started making more sense when I realized that Jesus was speaking to poor peasants living under the brutal and violent Roman Empire.  I started reading the sayings of Jesus in a whole different light.  I will write more on this in a later post.  

Long story short, I want all of you to know that my change in thinking was a long process.  As you will see in coming posts, I find a pro-war mindset very difficult to justify using the New Testament.  I do, however, understand the desire to justify it using the Old Testament.  In the next post, I will take a look at the Old Testament versus the New and how the Christian is to reconcile the two.  

comments (1)

1:28 PM

Quiz Question Number 1

Posted by Brad Polley |

So how can you love your enemy and blow them up at the same time?  Hmmmm.  It seems that you would have to do some pretty fancy biblical exegesis to get around that one...or you could just ignore it like a vast majority of American Christians.

comments (1)

8:12 AM

Finally

Posted by Brad Polley |

Congratulations Obama on winning the nomination.  


So how long before we hear the argument that he's really a Muslim?  Let the racism begin.

comments (1)

7:40 AM

Pictures of my boys

Posted by Brad Polley |

I promised some pictures of my boys, so here you are.  First, Ezra:










Now, a picture of Abram:













Ok, just kidding.  But seriously, if he continues growing at his present rate, we're changing his name to Siddhartha and moving to India. 










To say that I'm fortunate would be an understatement.  Two beautiful boys.

comments (2)

2:20 PM

Culpability

Posted by Brad Polley |

I was watching a video clip of Bill O'Reilly today (I'm not sure why, because he's an idiot) and he was talking about the YouTube video of those girls beating up that other girl, and then he was talking about the recent pictures of the polygamist poster-boy Warren Jeffs kissing young girls. He was having a debate with someone over whether or not we should watch or look at these things, or whether we should just ignore them.  As he's wont to do, he disagreed with the person, and then totally flip-flopped his view once the other guy handed his butt to him in the argument (this, however, is not the point of this post).  


O'Reilly said something that just made me want to shout, "No!  You've missed the point!"  He said, "The Internet's not going to police itself, it's simply not going to do it.  They're going to exploit every crack in the society they can."  Did you notice what he did there?  He referred to the internet like it was its own physical entity.  This may not seem like a big deal, but it is.  It's a very subtle wording, yet it's loaded with meaning.  

What he just did was take any responsibility away from people, and put it onto a network of information that makes its way onto computer screens.  If I watch something on the internet that contributes to my downfall or the downfall of society (like porn for instance), that isn't the fault of an interconnected series of wires which transmit information onto my computer screen. The internet itself can not bear any responsibility for anyone's downfall or the downfall of society, because wires and information don't have a soul or the ability to make decisions.  They are slaves to a person that tells them what to transmit.  

The line of reasoning O'Reilly used there (in all fairness, probably unknowingly) was on par with a drug addict that blames the needle for his addiction, or the person who commits murder and says, "The devil made me do it," as if that somehow exonerates then.  It's all garbage.  We are the only ones who bear responsibility for our actions, no one else.  To me, it seems that this line of thinking is actually what's damaging our society.  No one takes responsibility for their actions.  We're becoming a culture of people who want all praise, and no responsibility for our failings.  This is dangerous because it just leads to endless finger-pointing without any solutions.  Only when a failure is admitted to can it be remedied.  Without an admission of guilt and responsibility, we live in a never-ending cycle of blame, in which the problems that face society never get fixed.  A society with all problems and no solutions seems to be doomed.           

comments (2)

8:28 AM

Adventures in being jaded

Posted by Brad Polley |

I know that we see a lot of change in our lifetime.  I know that we've been inundated with information and new technology to the point where we're numb to it, but seriously, we landed a rover on FREAKING MARS!  The thing I find incredible is that pretty much no one is talking about it.  There's a story here and there about it, but it isn't even front page news.  


It seems to me that a culture who can't see the wonder of landing something on the surface of Mars, and having it send pictures back to earth, is doomed.  Really, it's okay to be amazed by stuff, you have my permission.  

Jesus gave a warning about this when he said, "Unless you become like little children, you will never see the Kingdom of God."  This passage is loaded with meaning.  One of the aspects of children is that they have an incredible sense of wonder.  All I have to do is watch my boys for a minute and I see it.  Ezra will hold up a seemingly useless object with a "dude, look at THIS" look on his face.  That's wonder.  These words of Jesus have nothing to do with going to heaven of hell.  What he's saying is that until we see like little children, we'll never see where he's moving and working.  In a modern day context it may sound like this, "If you can't see the wonder of landing something on the surface of Mars, you'll never see where God is working in this world."  

I'm reminded of a favorite worship song of mine which has these words:
O God, give us new eyes to see
Give us new skin to feel
Give us new lungs to breathe the wonder underneath

The New Testament speaks extensively of Christians being a "new creation."  This means completely new; new eyes, new skin, new lungs to breathe, everything renewed in Christ. Maybe Jesus had this in mind when he told a man that he needed to be "born again." 

comments (1)

9:21 AM

Naked

Posted by Brad Polley |

The Bible can be tricky.  The thing about it is that there's almost always something more going on below the surface.  Here's an example.  In the book of Genesis (Hebrew meaning, "in the beginning") we read the story of our world's origins and the origins of the first cognizant humans. The text calls these people Adam (from the Hebrew "adama" meaning "earth" or "dirt") and Eve (which in Hebrew means, "living").  These two are born into a land of perfection, a land of sunshine and farts, as I'm fond of saying.  God lays everything at their feet and says, "It's good, take it."  The only prohibition he gives them is to refrain from eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  He kind of hints that if they eat from that tree, things will go downhill pretty quick.  Of course they decide to eat it, because hey, don't we always like to do the one thing we aren't supposed to do? 


Here's the thing I find fascinating.  The text says that Adam and Eve are naked and they don't care.  It literally says that they aren't ashamed.  Think about that for a minute.  Can you imagine what it would be like for everyone to be walking around naked.  I don't even like being naked in front of a mirror, mainly because I'm afraid that the dashingly handsome man looking back at me might start hitting on me.  This whole thing is why our first sexual encounters are so awkward, weird, and, to use a charming phrase, "clunky."  We generally don't like to be naked in front of people.  

The text then says that after they ate of this fruit, their eyes were opened and they immediately realized they were naked.  We then read of the saddest words in the entire Bible; God asks them, "Where are you."  Here's where if you study the Hebrew approach to Scripture (and not the Greek way like we approach it), you see that there's so much more going on here. 

When you're naked, you're vulnerable.  Everything is laid out there for everyone to see.  Far from this text speaking of only a lack of clothes, it's deeper meaning is speaking of our desire (and now lack of desire) to be vulnerable and authentic.  There's nothing to hide when you're naked, but we hide things all the time, and not just with our Fruit of the Looms and Abercrombie crap.  We hide things all the time.  We have secrets that we refuse to expose for fear that someone might see the real us.  We all have a past, and very few people may know of it and how it continues to affect us.  

The whole point of Christianity and all of this Kingdom of God stuff that Jesus spoke of, is to return the world to Eden before humans screwed it all up.  We are living in a giant cycle, which you can see in the story of the Bible.  The story begins in a garden, Jesus is mistaken for the gardener near his tomb, and at the end of Revelation, everything ends in a beautiful paradise where the world is put to rights.  This is significant for this discussion because it tells us that we called back to nakedness.  In the world as God desires, we are called to be naked before him and before one another.  This means that secrets and blemishes are a thing of the past.  The question, "Where are you?" is to be answered by each one of us with a resounding, "Here I am, warts and all.  This is who I am, accept me for what I am."  

Jesus calls his followers to be naked.  Read the stories in the New Testament of the early Church.  Talk about a group of people who were naked!  They were constantly called upon to care for one another and be transparent with one another.  The call remains today.  So...who's tired of all this clothing?   

comments (0)

11:45 AM

This looks terrifying

Posted by Brad Polley |

Alcohol had to be involved with this in some way.



Enjoy.

comments (4)

10:00 AM

My boys

Posted by Brad Polley |

I haven't written about my kids in awhile, so I thought I would give an update.  So here's an update on each kid individually.


Ezra - He doesn't stop talking...ever.  This is a good thing, unless you're looking for a spare three seconds of silence, in which case, you're floating up Poop Creek without a paddle (where is Poop Creek anyway?  Probably in Mississippi.)  Having him around is like having a painfully adorable parrot around the house.  You really have to watch what you say around him, luckily IU basketball season isn't starting again until the fall.  

He has the cutest little voice and he does some pretty adorable things as well.  Every day when I get home from work, he runs down the hallway, hugs my legs, then looks up at me with his arms outstretched and says, "Hold you."  How can I resist that?  He's starting to articulate things better, which is good from a developmental standpoint, but bittersweet because it isn't as cute.  For instance, he used to call monkeys "monk-mees," which, anyone would agree, is adorable.  Now he calls them "montees."  Not quite as cute.  

He loves his little brother, affectionately known as, "beebee Ebroom."  He loves him so much, however, we can't keep him out of his face, which poses a bit of problem when it comes to sharing germs (Abram has already inherited a cold from his big brother).  

In closing, he's pretty much the cutest kid ever.

Abram - Huge.  Fat.  Adorable.  Gassy.  That kid farts louder than I do.  He likes to lay on his stomach, which is apparently equivalent to Gas-X.  He smiled at me this morning, which was a first.  It made my day.  

He spends his day eating, crying because he can't poop, eating, sleeping, eating, and eating. Seriously, my wife can't take much more of this.  She feels like a dairy cow, as you can imagine. 

In closing, I'm lucky.  I have two beautiful kids.  I'll post some pictures as soon as I can find the USB cord for my camera.   

comments (2)

9:15 AM

Umm...Hillary...

Posted by Brad Polley |

It's over.  It's been over for a long time.  I know that your last name is Clinton so you feel you're entitled to a victory, but...yeah...it's been over for about two months now.  I'm sorry to break this news to you, but the only way you're getting into the White House is if you're invited for dinner.  


Sincerely,
America

comments (2)

7:28 AM

The best ten minutes you will spend today

Posted by Brad Polley |

This video is a forklift training video from Germany.  


Absurd.  Ridiculous.  Hilarious.


comments (0)

9:47 AM

Nostalgia

Posted by Brad Polley |

I had a weird thing happen to me this morning.  I was taking my youngest to the doctor and there was a traffic back-up on the main highway.  I decided to take some side streets through the town where I grew up and I ended up driving by my old elementary school (which is now a mall...as old elementary schools tend to be).  I drove around the back of it on some roads where I hadn't traveled in years.  As I drove, I had this flood of nostalgic emotion.  I actually almost cried.  I was telling my wife about it while we drove and she said she gets the same way when she goes to her old elementary school.  We then had a discussion about why that happens.  We basically landed on the fact that it makes us think of simpler times when we had no responsibility or care about anything.  All of this got me thinking about nostalgia and how dangerous it can be.


Nostalgia is really just an illusion.  I'll hear older people talk about "the good old days" (which is usually the 40s or 50s) and you get the impression that everything was sunshine and farts for everyone involved in those time periods.  But let's dissect this and look at it a little bit.  Would the 40s have been all that good if you were Japanese and were wrongly imprisoned in internment camps during the war?  Would the 40s and 50s have been good if you were black? What if you a woman and couldn't vote, would you consider those times to be good?  Probably not.  Even my own experience of longing for the elementary school days carries with it some danger.  Just because my early school experience was good doesn't mean it was good for everyone.  What about the young child who is molested, or the kid who is constantly picked on?It certainly isn't good for them.  One of the dangers of nostalgia is that it can cause to forget about those who are hurting and it can give us a very near-sighted view of life.  "If it was good for me, then it must have been good for everyone else," is dangerous because it anesthetizes us to people's problems, which causes us to become completely ineffective to help anyone.  You can't help someone that you can't relate to.

The second danger of nostalgia is that it can paralyze us and cause us to miss life today.  The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a perfect example.  God destroys these two cities (and not because they were so overtly gay either, read Ezekiel 16:49), but before he does, he tells Lot and his family to leave and not turn back.  Lot's wife turns back and the text says that she became a pillar of salt.  When we long for the good old days, we are, in turn, saying that these days aren't good...or at least not as good as "those days."  If we're constantly looking backward, we become a pillar of salt.  We're paralyzed by our inability to see today as something with the potential to be good.  There's nothing wrong with remembering fond memories, but don't dwell on them.  There's life to be lived right now.       

comments (2)

8:15 AM

Bite Back

Posted by Brad Polley |

Hey everyone.  April 25 is world malaria day (sounds nice doesn't it?).  I don't usually spend time stumping for causes on my blog, but this is a good one, and one that is close to my heart after spending time in Haiti.  I don't know how aware you are of the malaria problem in this world, but let me give you some statistics.  


It's caused by mosquito bites
350-500 million cases of malaria each year
Malaria causes 20% of all childhood deaths in sub-Saharan Afr
ica
90% of all malaria deaths occur in Africa - nearly 1 million people a year
Malaria kills 3,000 children every day

And the worst part?  It's totally preventable.  $10 will provide a mosquito net to put over a bed. It also provides education on prevention and medicine.  I believe it is the duty of Christians to eradicate problems like this.  This one is easy to eradicate.  Go to http://biteback.net and make a donation to this cause.  If you're reading this and you have a youth group, get them involved and do a fundraiser.  I'm doing one this summer.

This is close to my heart.  When I was in Haiti we were helping 
with a nutrition clinic, and a bunch of children came up to us, raised their arms and wanted us to hold them.  One little girl came to me and climbed onto my lap.  I knew something was wrong immediately because she didn't seem to have any energy like the other kids.  She wouldn't smile.  She eventually fell asleep on my chest.  One of the guys on the trip was a medical student and he came by and immediately took her to the medical clinic.  She was diagnosed with malaria.  The doctors said that if she would have waited another few days, she would be dead.  Here's a picture of her.
This the face of malaria.  Please donate.
  

comments (0)

1:53 PM

Only in America

Posted by Brad Polley |

No seriously, I can't think of another country where someone would do this.  Is it possible that a video about a horse could make all of the founding fathers simultaneously turn over in their graves?  Yes, yes it is.  



Oh, and here's a picture of my face as I watched it.

I can't even begin to relate to you the number of questions that that video begs in my mind.

comments (2)

10:06 AM

This is wrong

Posted by Brad Polley |

America spends $250 million a day on the war in Iraq, and people in Haiti are starving to death because they can't afford food.  If you haven't seen the news reports, let me fill you in.  


Food costs in Haiti have risen 50% over the last year.  The average Haitian makes around 50 gourdes a day (which is less than one U.S. dollar).  People are rioting and looting (as I'm sure you would were you starving to death) and asking their government for change.  Their government is powerless, because they don't have any money either.  People are staving off their hunger by eating mud cakes, and yes, they are exactly what you think they are.  And our country is doing nothing.

The next time I hear someone say that America is a Christian nation, I'm going to puke.  If I had the money, I would buy plane tickets to Port-au-prince for the people who make this claim, so that they could have their minds changed about just how "Christian" America really is.  If you study Haiti's history at all, you would see very quickly that the U.S. is one of the biggest reasons why Haiti is a mess.  No Christian nation would spend that much money on violence while people around the world starve to death.  

comments (0)

3:16 PM

For unto us a fatty is born

Posted by Brad Polley |

At 10:24 AM on April 7, 2008 in the year of our Lord, Abram Michael Polley was ripped from my wife's womb with extreme prejudice.  He was none-too-happy about this fact.  Delivered by Caesarean Section, he came out with a giant, round head.  In the words of one of the nurses who took his vital signs, "That's one of the bigger heads I've seen in awhile."  Thanks for making me confident that my kid is a freak.  Actually, he's absolutely adorable, but don't take my word for it, here are some pictures.In case you're wondering, in the first picture, that is, in fact, my wife's open thorax.  Look at the cranium on that freak!  The second picture is the first time he opened his eyes.  


For those of you keeping score at home, he weighed in at 9 pounds, 9 ounces, and was 21 inches long.  His head circumference is somewhere in the neighborhood of planetary.  It has it's own orbit and gravitational pull.  Quite impressive.  

comments (6)

2:42 PM

Dear Skeptic

Posted by Brad Polley |

I am one of you.  A pastor?  Yes.  A skeptic also?  Yes.  I have my doubts just like you do.  I look at religious people (including myself from time to time) and cringe because of the hypocrisy, the violence masked as love and peace, and the intolerance masked as zeal just like you do.  You're not alone.  The Church is full of skeptics.  "What about the people who seem so certain?" you ask. Sometimes they are the biggest skeptics of them all, but they aren't comfortable in their own skin, so they create a new (and false) skin to protect themselves.  


I don't blame you for not wanting to follow Jesus.  What you see on television, the big hair, the ridiculous promises of wealth, the violence, the fake smiles, gives you a good reason not to follow.  I must caution you, however, that what you see on television isn't reality.  It isn't the truth.  Find the truth for yourself.  Don't let the messengers ruin the message.

Has religion led to unthinkable horrors?  Yes, but it has also led to many good things.  Without religion, the civil rights movement would never have happened.  Without religion, the Jewish people might still be enslaved in Egypt.  Without religion, slavery would not have been abolished in England.  I cannot apologize for my brothers and sisters throughout history that have portrayed the wrong message, all I can do is try my best to be better than the message they have portrayed.  I leave you with the words of Francis S. Collins, a world-renowned scientist and believer in God:

"The church is made up of fallen people.  The pure, clean water of spiritual truth is placed in rusty containers, and the subsequent failings of the church down through the centuries should not be projected onto the faith itself, as if he water had been the problem.  

Would you condemn an oak tree because its timbers had been used to build battering rams? Would you blame the air for allowing lies to be transmitted through it?  Would you judge Mozart's "The Magic Flute" on the basis of a poorly rehearsed performance by fifth-graders? If you had never seen a real sunset over the Pacific, would you allow a tourist brochure as a substitute?  Would you evaluate the power of romantic love solely in the light of an abusive marriage next door?  

No.  A real evaluation of the truth of faith depends upon looking at the clean, pure water, not at the rusty containers."

Signed,
A Rusty Container

comments (0)

1:34 PM

Those dirty wombats

Posted by Brad Polley |

I'm not sure I've ever seen a stranger story that this one right here.  I'm speechless.

comments (0)

9:49 AM

The good news

Posted by Brad Polley |

My whole life, I assumed that the gospel, or good news (Greek: evangelion) was that Jesus died for my sins, and was raised after three days.  I remember having a hard time grasping how that was good news and what exactly that good news meant for my life.  Here's the thing: Jesus dying on the cross and raising again isn't the gospel.  Every time I hear someone preach that the good news of Jesus is that he died for my sins, I want to scream, "NO IT ISN'T!"  In Mark 1, Jesus himself states very clearly the definition of the good news.  


After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God.  "The time has come," he said.  "The Kingdom of God has come near (some translations read: "is here").  Turn around and believe the good news!

Let's think about this logically (which I know is a stretch for a lot of Christians) for a minute. How much sense would it make for Jesus, while he's still alive on earth, to proclaim that he died and rose again?  How much sense does it make for Jesus to send out his followers to proclaim that he died and rose again, when he was as alive as they were.  It wouldn't make a lick of sense.  If I walked up to you on the street and said, "I have some good news for you,  I died." you would think I was insane.  

So how was God's Kingdom coming to earth considered good news for the people of first-century Palestine?  The first thing is to realize the political significance of this statement. Palestine was under the rule of Rome and Caesar.  Rome was a brutal and oppressive empire.  So for the oppressed people of Palestine to hear this grand pronouncement from Jesus meant that if God's Kingdom is here, then that means that he's actually in charge and Caesar isn't. Good news indeed.  This still holds true for us.  God's Kingdom is a place where his will is done. If God is the King, then all other empires (including the American empire) are invalid.  It means that we don't have to rely on any empire to provide for us, because we can provide for each other.  It means that empires hold no sway over us anymore.  It means that they could kill us, and still never win a victory over this Kingdom.  Why?  Because this Kingdom is, first of all, internal.  Our outward actions are all based on an inward Kingdom of love and peace.  Nothing, including a sword or AK-47, can touch it.  In the words of Ben Harper, "You can kill the revolutionary, but the revolution you can never bury."

The cross is the logical end to this type of thinking and lifestyle.  The last thing a powerful empire wants to hear is that they are, in fact, powerless.  The cross is where the Empire says, "We finally got you, you can't stand up to us."  The Resurrection is where Jesus says, "Is that all you've got?"  

That's good news.  This empire in which I live ultimately has no sway over me.  They can't defeat me with violence, they can't defeat me with money.  They can't win, because this Kingdom in which I reside has love at it's foundation; and we all know that, in the end, love always wins.     

comments (0)

2:14 PM

Have you ever just had one of those days?

Posted by Brad Polley |

I'm having one right now.

comments (1)

9:19 AM

The myth of a color-blind nation

Posted by Brad Polley |

I'm tired of hearing about how this nation is color-blind.  We're not.  White people aren't color-blind, and neither are black people.  None of us are color-blind.  The latest controversy with Obama and his ex-pastor proves it.  If this post sounds like I'm being racist, you can rest assured that I'm not.  I'm glad that our country moved out of the dark ages and started giving people equal rights (unless you're gay or Arab, of course).  But the civil rights movement didn't cure everything.  Let's take a look at this.


Last week, a video surfaced of Obama's ex-pastor giving a vitriolic sermon on why Obama should be the next president, and not Hillary.  In his sermon, he stated that, "Hillary's never been called a n*****."  I watched the video and I thought, "You know, you're right, but how does that qualify Obama for the presidency?"  Is this guy suggesting that this country owes it to Obama because he's black?  Basically, he was saying that Obama's color qualifies him for the office of president.  How is that considered color-blind?

Then Geraldine Ferraro, a Clinton supporter, opened her pie-hole up and said that Obama is only in this position (meaning the Democratic front-runner) because he's black.  I can't understand this line of thought.  Could it be possible that Obama is in this position because people like what he has to say?  Could it be possible that he's in this position because people like him more than they like HIllary (because, let's face it, she isn't all that likable)?  How is this considered color-blind?

Watch a comedian sometime (regardless of their race) and see how long it takes for them to stereotype a race of people (i.e. white guys have no style, Asians can't drive, etc.)  I hear black comedians talk disparagingly about white guys all the time.  I heard Dane Cook talk about how different races of people fight.  There isn't a hint of color-blindness in this country, regardless of what bumper stickers people have on their cars telling you the opposite.  

Here's the thing: color-blindness isn't possible unless you're blind.  The fact is that when I see a black person, I see a person who has black skin.  That isn't racist, it's just an observation.  When a black person sees me, they see a pasty white guy.  That isn't racist either, just an observation. We can't avoid seeing people's various skin tones.  Our minds just don't work that way.  The question isn't whether or not we notice someone's skin tone, it's about whether or not we start making all sorts of other judgment calls based on their skin tone.  If I see an Asian, there's nothing wrong with thinking, "That person is Asian."  There's nothing racist about that at all.
I don't think that color-blindness is even the goal of society.  I think the goal should be to acknowledge our differences and be okay with them.  Are you black?  Ok, celebrate that.  Are you Latino?  Great.  Are you Asian?  White?  Great, celebrate all of that.  The question isn't whether or not a culture can erase the lines that make us different, the question is whether or not we can co-exist with our differences.  We should be seeking oneness (something the Church is supposed to be all about), all the while acknowledging that we all have different backgrounds.  

This is actually what I love about the Church.  It isn't color-blind at all, it's never been about that.  It's about different people realizing that although we may be ethnically different, we're still brothers and sisters brought together under the banner of Christ.  We're one because he makes us one.  The Apostle Paul said, "Now there is neither Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus."  The colors (and ideas) are all still there, but no one rules over another.  No one is better than another.  In Revelation, there is a beautiful picture of people "from every tribe, nation, and tongue" coming together to worship God. That's the ideal.

comments (2)

10:15 AM

A love like that - part 2

Posted by Brad Polley |

But are we really worth dying for?  We've all been told (whether overtly or sub-consciously) that aren't worthy of anything.  Some of us have endured this message of worthlessness from parents, ex-boyfriends/girlfriends, abusive spouses, and bad teachers.  Some of us have heard this message preached to us from the pulpit for years in church.  You hear so much about your sin and you walk out feeling so crappy that you aren't sure if Jesus really died for you and you can't really see why he would want to anyway.  So all of this (that we've all endured in some way) leads us to seriously doubt whether we are worth dying for anyway.


Most people walk around with a profound sense of the fact that we are ugly, unlovable, too fat, and possibly worthless.  This isn't in any way true, especially when you study the word "love" in the Hebrew and Greek languages (which are the biblical languages).  In English, we have one word for love.  What this leads to is me saying that I love my wife, but then I'll say later that I also "love" pizza.  That is patently ridiculous.  Because we have only one word for love, we express the fact that we like something by throwing around the word love.  Greek and Hebrew both have three words for love, each of which speaks of a different aspect of love.  The word that Jesus used for love, and the word that the rest of the New Testament used to describe his love, is the Greek word agape.  Here is how Rob Bell describes the meaning of the word agape.

"Agape doesn't love somebody because they're worthy.  Agape makes them worthy by the strength and power of its love.  Agape doesn't love somebody because they're beautiful.  Agape loves in such a way that it makes them beautiful.  There is love because, love in order to, love for the purpose of, and then there is love, period.  Agape doesn't need a reason."

Think about that for a minute.  The answer to the question, "Why does God love me?"  is "Ummm, he just does."  That doesn't make much sense to us, because very few of us have ever experienced that kind of love from those around us.  Most of the love we experience is purely conditional ("I'll love you if...I'll love you until...).  

The question that this kind of love begs is: what do you do with a love like that?  There has to be a way to respond to agape, but what is it?  Jesus says this, "If you love me, you will obey my teaching."  On first reading, that statement seems to be saying that our love for him will never be anything but conditional.  But what is his teaching?  Someone asked him once what he thought were the two greatest commandments.  He says to agape God, and agape people.  So what Jesus is really saying is this, "If you agape me, you will agape God and agape people."  
How do we respond to a love like that?  With love like that.  

One of the central messages of the cross is that people are worth dying for.  This means you, no matter how unworthy you think you are, no matter how messy you are...you're worth dying for.  So is that person that hates you.  So are terrorists.  So is Ann Coulter (that was hard for me to type).  The only proper response to love, period, is love, period.  Jesus doesn't need a reason to love you, he just does. There are many people who give us no reason to love them, but we should anyway.    

comments (0)

9:40 AM

A love like that - part 1

Posted by Brad Polley |

This week, you'll hear a lot about Jesus, the cross, the resurrection, etc.  Given the fact that Easter is this Sunday, it will be hard to ignore.  One of the main things you will hear is this phrase, "Jesus died for your sins."  If I'm honest, this phrase has lost pretty much all meaning to me.  I know that sounds odd coming from a pastor, but I've been in church my entire life, and I've heard this phrase thousands of times.  Sometimes repetition leads to over-familiarity.  This doesn't mean that Jesus has lost meaning for me, or that the cross has lost meaning for me, but this phrase means basically nothing to me anymore.  I don't think I'm alone in this either.


Teaching students causes me to rethink the way I say things.  Because they've heard it all too, and respond with a giant, "Yeah, so what's your point?" to phrases like this.  "So what if he died for my sins, what does that have to do with the fact that my life sucks right now?" In fact, it has everything to do with that, but the phrase has grown meaningless with time.  So what about the cross?  If this phrase has lost meaning, what is the basic central message of the cross?

Let it be said that I don't think Jesus dying for my sins is all the cross stood for.  I think it stood (and stands) for many things.  I don't even think that him dying for my sins is even the most basic message of the cross.  I think when you boil it all down, it all really comes down to this one incontrovertible fact: you're worth dying for.

Let's go through a scenario.  If you were God (I assume that you aren't), and you desired above all else to be connected to the beings you have created, what do you do?  Keep in mind that every time you speak, people freak out and hide (read the Hebrew Scriptures).  So you want to be close and convey this message of your desire for a relationship, but you're "up there", and your beings are "down there."  How do you rectify this situation?  Could it be that you decide to walk around on earth with your creations for awhile?  If you want to be close, go and be close. But now you have another problem.  Just showing up doesn't necessarily convey to your beings that you love them does it?  You love humans with a love that is stronger than anyone can imagine, but you find it hard to accurately convey it.  So what do you do?  Could it be that you show these beings that they are, in fact, worth dying for?  What greater compliment can you give to someone?  

Jesus himself said, "Greater love has no one than this, that he lays down his life for his friends." The only true and perfect way for you to show someone that you love them is to get the point across that baby, you're worth dying for.  In my wedding vows, I stated very clearly, "until death parts us."  If you really dissect that (and the other vows), what you're saying to your spouse is that you are committed to the point of death, if it comes to that.  

The problem is that most of us can't comprehend how we're worth dying for.  

Read part 2 to see the proper response to all of this.

comments (0)

9:36 AM

The cure for evil

Posted by Brad Polley |

I'm reading a stunning book called "To Heal a Fractured World: The Ethics of Responsibility" by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks.  It honestly might be one of the top five pieces of non-fiction that I've had the pleasure to read.  In it, he speaks of how God created us as beings who, in his creative image, continue the work of creation through healing the brokenness and injustice that we, as humans, inevitably cause.  I'm intrigued by this thought, because I've long rejected the still preached thought of most Christians that since Jesus is returning anyway, we basically just wait around until he returns, while the world degenerates further and further into a chaotic hellhole.  Most Christians see their only duty as proselytizing people so that more people will be on the heavenly train when God destroys this earth anyway.  


Let me just say that I don't believe God is going to destroy this world.  In fact, Revelation, the deeply symbolic and coded book that so many Christians use to define their "Left Behind" theology, speaks of a new heaven and a new earth coming down out of heaven.  In fact, Jesus speaks greatly of the idea of God desiring to come down here (look, for instance, at Jesus being "God with skin" on earth).  In Jesus' most famous prayer he says this, "Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."  In other words, "may we bring a little bit of heaven down here by what we do."  

I say all of this to build up to this point, there's a lot of evil in the world (anyone that denies this is either blind or just totally ignorant), and God isn't just going to fix everything.  He has given us creative ability to fix a lot of the problems of this world by bestowing us with his creative image.  This means that he has left the responsibility of ridding this world of evil, albeit with him backing us with his strength.  So how do we even begin to bring justice to an seemingly unjust world?  What can we do in the face of so much unspeakable evil?  

Rabbi Sacks says this, "The only way to fight evil the morning after the storm is to do good, countering hate with a no less determined love."  Sounds an awful lot like a rabbi who lived 2000 years ago.  Rabbi Jesus said, "But I tell you who hear me: love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you."  

The only way to conquer hate is with love.  Pure and simple.  Some may remember the journalist Daniel Pearl, a Jew who was brutally murdered by terrorists in Pakistan while he was on assignment writing a story.  Since his death, his father (also Jewish) has sought out ways to bring reconciliation and understanding between Jews and Muslims, the very people who killed his son.  When asked what motivates him to do this, he said, "If I were to fight hate with hate, I would only create more hate.  Therefore I fight it with love."  War isn't the answer to the world's problems.  All war does is create more conflict and war.  If you don't believe me, look at the brief history of our country, we've basically been at war since we began.  Doesn't seem to be working.  

War is not designed to cure evil.  Only love can do that.  I know it sounds like I'm just a hippie idealist, but reality is reality, so call me what you will.  Your way isn't working and never has.  Jesus' way seems to work, maybe it's time we, as Christians, started acting like him.  

comments (6)

1:25 PM

Well worth 5 1/2 minutes of your time

Posted by Brad Polley |

This video is pretty funny, and creative.  It's also a scathing indictment on war in the form of ethnic foods.  Good stuff.  


comments (0)

9:09 AM

Hate, Hate, Hate

Posted by Brad Polley |

I just watched a news report video about a lawmaker in Oklahoma going on a rant about gay people.  In her rant (during which she didn't know she was being taped), she said that gays were more dangerous to this country than terrorists.  Let that one sink in for a minute.  I'm having a hard time understanding this line of thought.  I don't know, I guess I was just unaware that the 9/11 hijackers were, in fact, a gang of Arab homosexuals, and not terrorists.  


Of course, this woman is a Christian, and she said that her remarks were made because the gay lifestyle is immoral.  It's kind of funny that she mentions that, because I was under the assumption that hating people (she would say that she doesn't hate them, but you can't say something like she said, and actually love the people you're talking about) was considered by Jesus to be a huge no-no.  In fact, the whole foundation of his teaching was based on loving people, regardless of who they are and what they do.  So if we're going to talk about something immoral, let's go ahead and talk about our hate being immoral as well.  

She also said in her rant that gays were infiltrating schools and indoctrinating our children in the gay lifestyle.  "Even children as young as two."  Mind you she had no evidence of this.  I hear this kind of crap from Christians all the time.  I hear this idea that homosexuals are on some crusade in our schools and through the media to turn kids gay.  You will absolutely never convince me that this is true.  I read blogs written by gay people, I've met numerous gay people in my life; not once have they tried to indoctrinate me, and never once have I read an article where they have spoken of trying to turn kids gay.  The very notion of it is ridiculous.  All gay people want is to be treated like human beings, I see no problem with that.   

In the news report, she says this: "Isn't it my right under freedom of speech to say these things."  I would have to say yes, it is in fact protected under freedom of speech.  The reality is that freedom of speech protects speech that we hate, not just speech that we like.  However, just because you have a right to say it, doesn't mean that you should.  She may have the right to say it under U.S. law, but not under the Bible that she claims to follow.  It, in no way, protects that sort of speech, nor condones it.  It's time for "Christians" to knock this crap off.  It doesn't represent Jesus in the way he should be represented.  It's turning people away from a lifestyle that leads to real life; a life of peace, and a life of wholeness.  If you're reading this and you don't consider yourself a Christian, please don't let a few (outspoken as they may be, they are still few) people turn you off of Jesus.  He isn't like they say he is...I can promise you that. 

comments (1)

9:17 AM

Babar the Baby

Posted by Brad Polley |

My wife's doctor scheduled another ultrasound because she was measuring rather larger than she should be.  We had the ultrasound yesterday, and sure enough, she's giving birth to Babar the elephant.  The ultrasound started off normally, then the ultrasound tech switched over to a 4-D view of the kid.  Holy crap, it's my kid...for real!  Normal 3-D ultrasounds are sort of vague and fuzzy, this one looked like someone infiltrated my wife's womb with a digital camera. Below is the world's first real picture of Abram Michael Polley...to the Shroud of Turin, depending on your perspective.

In the first picture, you may notice that he has an eye open and is looking at the camera with an "I'm fairly uncomfortable, can someone freakin' get me outta here?" type of look.  The second picture reminds me of Viggo the Carpathian on Ghostbusters 2 when he starts morphing and melting.  The top left of picture 2 shows his hand.  It's all distorted because he started moving. So not only is he massive, he's basically adorable.  Other than the fact that he's going to exit the womb while gnawing on a turkey leg, he's healthy.  We're hoping that he shows up early, because the ultrasound had him weighing 7 pounds, 9 ounces.  You may be thinking that that isn't too bad, until you realize that my wife has six more weeks to go.  The doctor informed us that during this stage, they can gain up to a half a pound a week.  If you do the math, you quickly see that he's going to come out looking like King Kong.  I can't wait to my mustachioed Sasquatch of a son.  Big brother had better look out, because he's a tiny little thing. 

comments (2)

2:12 PM

Angry God - part 2

Posted by Brad Polley |

We've covered the fact that God gets angry, and almost exclusively over injustice.  But what about Jesus?  What pushed his unhappy button?  


In Mark we read about a story in which Jesus has a run-in with the religious leaders.  It's the Sabbath, the day of rest, and no one was supposed to work.  The rabbis realized very early on that this was a bit vague to just say that you couldn't work, so they set out to define the various activities that constituted work.  By the time of Jesus, there were numerous laws which defined work.  One of them was a prohibition against healing someone on the Sabbath.  

The story says that Jesus was in the synagogue when a man walks in with a withered hand.  This, presumably, is an affliction he has dealt with his entire life and Jesus feels compassion for him.  It says that the religious leaders were watching Jesus closely to see if he would heal this guy on the Sabbath.  Jesus tells the guy to stand up in front of the whole assembly.  Jesus then stands in front of the entire congregation and says this, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save a life or to kill?"  The text says that everyone remained silent.  I think we can reasonably assume that they knew they were busted at that point.  

The story then says, "He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, 'Stretch out your hand.'  He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. "

Here's what I love about Jesus.  He stands in front of the very leaders who he knows have the power to have him killed for transgressing the law, and in one giant "middle finger" type move, he does the very thing they hate in the name of love and justice.  

So why was he angry?  They followed the law, but they sucked at justice and mercy.  Once again, the people in charge of the chosen nation of Israel were setting a horrible example to the nations, and God with skin is none to happy about it.  He basically says to the leaders of Israel, that, although they follow the law, they're neglecting the entire spirit of the law, which is mercy, love, and compassion.  In another gospel, Jesus says this to the same leaders, "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!  You give a tenth (required by the law) of your spices--mint, dill, and cumin.  But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness..  You should have practiced the latter without neglecting the former.  You blind guides!  You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel."

Once again, Jesus is angry at the fact that they follow the law, but they neglect the real law, which is justice and mercy.  They're practicing small things (straining out gnats), but totally missing the bigger things (swallowing camels), the things that really matter.  I have to wonder, as so many Christians neglect social justice issues, and stink at loving people, what would Jesus say about us?  I don't know about you, but camel doesn't taste very good, I'm tired of swallowing it.  

    

comments (0)

9:25 AM

Angry God - part 1

Posted by Brad Polley |

This morning I started reading through the book of Isaiah.  And by "started," I mean, "haven't even scratched the surface."  I like reading the books of the prophets in the Hebrew Bible because they were so focused on making this world a better place through justice.  One theme, though, stands out in most of the prophets' writings...God is ticked.  


If you read the prophets for, oh say, 3.5 seconds, you get the impression that God is generally one step away from wiping Israel off the map.  To some people (like the psycho leader of Iran), that doesn't sound like a bad plan.  I've always wondered why God is so angry.  I've always had trouble balancing this God with Jesus, who came to show what God was like.  Jesus always seems sort of emotionally balanced.  It isn't that he doesn't get angry, but he wasn't as up and down as the God of the Hebrew Scriptures.  So why is God so angry?

I think you have to look at some history to understand why God seems so harsh to the Jews. Judaism represented the first monotheism.  Every culture to that point had numerous gods, usually taking the form of something in nature (i.e. the sun, water, etc.).  One day, God speaks to Abraham, basically stating that he's the only true God.  Thus monotheism is born.  He promises to make a great nation out of him and tells him that his descendants will be as numerous as the sand on the seashore.  So God's plan is for all people, everywhere, to acknowledge a monotheistic existence (hence the reason he tells Abraham that his descendants will be "as numerous as sand on the seashore").  So if you're God, and I'm assuming that you're not, you probably need more than one guy to make this happen.  You need an example to the nations to show that this monotheism thing is ok and worth giving a shot.  So you need a "chosen" people to be an example of what all of this looks like, and what it means to put God's world back together after we wrecked it in the first place.  Enter Israel.  

A lot of people see the idea of a chosen nation, such as Israel, as the height of arrogance.  If I'm honest, I always thought that way, until I read Rabbi Jonathan Sacks' excellent tome "To Heal a Fractured World."  He reveals that this idea of being chosen is really a giant responsibility.  God needed an example of what monotheism could bring to the world, especially in the areas of justice, mercy, and righteousness (this word came to be understood in the Hebrew language as "charity").  So when you read the prophets, you see God getting ticked off when Israel falls short of his standard in these areas.  He even says in Isaiah, "Take your evil deeds out of my sight!  Stop doing wrong, learn to do right!  Seek justice, encourage the oppressed.  Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow."  

God is ticked because they were basically acting like everyone else and, frankly, their example to the nations sucked.  By threatening to wipe them off the map, he was trying to wake them up and remind them that they have a huge responsibility to the world to advance his name through doing good in the world; seeking justice, defending the fatherless.  His anger, far from being unfair and ridiculous, is a corrective anger.  It's a broken-hearted plea from a father who wants to see his created realm fixed by the ones he created.  His call remains to all of us today.  Tomorrow, I'll look at the ways in which Jesus took up this mantle as an example to the world.  

comments (0)

12:15 PM

This guy could be our President

Posted by Brad Polley |

John McCain told a reporter on his campaign bus today, "I hate the gooks.  I will hate them as long as I live."  My first reaction to reading that was, "Did he just say that?"  I am absolutely staggered by that kind of bigotry.  


Most people know that McCain spent five years in a Vietnamese prison camp, so his remarks have some history.  But seriously, how can a guy say something like that and even be considered as Presidential material?  Given these remarks, is there any doubt about his campaign strategy against Obama?  I'm guessing all we'll hear from him in the next 7 months is "Obama sounds kinda like Osama," "You know, his middle name is Hussein," and "I'm pretty sure he's a Muslim." Everyone keeps questioning Obama's beliefs, and yet McCain claims to be a Christian and then he uses disparaging remarks against an entire race of people, and no one questions his faith.  I don't get it.    

comments (2)

3:44 PM

Part of the family

Posted by Brad Polley |

Have you ever heard the phrase, "Every family has one, and he's ours."  Right now, you're probably thinking about the "one" in your family.  We always say this, meaning that every family has a black sheep, someone who is a mess and has so many problems.  


I recently did a teaching on Jesus' family tree at the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew.  It's a completely inane and boring section of Scripture ("So and so the son of so and so, etc.) if I'm honest.  It isn't exactly a cliffhanger.  However, Jews, who wrote Bible, never put anything in there by accident, or just for the heck of it.  There is something in the middle of this genealogy that is astounding.  Tradition tells us that Jesus never sinned; this means that he was perfect.  To be honest, one would expect that someone who is perfect (who also happens to be the Messiah) to come from a fairly pure line of people.  Not so with Jesus.  

Here's a quick run-down of just a few of the train-wrecks who are part of his family tree:
David - Adulterer, murderer, swindler
Tamar - Disguised herself as a prostitute and slept with her father-in-law
Rahab - Prostitute
Ruth - Slept with Boaz before they were married and while he was hammered 
Solomon - 300 wives, 700 concubines (not exactly as pure as the driven snow)  

Those are just a few of the highlights.  I think there are numerous implications to all of this, one of which is this; if you sin, and you're a total mess of a person (which we all do/and are), then you're just part of Jesus' family.

If you look at Jesus' life, the people he spent the most time with, and was seemingly drawn to, were the outcasts, the messiest people in his society.  There's a story of Jesus eating at the home of a tax collector (read: most hated people on the planet).  To eat at someone's home was to say to them that you accepted them as an equal and a friend.  The religious leaders come by and they ask a disciple of Jesus, "Why does your rabbi eat with tax collectors and sinners" (some things never change do they)?  The text says that Jesus hears them and says this, "It isn't the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.  I came, not to call the righteous, but sinners."  

Their question was essentially, "Why is he eating with those people?"  His response is this, "I'm here because of those people, you don't even need me, because you don't think you need any help."  The reality is that we are all a mess.  Every single one of is "sick," we all need a little bit of help.  In other words, we're all part of Jesus' family.  

The people that Jesus had the hardest time dealing with were the people who claimed (or at least looked like) they had it all together.  Jesus came to offer help.  He offered a way of life that was full of God, a way that would lead to wholeness and peace.  If we don't ever admit that we're a bunch of screw-ups, then there is no room for him.  

Let's stop putting on the mask that everything is fine, even when it isn't.  We're all in this together, we're all part of the family.  Does your family have "one."  Jesus' has billions.

comments (1)

10:27 AM

Sappy moment of the day

Posted by Brad Polley |

My kid has been saying "dada" forever.  I love hearing it, I'm not going to lie.  But last night my wife said, "Ezra, say 'daddy'."  "Daaaddy" was his reply, with a big gap-tooth Spongebob smile on his face.


I about lost it.  I don't cry much, with the exception of getting kicked in the groin or eating something so hot that my throat starts to close up, but I almost cried.  I can't tell you what it feels like to have your son look at you and say, "daddy" with a big goofy grin on his face.  It's something that you will just have to experience one of these days.  Top five moment in my entire life.  

On a less sappy note, my kid tried to put his hand down the shirts of two girls in my youth group Sunday night.  I said, "Ezra, no-no buddy."  His response?  "Booboos."  My response to that?  "I know buddy, but you can't do that."  

I swear, I'm going to have to home school that little pervert.

comments (2)

1:11 PM

Preaching at its finest

Posted by Brad Polley |

Did you know that the problem with America is that too many men pee sitting down?  I didn't either until I watched this wonderful sermon.



That's so bad, I can't even muster the strength to say something sarcastic about it.

comments (3)

1:08 PM

Life just isn't fair sometimes

Posted by Brad Polley |

Why do bad things happen to good people?  

Why do evil people seem to prosper, when there are so many good people who struggle? 

Have you ever asked those questions?  Probably.  I know I have.  I used to ask that question a lot in high school, but it went something like this: "Why do all of the jerk guys get all of the hot girls, and the nice guys like me can't get a date?"  I've since made peace with that issue (it seems that the market for stick-like Screech look-a-likes is rather small), but I still, from time to time, ask a similar question.

I'm always struck, when I read so many of the stories in the Bible, how often good people seem to get completely shafted.  What that tells me is that this isn't a new phenomenon.  I was reading the story of Joseph (of Egyptian fame, not father of Jesus fame), and it was a perfect example of an apparently good guy repeatedly getting the short end of the stick.

Here's the basic summary of Joseph.  He was sold into slavery to a bunch of nomads by his brothers (he didn't really deserve it); the nomads them sell him to a wealthy official of the Egyptian Pharaoh.  While in this guy's house, he gets put in charge of everything because he was trustworthy.  The guy's wife wants Joseph's body, he declines her various offers.  She then lies to her husband and tells him that Joseph tried to sleep with her.  Joseph gets thrown in jail.  

While in jail, he gets put in charge of all of the prisoners.  The Pharaoh's vintner and baker get thrown in jail (apparently from making crappy wine and pastries).  These two guys have dreams and Joseph interprets them, telling the vintner that he will be restored to his position in three days, and telling the baker that in three days he'll have his head lopped off and his flesh fed to the birds (talk about a bad day, that guy's bread must have really sucked).  He tells the vintner to remember him when he is restored...he doesn't.

Eventually Joseph is made head of all Egypt by the Pharaoh and everything is fantastic, but, seriously, he endured a lot of crap for doing the right thing.  The thing I find fascinating is that he never blames anyone for his misfortune.  It's almost like he understands something about life that we don't; sometimes like sucks, it doesn't mean that we necessarily did anything to cause it.  

One of the coolest things about the story is how God imparts little snippets of grace in the midst of the ashes of Joseph's life.  Jesus has these words to say, "He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."  In other words, we're all equal with God.  When we do good things, God doesn't owe us anything, he doesn't owe us a life free of pain.  When we do bad things, sometimes we have to soak in our own juices because of it, but God still loves us and is good to us.  

For what it's worth, this is why I don't agree with the idea of karma.  I know too many good people who get shafted, and too many bad people who seem to have everything go right for them.  I think people invented the idea of karma to make themselves feel better.  "They'll get theirs, karma will come back to get them."  It just isn't true.  I think we should strive to do good, not for a reward, but to make the world a better place and to be a better human being. 

We need to face the fact that sometimes life just isn't fair.  God didn't create it that way, but being the bunch of screw-ups that we are, we've made it that way.  Just know that, whatever it may look like, God is always faithful.  He came down here in the form of a man 2000 years so that he could experience just how not fair this place can be.  And we obliged by showing him in a pretty violent way. 

comments (2)

10:41 AM

Need proof that God is just?

Posted by Brad Polley |

Giants 17 - Patriots 14


Update: Read the articles in the Boston Globe concerning the game.  Not once does it mention the Giants outplaying the Patriots.  All of the articles blame the loss on pressure to go 19-0, choking, etc.  At least they lose well, huh?

comments (1)

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Subscribe