Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Geez magazine expresses my feelings entirely.


On who is right
by Will Braun, Editor of Geez Magazine
http://www.geezmagazine.org/issue4/onwhoisright.html


Evangelical Christians gravitate toward clear divisions, even stark polarities: saved-unsaved, heaven-hell, right-wrong, good-evil, God-Satan. Just keep things nice and simple. Either you’re for us or against us. Homosexuality, abortion and terrorists are bad – period. End of discussion. Justice shall prevail.


This is somewhat of a caricature of course, but indulge me for a moment, if you will.


In this world of black and white, notions like forgiveness and love of enemies tend to get lost. And next thing you know they’re dropping bombs on the other side of all those clear-cut lines of division. The killing of innocent people turns into "fighting the forces of evil" – fighting, always fighting, opposing, righteously resisting.


They love their enemies alright – that is, they love to have enemies. The more the better. Bring ‘em on. Discernment turns into demonization. Violence becomes a divine calling. Love of God and hatred of enemy become one.


And to seal the deal, they will walk the mansion-lined streets of gold while everyone else will literally burn for a literal eternity in a literal lake of sulphur-stenched fire. An absolutely impassible chasm will separate the two.


Okay, that was the fun part to write; now comes the other part, because we, in turn, demonize evangelicals for their demonizing ways. We hate them for their hatred. Or is our hatred okay because we are right and they are wrong?


The tendency to categorize and divide and simplify and do something other than love our enemies is in us all. We have the tendency to recount with self-satisfaction the scandals of a particular political party, to soothe our righteous egos by reading (or writing) nasty things about the Christian Right, to let ourselves feel good that we’re not stupid like them. (And I only had to look at the last three days of my own life for those examples.)


Rather than seeing the spark of eternity in each person, or loving those who might qualify as our enemies, we nurture negative feelings toward them. We create distance between us and them. It feels really, really good. We’re not like them.


We all live in an increasingly binary, polarized, dichotomized, polemicized, divided world; a world of east vs west, Christianity vs Islam, Republicans vs Democrats, good vs evil, freedom vs tyranny, us vs the terrorists. Language and images are used and misused to solidify the sides and entrench the divisions.


But maybe the goal is not to refute the Religious Right or the Bush Administration or whomever we most like to sneer at. Maybe the point isn’t to be more right than them. Maybe there is something more important than being right.


Maybe the goal is to love our enemies, to blur lines of division, to forgive with relentless abandon, to disallow ourselves feelings of superiority, to look within, to act in such a way that if the Donald Rumsfelds in our lives had complete transformations and wanted to associate with us, we would not have to apologize for any past actions or thoughts toward them.


Here at Geez, we are perhaps prone to make sport of the excess and blessed sentimentality of the Jesus-in-my-heart-and-I’m-on-my-way-to-heaven-’cause-the-Bible-says-so Christians. So, for this issue, we are taking a deep breath, steeling our belief in tolerance and engaging our evangelical neighbors in sincere dialogue. Forgive us if we slip from time to time.


In it all, I suppose we are suggesting the possibility – though we still don’t totally have the stomach for it – that human redemption grows in a field of fearless, irrational inclusivity.


Evangelical Christian typologies from http://www.geezmagazine.org/issue4/anevangelicalbody.html


1. Fundamentalists (or Conservative Evangelicals)


These are usually what the press is referring to when they talk about "evangelicals" – or who they think they’re referring to. Like many evangelicals, conservative evangelicals are those who "insist on some sort of spiritual rebirth as a criterion for entering the kingdom of heaven, who often impose exacting behavioral standards on the faithful, and whose beliefs, institutions, and folkways compromise the evangelical subculture in America," says Balmer. They are also known for their defense of the Bible as unquestionable, for their "proselytizing zeal" and for their belief in a "sudden, instantaneous, dateable experience of grace." The term Fundamentalism can describe any literalistic, moralistic, pietistic – and these days militaristic – way of interpreting faith, explains Balmer.


2. Pentecostal Charismatics


To experience it first-hand, I recently attended a Pentecostal church for the first time in years. After getting over my initial difficulty breathing, I appreciated pastor Don Noble’s sermon about the Holy Spirit. Pastor Noble explained how he grew up as part of a very eccentric group of Christians – in his words, "I didn’t know they were crazy until I was a teenager."


Noble gave a good example of what many liberal Protestants worry about – a woman in his congregation explained to him how the Holy Spirit guides her in everything she does, including telling her to turn left or right when she’s riding her bicycle. Noble explained how guidance from the Holy Spirit means living like Jesus, but it also means using your God-given brain.


3. Liberal Evangelicals


This kind of evangelical is popularly associated with street preaching, Christian campus groups, missionary work and evangelism. Although both liberal and conservative evangelicals contain Bebbington’s four evangelical attributes (conversion, the Bible, activism and the cross), a liberal approach to life, politics and faith can differ so radically from that of a conservative that Liberal Evangelicals take deep offense at being lumped together with conservatives.


What makes them so different? Liberal evangelicals move away from "born again" Christianese, and are less likely to hold altar calls (though it’s not unheard of). Liberal evangelicals can be distinguished from the above types by their less offensive evangelistic tactics as well as the notable absence of war imagery and militancy in their discourse.


4. Emergent Church (and Vintage Church)


The shift into what some would call the postmodern age has uprooted these Christians and sent them scrambling to find new ways to make their Christianity "relevant" (a key but sometimes nebulous term).


The issue for Emergent types is to assert Christianity in a time when binary ideas like heaven and hell, Christian and non-Christian, spirit and body, male and female are being challenged and seen as too dualistic. Emerging Christians value individual stories more than ascribing to one grand overarching and possibly oppressive "metanarrative." This allows emergent church Christians to have a new openness to different ways of interpreting the Bible – everyone’s perspective is relevant and should be expressed.


As with so much post-structural and postmodern theory, the emergent gospel tends to come from the top down, drawing analysis from academic discourse surrounding postmodernity. Adherents tend to be internet savvy and have a heavy presence in the blogosphere, which could be deemed inaccessible.


5. Social Justice Folks


In an article in the New York Times, "Rebels with a Cross" (March 2, 2006), John Leland confuses the perspectives of new monastic radicals like Shane Claiborne and The Simple Way in Philadelphia with pop-culture Christians who dig Christian clothing lines (like souldog.com) and skateboard Bible studies.


Although these trends may have in common a young face and a rad new look, social justice Christians are distinct from any old "rebel with a cross" in that they challenge secular (and Christian) capitalist society. These Christians can be found in evangelical communes like Jesus People USA, in small queer-positive emerging church communities, in Catholic Worker communities, in conservative and pacifist Mennonite communities, or in new monastic communities. Despite their varying influences – from liberal, emerging,  evangelical or contemplative – what brings this group together is a commitment to living the "social gospel."


6. Christian Leftists


Although Christian Leftists would not be considered "evangelical" by themselves or the rest of the church, I’ve included them in this typology as a group commonly misrepresented as "evangelical," much to their and everyone else’s horror.


Most of the people who are referred to as Christian leftists are known for barely hanging on to traditional Christian doctrine.Other than these heretical sound bites, Christian leftists of this sort tend to put major emphasis on social gospel and environmental issues. For example, the recently established Network of Spiritual Progressives represents the spiritual or Christian left in the States. Its vision is to be, in part, "challenging the misuse of religion, God, and spirit by the religious Right" (see spiritualprogressives.org).


Evangelical Christians

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize



Friday, December 08, 2006

If our faith is maintained by the sword, it will also parish by the sword. Our possessions and lives are God’s; they were bought by the price of Christ’s blood, not the blood of our enemies. A soldier’s job is not to sacrifice his/her life for our country, but to make the enemies sacrifice their lives for our country. John 15:13 says, "There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends," not, "There is no greater love than to make another person lay down one’s life for your friends." Christ brought the reign of the spiritual, not physical, Kingdom. He showed it by stressing that we should arm ourselves with the armor of God instead of physical weapons (Ephesians 6:10-18), value treasures in heaven (Matthew 6:19-21), become born of the Spirit (John 3:1-21), grow in a family of believers instead of blood lines (Luke 8:21), call no place on earth our homeland (Matthew 8:20) and love our enemies for us to "be perfect, as our heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:43-48). Who would Jesus kill to protect our family, land or liberty?


Christian Nonviolence in brief

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize



Wednesday, December 06, 2006

The command to obey state authorities is sometimes taken to mean complete obedience to a ruler on the part of a Christian. Peter and other apostles had no hesitation disobeying the Sanhedrin by teaching in Jerusalem and saying, “We must obey the laws of God, not men,” (Acts 5:29). The apostles boldly defied the Sanhedrin’s command to stop proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ and were flogged or killed for it. Daniel continued to pray to God even after King Darius decreed that anyone who prays to any God or man other than the king shall be thrown into the lions’ den. Daniel was thrown into the lions’ den and was delivered by God out of the ordeal unharmed. Obedience to God was a higher priority to the apostles and Daniel than obedience to the state. 


How then do Christians relate to state authorities? When the Sanhedrin handed Jesus over to Pontius Pilate, Jesus answered Pontius Pilate’s claim to power, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above,” (John 19:11). It may seem Jesus handed power to state authorities solely for the purpose of his mission of crucifixion, but the power given to state authorities does not end with Jesus as Paul later wrote, “The authorities that exist have been established by God,” (Romans 13:1). The Roman government threatened Jesus and Paul’s life more than anything else — eventually killing both of them — yet Jesus and Paul still respected the physical, but not moral, existance of state institutions. How can we reconcile Jesus and Paul prioritizing obedience to God, yet openly sacrificing themselves before state power?


Submission to state authorities can be viewed in two ways. The first way is the main argument the Jews used to crucify Jesus by stating, “Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar,” (John 19:12). The Jewish community defied God and used the state as a vehicle for performing their disobedience. The Jews corrupted Jesus’ teaching of giving onto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s to justify the killing of an innocent person. The second way is a spiritual struggle or ‘holy tension,’ which Paul explains, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms,” (Ephesians 6:12). Christians are called to put the spiritual and ethical above the physical and temporal. State authorities can only be obeyed if their requirements are in accord with the ethical teachings fulfilled in Christ. If authorities ask for disobedience to God’s teachings, it is commanded to put God first, and notably, not allow a spiritual battle with the government to become a physical battle. Jewish zealots were waiting for a physical battle lead by a Messiah who would drive the Roman occupiers into the sea, and rejected the inward spiritual transformation Jesus preached. Moreover, it is necessary to equally honor authorities established in our country as in all other countries since all authorities are established by God. By submitting to all authorities, Christians are not allowed to take part in overturning their own government with a revolution or another countries’ government with a war. Whereas the first way of submitting to authorities honors neither God nor man, the second way honors a Christian’s servant role to everyone and allows our means to be as pure as our ends.


Submission to State Authorities

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize



There seems to be a shift from supporting militarism and morality based issues to supporting peace and social justice issues within the Christian evangelical community! Bill Barnwell is an Evangelical pastor from the "Antiwar Christian Right" and wrote an eye-opening Biblical exegesis about War, Christians and the State at http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnwell/barnwell41.html. I’m trying to print and pass out copies of this article to many of my Christian friends. Also, Rick Warren, who I haphazardly lambasted in a previous entry, infuriated many conservative evangelical Christians by inviting Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill, to speak at the Global Summit on AIDS at his megachurch. "The fact is the evangelical realm of the church has failed in this area [AIDS aid]. They’ve put it off too long, they didn’t care," Warren told ABC News last year: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2691952&page=1.


Amazingness

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize



Tuesday, December 05, 2006

The Old Testament (OT) should never be used for making ethical standards for Christians. The OT consists of only one principle: do whatever God commands by any means necessary. No ethics can exist based on an ‘ends justify the means’ philosophy. In the OT, God commands "thou shalt not kill (murder)", but then commands harem warfare genocide. God was trying to teach people faithfulness, not ethics, in the OT. In the New Testament (NT), Jesus fulfills God’s will by valuing the spiritual over the physical: armor of God instead of physical weapons, treasures in heaven instead of wealth, God dwelling in us instead of the Temple, and family of believers instead of blood lines. Jesus established a spiritual kingdom in the NT, whereas it was mostly physical (geographically and ethnically) in the OT. The spiritual kingdom is upheld with ethics based on the Greatest Commandment to love God and everyone.


When it comes to ethics, we should not go for avoidance ethics. Avoidance ethics asks, "How can I avoid sin?" Instead, we should be asking, "How can we best live for the cause of Christ?" The question should be in the positive, not negative. "Whatever you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (1 Corinthians 10:31). This dramatically changes how we look at our actions. Instead of scrupulously looking for verses to defend our every action, we should ask, "Does this action help the cause of fulfilling the Great Commandment?"


No verses in the Bible definitively command against slavery or support the right for women and minorities to vote, yet most believe these are ethical and loving ideas. Moreover, these are human rights. The Greatest Commandment is the fundamental principle for perfect living, which is the Golden Rule: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12. In other words, it is the categorical imperative of Kant and all rationale moral philosophy, "Live your life as though your every act were to become a universal law."


P.S. Sunday, February 4, 2007: I provide a different (gradual ethical enlightenment) interpretation of Old and New Testament ethics in the last three paragraphs at http://www.interconnectedness.net/2007/02/04/rob-bell-nonviolence-and-scapegoating/


Biblical ethics

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness



Monday, December 04, 2006

What you’re experiencing is the result of our individualistic culture. Your work and "play" time does not have to be black and white. Being in a "cushy" job and living in suburbia will not provide you with more intimacy with your close friends. Too much luxury demeans the cost of life. Likewise, becoming a workaholic and coming home to an "empty apartment" will not be a great benefit to the world. Too much work values programs over people. Everything is meant to be in community.


In modern American culture, individualism has grown to such an extent that it is advised to "not bring your work home with you" and to "not bring personal issues into the work place." This estrangement of work and personal life translates to how people view political and social issues. Rich people, even so-called liberals, feel fine taking part in campaigns to help poor people, but are themselves unwilling to become poor in solidarity with the people they aim to help. Compassion comes from understanding, and understanding comes from solidarity.


Solidarity requires investment of all parts of your life to living for a cause. It makes the political personal, because you are not merely working for others, but your own survival depends on the success of the community. People are often ready to make commitments, but are hesitant in surrendering and disarming themselves. God asks us to surrender ourselves to Him and to others, and acts of surrender, not commitment, is what matters in relationships and in all causes.


Social change comes from breaking down walls of wealth, power, privilege, etc. that separate us. We cannot expect to change the world if we do not learn how to break the walls that keep us from living in community here at home.


There can be fear of community not being as professional has corporations and being less efficient than the factory model. Community and professionalism are not exclusive. The main reason the factory model seemingly works well is because not enough people understand community living. Instead of community, some people focus all their interests on themselves or their family, which promotes individualism. Three reasons exist for what people live for: 1) for themselves, 2) for their family, 3) for everyone. Each one of us will continue to live a fragmented life until we start living for the third reason, which is identical to living for God.


To see a real-life example of what I mean, you can read this article on The New Monasticism and simple living at http://www.interconnectedness.net/newmonasticism.pdf


Community

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize



Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Where do you think all these appalling wars and quarrels come from? Do you think they just happen? Think again. They come about because you want your own way, and fight for it deep inside yourselves. You lust for what you don’t have and are willing to kill to get it. You want what isn’t yours and will risk violence to get your hands on it.


You wouldn’t think of just asking God for it, would you? And why not? Because you know you’d be asking for what you have no right to. You’re spoiled children, each wanting your own way.


You’re cheating on God. If all you want is your own way, flirting with the world every chance you get, you end up enemies of God and his way. And do you suppose God doesn’t care? The proverb has it that "he’s a fiercely jealous lover." And what he gives in love is far better than anything else you’ll find. It’s common knowledge that "God goes against the willful proud; God gives grace to the willing humble."


So let God work his will in you. Yell a loud no to the Devil and watch him scamper. Say a quiet yes to God and he’ll be there in no time. Quit dabbling in sin. Purify your inner life. Quit playing the field. Hit bottom, and cry your eyes out. The fun and games are over. Get serious, really serious. Get down on your knees before the Master; it’s the only way you’ll get on your feet.


Don’t bad-mouth each other, friends. It’s God’s Word, his Message, his Royal Rule, that takes a beating in that kind of talk. You’re supposed to be honoring the Message, not writing graffiti all over it. God is in charge of deciding human destiny. Who do you think you are to meddle in the destiny of others?


Why do wars happen?

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize



Wednesday, November 15, 2006

You can read the Michigan Daily article about Anti-War Action! here Fighting Apathy: not your parents’ protest. There is some information about me in the article.


There are some corrections. I became a Christian when I was sixteen; I’m not a "life-long Christian." I used to be an atheist. Also, I read "The Kindgom of God is Within You" by Leo Tolstoy during my junior year Christmas break, not freshman year.


My t-shirts saying, "Love your enemies" and "Who would Jesus bomb?" represent the Sermon on the Mount, not Christian Anarchism. I do not know how to represent Christian Anarchism succinctly.


Daily article about Anti-War Action!

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize



Thursday, November 09, 2006

The purpose of Make Affluence History is to encourage individual awareness and action so that, ultimately, global resources will be distributed in a manner that respects the needs of all humans as well as the planet that supports us.


A campaign called Make Poverty History (MPH) has focused on lobbying creditor governments to convince their bankers to offer debt relief to debtor governments. In contrast, Make Affluence History campaigns for lifestyle awareness and personal change through voluntary simplicity, self-reliance and down-shifting, with the goal of enabling a more equal distribution of global resources.


We agree with the overall objectives of MPH with regards to resolving poverty related issues arising from lack of access to nutritious foods, medical attention, clean air and water, and acceptable shelter. However, we do not believe that these issues are in any way intrinsically linked to access to money or to a lack of industrial development. In fact, we feel that many of the demands put forward by the Global Campaign Against Poverty are potentially counter-productive to the ultimate aims of poverty reduction.


We propose that the best solutions to these issues do not lie with governments, bankers or development agencies. Overwhelmingly it lies with us, and our choice to be global ‘consumers’. We believe that the lifestyles in "developed" nations are unsustainable, and that those of us living those lifestyles must change them and simplify our own lives. We believe that affluence hurts the planet, animals, and people and that it is a very poor example to the world, a lifestyle that no one should be encouraged to attain.


“Live simply so that others may simply live.” - Gandhi


Sponsor a Rich Kid.

From makeaffluencehistory.org, which currently does not work.


Make Affluence History

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize



Sunday, November 05, 2006

Here’s my biography by Dana for her sociology class. Enjoy. I like it a lot.


By Dana Christensen
Sociology 455: Religion & Society
Fall 2006


A Spiritual Shaping of a Life


Misha’s faith is the current stage of a personal spiritualization that has been evolving for the last seven years of his life.  A pre-med student in his final year as an undergraduate, Misha plans to pursue a medical degree because it provides a means for him to “unite evangelism, social justice and science around curing the consequences of violence and overpowering future violence with love today.” (Misha: 2006)  Having known Misha by means of the American Civil Liberties Union, I have come to learn that he is a Mennonite because of their commitment to non-violence, which he sees as the core of Jesus’ teachings, along with social awareness, which he concludes is the natural progression from non-violence.  His belief and relationship with God is of an “intellectual and experiential” nature, developed over time to shape his social and political consciousness; inspiring him to be vegetarian, anti-war, anti-Bush administration, and interested in Christian anarchism, communal living, and asceticism. (Misha: 2006)


Misha’s story of finding faith and social awareness incorporates many of Lofland and Skonovd’s means of conversion and Heirich’s transcultural aspects of religious experience, along with the modern phenomena of exploring and searching for one’s best religious fit. (McGinn: 9/7/2006)  The way that Campus Crusade for Christ (CRU) and the Mennonite church carry out different roles in his religious and spiritual life is a demonstration on how Heirich’s transcultural aspects of religious experience can be bet by the compliment of more than just one institution. (McGinn: 9/7/2006)  This may seem like “Sheila-ism,” or a “conscious attempt to forge ones own,” coined by Robert Bellah to “tailor one’s faith by drawing from other resources,” but Misha firmly identifies with the Mennonite faith and is aware that CRU is not a denomination but a means to provide a culture for Christians. (McGinn: 9/21/2006)   Because Misha grew up atheist, found God at sixteen years old, and has only started attending the Mennonite church in Ann Arbor a year ago, CRU serves as his religious community, for he has only started to form roots with his intellectual and theological community with the Mennonites.  Misha shares with many college-aged students the experience of awakening and desire to change the world for the better, with his faith being his inspiration and momentum.


Finding God: the Teachings of a Community


Growing up in communist Russia by scientist parents who “believed that religion was for stupid people,” Misha was atheist due to his government, education, and family when he moved from Moscow to Ann Arbor at the age of seven. (Misha: 2006) (McGinn: 9/7/2006)  Upon arriving to America, his parents became friends with a few Christian families who sought them out and would host bible studies with them. While they appreciated the company and kindness of their new friends, Misha admits that his parents, although “sympathetic” to his and other people’s faith, “still haven’t come to God.” (Misha: 2006)  It was these families that recommended two summer camps to Misha’s mother for him to go and learn values and be outdoors; an example of Robert Wortworth’s idea of parents indoctrinating or at least exposing their children to religion as a means to learn “right from wrong.” (Misha: 2006) Although he complied, he was still a non-believer.  These two camps would have opposite and life changing effects on Misha.


The first camp Misha went to was a Russian Orthodox camp that he describes as “like Boy Scouts” with an “emphasis on the white soldiers” and old nationalism focused on the Czar. (Misha: 2006)  Going into the camp not believing in God at thirteen years old, Misha came out unconvinced and turned off by the rigid structure of the camp.  Not having known anything about religion, Misha’s impression based on his first camp experience was that it was all based on traditions and practice and not the meaning and integration of the scripture.  He was not drawn to the people either, feeling that activities like lining up like soldiers and singing Russian patriotic songs to the Czar were more strange than spiritual.  The camp was lacking nearly all of the five transcultural aspects of religious experience in Misha’s case: encounter, transformation, meaning, and relationships.  What was left for him was the judgment of the Orthodox tradition, with the constant reference “to God’s laws,” and the consequences there of, without the theological meaning to support the claims. (Misha: 2006)  He was open about his atheism at the camp, which was met with disapproval and further alienated him from the rest of the community.  After two summers, Misha gave up on the camp, but decided to go to another camp recommended by one of his mother’s Christian friends at the age of sixteen.


This time, Misha went to a Christian Russian Baptist camp in Connecticut, and his experience was “completely different” and positive. (Misha: 2006) Instead of enforcing the traditions of the Russian Orthodox Church and the legacy of the Czar, the Baptist camp focused on “what the Bible has to say,” and had church, meditation, Bible studies, and evening devotions multiple times a day. (Misha: 2006)  For the first time, Misha learned about the teachings of Jesus, something he claims was completely ignored at the Orthodox camp.  The constant exposure and study of the Bible, and the support of the camp community that did not make an issue of him not believing in God, which made him comfortable listening and taking to heart what was taught at the camp.  Coming back to Ann Arbor after weeks there, Misha decided that he believed in God.


Conversion: A Change, an Ongoing Search


When asked how he came to accept God, Misha states that “it made sense. I learned about Jesus’ teachings, and he said he was God, so I believe that.  It is like believing in any other truth.” (Misha: 2006)  With exposure to the Bible, Misha related to a Christian message not translated at the Orthodox camp, and could make a logical connection between the “truth” of Jesus and the presence of God. (Misha: 2006)  This type of intellectual change in belief falls under Lofland and Skonovd’s conversion principles, and has been the driving force of Misha’s spiritual development since his first “leap of faith” at sixteen years old. (McGinn: 9/19/2006)


Misha’s original conversion to becoming a believer was brought on in large part by the change in spiritual community provided by the open and biblically-focused orientation of the camp.  Along with what Heirich would call a “change of heart” and a personal push away from Atheism to Christianity, Misha’s stay at the Baptist camp provided him a means to experience religion and “pulled” him to faith with God. (McGinn: 9/19/2006)  “My belief in God is intellectual and experiential,” Misha said, based on Jesus being his mentor and “exercising/experiencing Jesus’ teachings,” which demonstrates the dual personal/social aspects of how Misha approaches his faith. (Misha: 2006)


His spiritual growth ran parallel with a new-found appreciation of learning and thinking, fostered in an advanced-level high school humanities class that taught world history from a four perspectives: world literature, history/philosphy, art history and music history/theory.  Before, Misha was not interested in learning, just getting good grades, having fun, and “not getting into trouble.” (Misha: 2006) He had started to experiment with girls and drinking, and was not convinced by his parents that his actions had negative consequences.  It was only after camp and finding God that he “understood right from wrong,” with his family noting a striking but positive change in him. (Misha: 2006)  “My parents said that I became more loving, displayed more kindness to people,” he said. (Misha: 2006) His parents were supportive of his newfound faith, because he says that “they did not need to convince me that what I was doing was bad.  I stopped doing it.” (Misha: 2006) But as a result of finding faith in God and denouncing his previous ways, Misha lost many of his friendships with those who shared his old pursuits of girls and other debauchery.


Finding the right religious community and identity was a process that lasted up until this past year for Misha, as he tested churches and youth groups in hopes of finding what was right for him.  His “quest,” or an attempt to find experience where others are “inadequate,” is discussed by N.J. Demerath, III as part of the compensatory or “alternative commitments and communities” that one seeks in regards to the sacred experience. (Demerath: 1999)  One of ongoing themes in Misha’s religious story is his journey—interacting with varying denominations, Christian social groups, and exploring a variety of theology and philosophy.


Identifying as non-denominational throughout high school and into college, Misha started off going to a Baptist church, but it did not feel the same atmosphere or make the inter-personal relationships that he did at the Baptist camp.  He was baptized at a Pentecostal church and became involved there for the rest of his high school there. He still felt that he had not found a place of worship that felt right to him, so he continued to study his faith on his own, which led him to explore Christian existentialism and other philosophies, along with Bible study.  By the time Misha arrived at the University of Michigan, he was still looking for a more defined religious identity and a community of Christian peers that he could develop meaningful relationships.  Very soon into his freshman year, he became an active member of Campus Crusade for Christ (CRU).


Two Communities Make a Whole Experience


CRU became Misha’s religious output while he continued to experiment with the many denominations in the Ann Arbor area, for he was able to participate in weekly Bible studies with other Christians.  Having not bonded well with Christian peers in high school and often feeling on his own, Misha took great comfort in the supportive environment of CRU.  After his freshman year, he went on a CRU sponsored mission to the Ukraine, where he practiced Russian and communicated the teachings of Jesus that inspired him to people with a similar history as him, and went through “big change in maturity.” (Misha: 2006) He was discipled by an older CRU member who became his mentor, and is currently a Bible study leader for the organization, as well as the webmaster.  He plans to continue his involvement in CRU while studying to be a doctor and beyond.


When asked how CRU has changed his life, Misha reflects on the spiritual and social benefits that he has gained from his involvement in the organization.  While he has a deepen “understanding of Jesus and his teachings” thanks to CRU, he also developed close friends within the Christian community, along with learning how to organize events, gain more people skills, and get a message across “in a friendly way.” (Misha: 2006) People skills development is a common trait found in religious organizations, especially those driven by evangelism, because they teach their members how to communicate in order to spread the word of Christ and conduct group meetings.  Timothy Steigenga observed an increase in self-confidence and leadership and organizational ability in those who participated in voluntary, predominately Protestant interdenominational organizations, much like Misha and CRU.  (Steigenga: 2001)  Misha says that CRU made him “a strong Christian,” and by providing overlapping educational, social, and spiritual opportunities, it has also made him a stronger person. (Misha: 2006)


While CRU succeeded in providing Misha a social network and a cultural realm to further his Biblical studies, it did not—because of its limitation as a parachurch and not a distinct denomination—settle his need to find a church that fell in line with his more developed religious and social beliefs.  For his first two years of college, he researched and visited a few denominations, “shopping around” for Christian organizations that supported non-violence, the main issue that would decide Misha’s religious affiliation. (Misha: 2006) As he puts it, “if they don’t (support non-violence), Jesus’ teachings don’t make sense.  How can you love and kill your neighbor at the same time?  You can’t.” (Misha: 2006)


Although searching for a community that identified with his beliefs, Misha also looked for some degree of structure and authority in the denomination, which became apparent when he turned down the peace-loving but freewheeling local Quaker church.  The church did not have a pastor, and Misha did not relate with the informal structure of everyone sitting in a circle and saying what he saw as random things.  He was most put off by the inclusiveness of atheist thought in the Quaker church.  “People didn’t believe in God,” he explained in what he viewed as the flaw in their church religious logic, “you have to believe in Jesus’ divinity, they come together.  If you don’t believe that Jesus was God, then a lot of his teachings would be insane or lies.” (Misha: 2006) It was this particular Quaker church’s acceptance of self-tailoring of beliefs, associated with Bellah and “Sheila-ism” that turned Misha away, realizing that his church needed to have more than non-violence at its core for him to be in intellectual agreement. (McGinn: 9/21/2006)


It was after the Quaker church that Misha went and soon identified with the Mennonite church, saying that “they (Mennonites) are a lot like hippies, but also have some tradition;” most importantly a pastor and an unified belief in God, along with the prerequisite of having non-violence at the core of their mission. (Misha: 2006) The particular congregation Misha attends does not adhere to some of the more conservative Mennonite customs, like dress codes, and has a large representation of people involved in scientific research and the University of Michigan.  He has not made too many personal relations within or done too much with the church, but now feels like he has found a denomination that is in sync to the intellectual orientation of his religious conversion, and plans to get more involved and know more people within the church.  The socially-charged sermons and an environment conducive to intellectual discussion have only helped to further the connections Misha has made between the Bible and living a righteous life, from leading him to pursue medicine as a way to heal and evangelize to buying local food as a way to live a simple life that Jesus preached.


These two communities of faith are not at odds with each other, but create a harmony of belief, support, and identity for Misha.  Together, the Mennonite church and CRU covering many of the transcultural elements of religion, with the Mennonite theology supporting and enriching the message of Christ and covering the characteristic of “meaning.” (McGinn: 9/7/2006) But before Misha arrived at choosing to become a Mennonite, he had a deep understanding of the meaning of the Bible and Jesus influenced by personal pursuit and Bible study with multiple spiritual communities, including the Baptist Russian camp and CRU.  Misha’s transformation—noticed immediately by those who were closest to him when he was sixteen years old—came from the acceptance or encounter with Jesus’ teachings at the beginning of what would be Misha’s ongoing “relationship with God.” (Misha: 2006) Heirich’s “encounter” and “transformation” aspects did not come from CRU or the Mennonite church, but Misha’s exposure to Jesus by means of the religious environment and structure of the summer camp. (McGinn: 9/7/2006)


Misha’s religious journey, while intellectually-rooted, has also been fueled by the need to find another aspect of the religious experience—relationships in based in a sacred commonality.  This is where CRU fills this role in Misha’s life, having provided a spiritual community throughout his college years where he had none as a child and weak and unsupportive as an adolescent and beginning Christian.  As Misha becomes more involved and integrated in the Mennonite church, he hopes to develop relationships on the same level as those he has made at CRU, but does not see any potential social problems between the two religious communities.  He plans to find spiritual fulfillment from both entities, each contributing their religious, social, and personal dynamic to his overall experience as a Mennonite-identified Christian.


Conversion and Experience


Starting with his initial conversion to become “a pupil of Jesus’ teachings,” Misha’s religious experience has been one of intellectual pursuit for truth and community. (Misha: 2006) How the two intersect and inspire each other confirm sociology of religion principles on conversion, and what defines the religious experience.  Misha’s story shows that conversion can be a moment of change and part of a larger experiment of searching, that relationships and community can be both religiously and personally enriching and a sustainable spiritual support—especially for the individual looking for the perfect denominational fit.  As Misha becomes more socially aware and active from his membership in the pacifist-orientated Mennonite Church, he will continue to be driven by a relationship in God, which he describes as “the closer two people are, the more similar the two people become,” and from that, he hopes he “will continually grow more Christ-like.” (Misha: 2006)  Believing that love, non-violence, and social consciousness are the keys to living as Jesus preached, Misha will continue to grow religiously and reach out—within the Christian community and larger society.


Works Cited


Demerath, N.J. III, Presidential Address: Society for the Scientific Study of Religion. Department of Sociology: University of Massachusetts: Amherst, MA. 6 Nov 1999.


McGinn, Terence. Lecture Material from Sociology/Religion 455.001. Fall, 2006.


Misha. Interview (In person) 18 Sept. 2006.


Steigenga, Timothy J. The Politics of the Spirit: the Political Implications of Pentecostalized Religion in Costa Rica and Guatemala.  Lexington Books: 2001.


My biography by Dana Christensen

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize



Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Every time you use a credit card, the merchant is charged 1.5% to 5% "merchant discount fee" that helps pay for the bank’s services and for the credit card system. This means every time you use a credit card, you help support a corporation that does not have your or most peoples’ interest in mind. Credit card corporations vehemently fight against legislation to cap interest rate limits and other methods to keep vulnerable people from ruining their financial security. Every time you use a credit card, you support the exploitation of poor and uneducated people. Stop using credit cards! Credit cards are only useful in rare situations and should never be used on a regular basis.


"Virtually all credit card holders are being taken advantage of under the present circumstances. If you’re a responsible person of middle-class or upper-middle-class means, and you act totally responsibly by paying off your balances every month, doing it on time, you are not being rewarded for that. In fact, you can be penalized for doing that. If you are very poor, if you are older, and if you’re very young, very vulnerable, three very vulnerable constituencies, you’re being exploited by this process. So virtually everyone who holds a credit card one way or the other, under existing laws today and provisions, can be completely taken advantage of by the credit card industry." Chris Dodd, senior Democratic member of the Senate Banking Committee.


More at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/interviews/dodd.html


Stop credit card use

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize



Saturday, October 28, 2006

I don’t want to live if others have to die for me to live.


"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12


Love is the Golden Rule and greatest purpose for life.


Would purposefully dieing to donate all your organs and tissues be loving if it would save many peoples’ lives?


I would not want another person to die for me to live. Purposefully dieing to donate my organs is not loving.


Is killing to save another person’s life loving?


No, I would rather die, then have someone killed to save my life.


Would setting yourself on fire to protest war be loving?


"To burn oneself by fire is to prove that what one is saying is of the utmost importance…. The Vietnamese monk, by burning himself, says with all his strength and determination that he can endure the greatest of sufferings to protect his people…. To express will by burning oneself, therefore, is not to commit an act of destruction but to perform an act of construction, that is, to suffer and to die for the sake of one’s people. This is not suicide." (http://www.geocities.com/tcartz/sacrifice.htm).


Self-Immolation awakens the conscience of people, helping to foster peace. I would desire for the social conscience to live even if a person willingly dies. "For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain." Self-Immolation is loving. It’s a baptism of fire.


It is only loving to die to change people’s minds, not to save people’s lives. It is only loving to die for "bad" people (i.e. sinners, enemies), not "good" people (e.g. family, your country).


What is love?

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize



Thursday, October 26, 2006

Anyone who thinks the Bush administration is on the side of Christian conservatives should read this


Notable quotes


In his days as a notorious "hatchet man" for President Richard M. Nixon, before he had allowed Jesus to transform his life, Chuck Colson used to oversee outreach to the religious community. "I arranged special briefings in the Roosevelt Room for religious leaders, ushered wide-eyed denominational leaders into the Oval Office for private sessions with the President," Colson later wrote. "Of all the groups I dealt with, I found religious leaders the most naive about politics. Maybe that is because so many come from sheltered backgrounds, or perhaps it is the result of a mistaken perception of the demands of Christian charity … Or, most worrisome of all, they may simply like to be around power."


"George W. Bush, the man, is a person of profound faith and deep compassion for those who suffer. But President George W. Bush is a politician and is ultimately no different from any other politician, content to use religion for electoral gain more than for good works. Millions of Evangelicals may share Bush’s faith, but they would protect themselves–and their interests–better if they looked at him through the same coldly political lens with which he views them." David Kuo, ex-deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.


Policies

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize



Sunday, October 22, 2006

While trying to decrease the number of U.S. nuclear warheads, the White House administration proposes making new nuclear warheads and is waiting on "an expected decision in December by the NNSA on a design for the new "Reliable Replacement Warhead" (RRW). The nation’s two nuclear weapons laboratories, Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore, are competing for the new warhead design. Before going ahead with any new warhead, however, the NNSA would have to get Congress’s approval to move into actual engineering development."


More information at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901863_pf.html.


New U.S. nuclear weapons development

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize



Monday, October 16, 2006

The government’s Faith-based Initiative is not what it seems. While the faith-based initiative has allowed religious social service groups to have access to federal grants, there has been less money available for social service groups in general than before. "The faith-based initiative has been used largely as a political tool to attract support from religious communities." Amy Sullivan. The White House could "can add another few billion to insure every American child has health care. It could launch a program to simply eliminate hunger. Groups like America’s Second Harvest have the plan. Bump up the Compassion Capital Fund to $500 million a year and be marveled by change." Instead of working to provide social services, the White House favors money for almost everything but this.


"No administration since LBJ’s has had a more successful legislative track record than this one. From tax cuts to Medicare, the White House gets what the White House really wants. It never really wanted the "poor people stuff." Not only were the tax items dropped from the 2001 tax relief bill, they were also ignored on numerous occasions when they could have been implemented. In December 2001, for instance, Sen. Daschle approached the Domestic Policy Council with an offer to pass a charity relief bill that contained many of the president’s campaign tax incentive policies plus new money for the widely-popular and faith-based-friendly Social Services Block Grant. The White House legislative affairs office rolled their eyes while others on senior staff yawned. We had to leave the offer on the table."


This is from the ex-Special Assistant to the president and ex-Deputy Director of the Faith-Based Initiative, David Kuo, http://www.beliefnet.com/story/160/story_16092_1.html .


Other interesting information includes the difference between Kennedy’s and Bush’s faith. "War and hunger and ignorance and despair have no religious boundries." We should judge based on fruits, not on someone calling out to God.




Faith-based Initiative: white-washing

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize



Sunday, October 15, 2006

Songs of Songs is difficult to understand. It’s a musical and love song that’s been interpreted in very different ways. Some interpret Songs of Songs to be only figurative, which describes a spiritual intimacy with God, not a physical intimacy with people. Others interpret it literally to mean sexual intimacy.


In Songs of Songs it talks about three types of love:
1) Rayah - friendship love
2) Ahabah - love that is seen in commitment
3) Dowd - is the physically intimate love


Dowd is the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek Eros. The New Testament never mentions Eros. Instead the NT uses agape, storge and philia for specific reasons. You can read my blog entry on this at http://www.interconnectedness.net/2006/07/31/agape-eros-storge-and-philein/ .
(Rayah is the similiar of Philia. Ahabah is sort-of similiar to Agape.) If we interpret Dowd to mean Eros in a physical sense, then it would contradict the NT writers. Hence, if a completely literal understanding of dowd/eros was possible before Christ, Christ updated this teaching in the same way he updated other teachings, such as the verses in Matthew 5 saying, "You have heard that it was said … But I tell you …", since the use of Eros was abandoned.


Pope Benedict XVI recently addressed this issue in Songs of Songs by stating that Eros is not destroyed, but purified, by Agape, so the body and soul can live peacefully with each other. This means the NT purifies the OT. The OT serves to lay out a set of laws, which inevitably condemns humanity. Christ purifies us of this sin. Hence, the OT gives an apparent set (i.e. Torah) of unideal rules (i.e. "You have heard that it was said … But I tell you") which the Pharisees perfectly obeyed, while the OT unapparently giving a much greater path (i.e. the basis of the Greatest Commandment) that was only apparently revealed by Christ (i.e. sermon on the mount, etc.). In the NT, Christ dwells in us, so we should be perfect as God is. In the OT, the law dwells in us (i.e. Deuteronomy 6:4-9), so we should be as perfect as the law requires. Therefore, the Songs of Songs allowed eros from the Law, but was inundated by the perfection of agape from the Holy Spirit.


An interesting rebuttal to my interpretation is presented at http://www.spiritualityandsexuality.com/SnS-ViewsArticles.html . It argues against Greek/Roman stoic and epicurean teachings, and proposes we follow OT Hebrew teachings instead. This boils down to ignoring Paul’s letters [Paul was a big fan of Socrates/Plato (Jesus was like the Gadfly) and stoicism (indifference to pleasure or pain, as shown through holy joy in suffering)] and ignoring the ascetic nature of Jesus’ discipleship. There’s a lot of truth in Greek/Roman stoic and epicurean (fyi, John Piper’s Christian hedonism is Christian epicureanism) philosophy. There’s also a lot of truth in OT teaching, but some of it was updated, such as in this case. The main argument against Greek/Roman stoic and epicurean philosophy tries to tie dishonoring women with dishonoring Eros, which is a weak connection and need not be the case.


P.S. This was a response to an entry by Lisa Treumuth at http://agape720.livejournal.com/208768.html.


Songs of Songs

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize



Monday, October 02, 2006

The words of Hosea are upon us. The status quo Christian church has grown to love power and by doing so, spiritually destroying itself. Spiritual destruction is marvelous because a refiners fire separates the pure from the impure. It is a phoenix rising from the ashes, the plough overcoming the sword and the lamb saving the lion. "I will abolish the bow, the sword and war from the land, And will make them lie down in safety. … And I will say to those who were not my people, ‘You are my people’"


It is not too late, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near. "For the Lord has a case against the inhabitants of the land, Because there is no faithfulness or kindness Or knowledge of God in the land. There is swearing, deception, murder, stealing and adultery They employ violence, so that bloodshed follows bloodshed. Therefore the land mourns, And everyone who lives in it languishes Along with the beasts of the field and the birds of the sky, And also the fish of the sea disappear."


Why have the status quo Christian leaders "eaten the fruit of lies. Because you have trusted in your way, in your numerous warriors."


Rick Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life (a book I’ve read and support), writes in his voter guide (http://www.pastors.com/RWMT/default.asp?id=178&artid=7543&expand=1) about the five most important issues Christians must consider when voting: 1) abortion, 2) stem-cell research, 3) homosexual marriage, 4) human cloning, and 5) euthanasia. Focusing on these issues as the most "crucial issues" of  "the most important election Americans have had in 50 years" is misguided at best and complete rebellion against Jesus’ teachings at worst.


Rick Warren is not at fault for this, nor the proverbial religious right; instead, it is the entrenched wolves in sheep’s clothing of the materialistic/militant Greek/Roman culture that overpowers Christian love. Many Christian leaders are oblivious to this and become "blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!," as seen with Rick Warren’s proposal.


Why is his proposal so bad? All over the globe, 1.1 billion people live in extreme poverty, which means they live under $1 a day. Billions more live in poverty without adequate health care, nutrition, safety and a loving home. Countless children die of preventable diseases. The environment is continually destroyed and we could face a global climate shift. Weapons are endlessly manufactured and traded across the globe (with the U.S. being a major supplier). HIV/AIDS, poverty, abuse, malnutrition, disease, war, racial reconciliation, health care, welfare, education, diplomacy, alternative energy, the environment, research, the U.S. industrial infrastructure, prison reform, human rights and economic accountability are important issues too.


Why are these issues more important? Because Jesus would care less about the "moral" issues Rick Warren presents, and would feed his sheep. The hungry sheep number and die in the billions! Are we going to be so concerned with "morals" as to ignore the call to feed the sheep? In summary, a candidate could perfectly fit Rick Warren’s points, yet completely ignore Jesus’ call to feed the sheep. Worst of all, these points apply not only to priorities for voting, but covertly outline the social role of "ideal" Christians as moralists, not humanitarians. "If you judge people, you have no time to love them." Mother Teresa


The goats care for ‘the least of these’ with bombs, indifference, hostility and "morality." We must first become powerless as the sheep to care for the sheep, or else, unwittingly, we become wolves in sheep’s clothing. Are you ready to disarm yourself and walk in the naked boots of peace with us?


Matthew 25:22-46
All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.


 34"Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’


 37"Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’


 40"The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’


 41"Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’


 44"They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’


 45"He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’


 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."


Archetypal goat, Rick Warren among others

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize



Sunday, October 01, 2006

When I think of this new community, I think about people from all over the world reaching out to each other in total vulnerability. In my mind’s eye, I see a worldwide network of men and women so totally disarmed that they not only have given up the power of weapons but also religious concepts, symbols, and institutions. I see them moving over this world, visiting each other, binding each other’s wounds, confessing their brokenness to each other, and forgiving each other with a simple word, an embrace, a touch, or even a smile. I see them walking alone or together in the most simple clothes, caring for the sick, feeding the hungry, comforting the lonely, and waiting quietly with the dying. I see them in apartment buildings, farm houses, schools and universities, hospitals and office buildings as quiet witnesses of God’s presence. Wherever they are they bring peace, not as much by what they say or do, but mostly by their connectedness with those others with whom they form a new community of hope.


Jesus’ way is the way without curses, weapons, violence or power. For him, there are no countries to be conquered, no ideologies to be imposed, no people to be dominated. There are only children, women and men to be loved. And love does not use weapons. Love is not made manifest in power but in powerlessness. Jesus challenges all his followers to take this way, the way of disarmed, nonviolent, powerless resistance.


This was taken from http://www.johndear.org/articles/henri_nouwen.htm and written by the late Henri Nouwen.


This is happening now! A movement of young and old are coming together in abandonment of childish dreams, in solidarity with the poor, to overcome the gates of oppression with endless love today. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven! Check out The Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne. You cannot serve both Caesar and God. Make a stand. Live love.


Art of weakness

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize



Saturday, September 16, 2006

Since I haven’t taken the MCAT yet, I have to wait atleast one year after graduation before going to medical school. I have three options on what to do after graduating.


1) One year to get a Masters in Cellular & Molecular Biology at U of M
2) Two years to get a Masters in Public Health
3) Three years to go on The World Race (theworldrace.org) and get a Masters in Public Health


I’m confused. I’m praying on what God wants. I’m talking with different people on this subject. God’s voice can be heard in many ways. Option number three seems to weigh the heaviest on my heart, because it is the most internationally social active.


My parents vehemently support opition number one, because they want me to start working sooner. It’s difficult for me to see why God would want me to work sooner. The World Race is working for God in one of the purest senses, because it’s a 11-month missions trip around the world where I minister in 11 countries (Mexico, Guatemala, China, Tibet, Thailand, India, Bosnia, Egypt, Kenya, South Africa, and Lesotho) for one month each, working to share the Gospel, help orphans, plant churches and reach the nations. Proverbs 3:5-6, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, do not depend on your own understanding. Seek his will in all that you do, and he will direct your paths."


Tom Davis describes World Race participants like this,


They live in community and work by teams. They are initiated into life in the Kingdom and know what it is to celebrate and minister on a daily basis.They have been deeply discipled and have experienced the walk of intimacy with the Father and the flow of ministry thru their fingers to broken people in their community and around the world.


They have been broken by the world’s pain and have abandoned the idols and adolescent amusements that used to keep them numb and ineffective. They have connected with widows and orphans in war-torn and AIDS-devastated places and understand what it costs to bring Jesus there. They have laid down their lives.


They have sold their earthly treasures for the pearl of great price, living simply and unencumbered so they can travel light. They are scattered across America and around the world. And in those places, they have awakened to their Kingdom identity and call. They have learned how to incarnate Christ in places where Hell had established a stronghold. They are building churches and orphanages. They are transforming their communities.


They are a generation that will cross over the Jordan to the promised land. They have their eye on the prize and are running hard after it.


If you know me well, you’ll know that simple living, evangelism and helping orphans are passions of mine. Please share your thoughts with me.


Future?

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize



Since I haven’t taken the MCAT yet, I have to wait atleast one year after graduation before going to medical school. I have three options on what to do after graduating.


1) One year to get a Masters in Cellular & Molecular Biology at U of M
2) Two years to get a Masters in Public Health
3) Three years to go on World Race (theworldrace.org) and get a Masters in Public Health


I’m confused. I’m praying on what God wants. I’m talking with different people on this subject. God’s voice can be heard in many ways. Option number three seems to weigh the heaviest on my heart, because it is the most internationally social active.


My parents vehemently support opition number one, because they want me to start working sooner. It’s difficult for me to see why God would want me to work sooner. The World Race is working for God in one of the purest senses, because it’s a 11-month missions trip around the world where I minister in 11 countries (Mexico, Guatemala, China, Tibet, Thailand, India, Bosnia, Egypt, Kenya, South Africa, and Lesotho) for one month each, working to share the Gospel, help orphans, plant churches and reach the nations.


Tom Davis describes World Race participants like this,


They live in community and work by teams. They are initiated into life in the Kingdom and know what it is to celebrate and minister on a daily basis.They have been deeply discipled and have experienced the walk of intimacy with the Father and the flow of ministry thru their fingers to broken people in their community and around the world.


They have been broken by the world’s pain and have abandoned the idols and adolescent amusements that used to keep them numb and ineffective. They have connected with widows and orphans in war-torn and AIDS-devastated places and understand what it costs to bring Jesus there. They have laid down their lives.


They have sold their earthly treasures for the pearl of great price, living simply and unencumbered so they can travel light. They are scattered across America and around the world. And in those places, they have awakened to their Kingdom identity and call. They have learned how to incarnate Christ in places where Hell had established a stronghold. They are building churches and orphanages. They are transforming their communities.


They are a generation that will cross over the Jordan to the promised land. They have their eye on the prize and are running hard after it.


Future?

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize



Saturday, August 19, 2006

My GRE experience ended propitiously. Next, MCAT in May/June 2007.


Future plans:
Backpack Mt. Rainer in Washington with my parents until Saturday, September 2nd
Graduate May 2007 with a B.S. in Cellular & Molecular Biology
Maybe attend Public Heath and Medical School as well as something else


Why M.D. instead of Ph.D.?


An M.D. provides more freedom than a Ph.D., because I can do basic science or clinical research, practice medicine and work abroad. Furthermore, medicine allows integration of the social and evangelical gospel. Both words and healing were pivotal in Jesus’ ministry. Feeding the hungry and ending violence are my passions, because they are Jesus’ passions. A Ph.D. would cloister me in academia. Compassion does not come from atop the Ivory Towers of American academies, but from the nadir of solidarity with the forgotten people. "The last will be first, and the first will be last." Healing people is not enough; the violence creating patients must also be cured. Medicine cuts through social barriers unlike anything else. Medicine provides a tangible way for me to unite evangelism, social justice and science around curing the consequences of violence and overpowering future violence with love today.


Why M.P.H.?


Since I’m interested in integrating social issues along with medicine, an M.P.H. will give me access to the realm of public policy. An M.D. provides temporary curative care and an M.P.H. works for long-term preventative care. It’s not enough to cure an individual, but the individual’s environment must also be cured of violence, hunger and disease for a lasting impact.


Becoming a Public Health Physician, such as Michael Van Rooyen, is my goal. However, Van Rooyen doesn’t do Christian ministry. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the key to a peaceful and loving world. All glory to God under who’s stainless banner we should rally for every loving cause!!!


End of Summer

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize



Thursday, August 03, 2006

I’m subjugating my proclivity to write to prepare for the onerous GRE. Goodbye for about three weeks.


Cease writing

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize



This is taken from AskRealJesus.com. It explains the heart of Jesus’ teachings better than ever, especially about nonviolence.


The warrior is marching down the road, his sword sharpened, his mind set on battle. He meets a Master and his disciple. The Master says, “My son, where are you going with such fierce determination?”


The warrior answers, “The enemy has attacked our nation. He has destroyed two of our tallest buildings and taken away our peace. I go to destroy the enemy and bring back peace!”


The Master asks, “My son, if the enemy took away peace through violence, how can more violence bring back peace?”


The warrior declares, “There is no other way. When the enemy is destroyed, peace will return!”


The Master replies, “My son, I perceive that your heart is troubled. It is filled with anger and hatred towards the enemy. Might it be the anger and hatred that has taken away peace?”


The warrior says, “The enemy created the anger. Once the enemy is destroyed, the hatred will be gone and my peace will return!”


The Masters tries again, “My son, if the enemy caused your anger, then the enemy must rule your inner world. Perhaps you should conquer the enemy within before you do battle with the enemy without? Perhaps you should find peace in your heart before you attempt to bring peace to the world?”


The warrior declares, “I cannot find peace until the enemy is destroyed!” Then he marches on without looking back.


The Master smiles gently and walks on. His student exclaims, “Master, he did not understand your wisdom and is headed for his own destruction. How can you seem so unconcerned? Let us run after him and save him from himself!”


The Master replies, “My dearest student, if I preach inner peace, how can I let my own peace be disturbed by someone rejecting my message?


Besides, while his body might be destroyed, his soul will live on. One day the soul will tire of trying to bring peace by fighting outer enemies. It will discover the enemy within, and eventually it will discover the inner source of peace.


While we can seek to help others learn their lessons, we must never seek to force them.


Peace cannot be brought through force. Conflict is the absence of peace. Peace cannot be brought by removing conflict. Outer peace can be brought only through inner peace. The only way to bring peace is to BE peace wherever there is non-peace. Begin with yourself, my dear student!


Warrior of Peace

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize



Two views seem to exist on Christian living
1) live the minimum necessary for salvation
2) live perfectly as Christ is


The Catholic church defines this paradox quite well in the Evangelical Counsels. They state living perfectly is not for all Christians, only a select few who vow to follow poverty, chastity and obedience. "The love of riches is opposed by the counsel of poverty; the pleasures of the flesh, even the lawful pleasures of holy matrimony, are excluded by the counsel of chastity; while the desire for worldly power and honour is met by the counsel of holy obedience." I would also include nonviolence in the counsel of holy obedience.


The resolution to this paradox is in Luke 7:31-35
"To what, then, can I compare the people of this generation? What are they like? 32 They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling out to each other:
   " ‘We played the flute for you,
      and you did not dance;
   we sang a dirge,
      and you did not cry.’ 33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ‘ 35 But wisdom is proved right by all her children."


John the Baptist was separate, whereas Jesus live in community with society. Both were poor, chaste and obedient. It doesn’t matter how much you know, do, have faith or give up, but how much you love.


1 Corinthians 13:1-3
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.


John the Baptist and Jesus both satisfied the Evangelical Counsels. kdf dfjd hfjdhf dfhdsj fhsdkfh sdjfhsd jfhsdjfhs d jldkf sjdklfjsd


Simple Living and Evangelical Counsels

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize



Monday, July 31, 2006

1) Don’t come to lab meetings
2) Don’t come to talks your boss asks you to go to
3) Arrive at work later than planned
4) Make mistakes
5) Don’t discover "anything new" after two part-time semesters and three months of full-time research


How do I know? Guess.


5 steps to get kicked out of lab

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize



Due to discussing love in context to the Greatest Commandment as well as marriage and other relationship, here’s the best explanation of agape, eros, storge and philia I’ve ever found. It’s from The New Testament Words by William Barclay. This is probably some of the most worthwhile four pages you’ll ever read!


Note: Part 1 (cut off) "The noun eros and the verb eran are mainly used for love between the sexes. They can be used for such things as the passion of ambition and the intensity of patriotism; but characteristically they are the words for physical love. … Christianity could hardly have annexed these words [eros and eran] for its own uses; and they do not appear in the NT at all."





Agape, eros, storge and philia

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize



Wednesday, July 26, 2006

For the people who came to my talk, after giving the talk, I realized I missed and wasn’t clear about some points. For people who missed the talk, here’s a synopsis.


Yesterday night I gave a 48 minute talk about ‘Nonviolence: the Gospel and the State.’ I was only supposed to talk for 30 minutes but I got carried away. It was my first time giving a talk in front of people. Some key thoughts:


1) the greatest commandment is the purpose for our lives,
2) we should obey the government but not become part of the government or else we’ll become violent (assuming the government has a military),
3) early century Christians were nonviolent, but when Christianity become the State religion in the 4th century, violence became part of Christian teaching,
4) during the reformation, both protestants and catholics persecuted another reformation, The Radical Reformation (Anabaptists), that was going on at the same time where nonviolent Christians were trying to separate from the State,
5) the puritans from the Puritan reformation, which happened after the Protestant reformation, came along with Catholics to America slaughtering Indians, enslaving Africans and further persecuting nonviolent Anabaptists in America because the Anabaptists wanted to be peaceful,
6) still to this day, the theology of violence and non-separation of Church and State, which come together, are prevalent, but  are in contradiction to the Greatest Commandment.
7) Furthermore, I argued against objections to nonviolence, such as the end times wars being ‘descriptive, not prescriptive’ and Jesus establishing a new covenant with all people, not only Israel, meaning that God wouldn’t authorize wars like in the Old Testament because God loves everyone equally, both the righteous and unrighteous.
8) We can’t love and kill enemies at the same time.
9) It’s OK to discipline children to reform them, but if you kill the child, you can no longer reform him/her.
10) By being nonviolent like Jesus, Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi you respect everyone, even the government (praying for the government as we pray for our enemies; obey our enemies), because you allow everyone to have their voice by not killing, imprisoning or kidnapping your opposition.
11) Our enemies have needs and if we obey, not ignore or rebel against, their needs while still obeying the Greatest Commandment, we will be the brightest light of God’s love.
12) God calls us to nonviolence, because it respects human dignity, humbles us and is the truest expression of love to everyone, just as God perfectly loves us.



P.S. I answer objections to Christian Biblical nonviolence in the comments at http://www.interconnectedness.net/2006/12/05/biblical-ethics/


Post-Cru Nonviolence talk

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness



Saturday, July 22, 2006

I’ll be speaking at Cru this week on Tuesday, July 25th. Cru starts to 9:00pm in Michigan Union Anderson D. I’ll be speaking about Nonviolence: The Gospel and the State. I’ve been thinking about this topic for the last 6 months. If I’ve talked with you about this or you’ve read my entries about this, this talk will include many things I’ve never shared. Also, in the past I’ve said some wrong things. The entire Bible is true without contradictions. Praise God!!! I hope to see everyone there. I’ll try to make it entertaining (art), educational (history) and edifying (Biblical), but more Biblical than anything else!


Me speaking at Cru

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize



Sunday, July 16, 2006

Many Christians who oppose homosexuality aren’t homophobic, but rather against unrepentant sin.  However, there’s a double standard with that view, because masturbation, not forgiving, getting drunk and even overeating are also unrepentant sins, but they don’t seem to get people in trouble as often.


The issue of whether homosexuality is a sin isn’t Biblically very debatable: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10


Many Christians who support homosexuality either regard Scripture as errant, have interesting alternative explanations of Scripture (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm) or try not to judge because they believe some people are created homosexual for a reason.


Based on my understanding of Scripture and following Jesus’ teachings in real life, I believe the early Christian orthodox teachings were against homosexuality. Jewish teachings were very strict in sexual relations and there’s no indication Jesus changed our understanding in any way in regards to homosexuality; whereas Jesus did change our understanding in regards to many other teachings about food, the Law, the State, the Greatest Commandment and established a new covenant with all people of the world, not only Israel.


However, the issue of ‘Is homosexuality a sin’ is not the main point. The main point is the purpose for sexuality altogether. Reproduction is the only meaningful purpose I can find for sexuality. Heterosexual sex and reproduction were inseparable in Biblical times, but not anymore. In our culture, sexuality is used for many other purposes, which all boil down to hedonism. Sexual hedonism is least destructive in marriage, because marriage contains love that usually overpowers hedonism. All your actions must be done out of love, not hedonism. If you’re not trying to reproduce, don’t have sexual relations. Be celibate.


These are difficult teachings to accept, especially in our culture, which is heavily influenced by Roman/Greek philosophy more than most realize. Based on these teachings, if I get married, I don’t want to reproduce because I want to adopt as many orphans as possible, hence I don’t plan on ever having sex even if I get married.


This type of ascetic teaching is practically impossible to follow unless your heart is fully behind it, or else you’ll resent the teaching. It’s worth following, because it allows you to love others to the utmost.


Some Christians feel fine pursuing pleasures (i.e. hedonism). They say, "If God didn’t want me to have sex, why would He make it so pleasurable?," which is akin to, "If God didn’t want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, why did he make it so tempting?" Or "God created sex for us to enjoy." We should do all things out of love, not enjoyment. They can continue to say, "Sex is holy." However, sex is never inherently holy; love is holy. Sex is a lure for people to have children who would otherwise never have children; hence, sex is a lure to learning about sacrificial love, which helps us understand God better. Notice, sacrificial love from sex does not come from sex, but from raising children.


The logical outcome of this is we shouldn’t have sex for pleasure, period. This has actually been the Christian teachings for the greater part of Christian history. It doesn’t matter whether it’s heterosexual or homosexual. Many people who condemn homosexuals are hypocrites.


We shouldn’t judge others. The Bible says we should only judge believers or those in the Church. However, I feel no church is completely holy in its teachings, hence, I don’t judge anyone.


In conclusion, don’t focus on sexuality. God calls us to celibacy unless we’re reproducing, because this way, we can love others most purely.


Homosexuality vs. Loving asceticism

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize



Thursday, July 13, 2006

I don’t feel any less worthy in God’s eyes based on HOW I was created. My worth is based on WHY I was created. The Bible tells us the purpose for our lives, whereas science tells us the mechanistic details of life. God loves worms like us for a reason: we are able to reflect the love of God unlike any other creation.


Natural science gives purely mechanistic, not moral, explanations. Some people try to extend physical laws (e.g. opposite charges attract = people with opposite personalities attract) to social ‘laws,’ and even worse, some people use biological variation to support deterministic views (e.g. eugenics). My understanding of evolution doesn’t make humans any more or less worthy of love, but my understanding of evolution helps me to better know how to manipulate nature to show the greatest love possible through medicine and other research. Excellent medicine is based on excellent science, and excellent love is based on excellent faith.


God is Truth, but Truth is not God, because God is greater than physical AND non-physical laws, since God frequently breaks physical laws in the Bible and God is beyond understanding. Would God create a law He can’t break? God seems to be the greatest law breaker of all. Maybe the idea of laws is flawed, but that’s not the point.


We need to do everything out of love, as the greatest commandment (i.e. love God and your neighbor) instructs. God reveals to us how to do this best. Since knowledge allows me to know how to love better, I value knowledge. However, if I value knowledge alone, my knowledge becomes worthless, because I will use my knowledge without love. The Bible allows us to realize the salvation promised in Jesus Christ, which frees us from sin and gives us the freedom to love everyone without end. Knowledge does not need to interfere with this and can be a valuable supplement to loving others. We can believe in all of the Bible and in all of science, because ALL OF IT IS GOD’S CREATION. At certain times, we need to humble ourselves because it may be difficult to understand how God can create contradictory things, but in the end, there are no contradictions in the Bible and in science, only our transient understandings are contradictory.


Communion is both the physical blood and flesh of Christ and bread and wine. In the same way, I believe in the physical six days and a billion-year-old universe. What’s important is God is the creator and does anything He likes irrespective if our fleshy brain can understand it. We need to be faithful and humble to everything, and most importantly love everyone.


"The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing." (John 6:63)


John 6
52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"


53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
Many Disciples Desert Jesus
60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"


61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.


The Brain counts for nothing

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize