Interconnectedness by Mikhail (Misha) Lomize

2007-03-21T13:49:00.000-04:00

I’ll be in the top 2.44% richest people in the world when I start working next year for NYCTF ($42,500 annual income).

$8 could buy you 15 organic apples OR 25 fruit trees for farmers in Honduras to grow and sell fruit at their local market.

$30 could buy you an ER DVD Boxset OR a First Aid kit for a village in Haiti.

$73 could buy you a new mobile phone OR a new mobile health clinic to care for AIDS orphans in Uganda.

$2400 could buy you a second generation High Definition TV OR schooling for an entire generation of school children in an Angolan village.

See how rich you are at globalrichlist.com.

Are wealthy Christians called to Relocation, Redistribution and Reconciliation? Do Christians follow Christ?

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness

2007-03-13T00:19:00.000-04:00

In 1994, two Americans answered an invitation from the Russian Department of Education to teach morals and ethics (based on biblical principles) in the public schools. They were invited to teach at prisons, businesses, the fire and police departments and a large orphanage. About 100 boys and girls who had been abandoned, abused, and left in the care of a government-run program were in the orphanage. They relate the following story in their own words:

It was nearing the holiday season, 1994, time for our orphans to hear, for the first time, the traditional story of Christmas. We told them about Mary and Joseph arriving in Bethlehem. Finding no room in the inn, the couple went to a stable, where the baby Jesus was born and placed in a manger.

Throughout the story, the children and orphanage staff sat in amazement as they listened. Some sat on the edges of their stools, trying to grasp every word. Completing the story, we gave the children three small pieces of cardboard to make a crude manger. Each child was given a small paper square, cut from yellow napkins I had brought with me. No colored paper was available in the city.

Following instructions, the children tore the paper and carefully laid strips in the manger for straw. Small squares of flannel, cut from a worn-out nightgown an American lady was throwing away as she left Russia, were used for the baby’s blanket. A doll-like baby was cut from tan felt we had brought from the United States.

The orphans were busy assembling their manger as I walked among them to see if they needed any help. All went well until I got to one table where little Misha sat. He looked to be about 6 years old and had finished his project. As I looked at the little boy’s manger, I was startled to see not one, but two babies in the manger. Quickly, I called for the translator to ask the lad why there were two babies in the manger.

Crossing his arms in front of him and looking at this completed manger scene, the child began to repeat the story very seriously. For such a young boy, who had only heard the Christmas story once, he related the happenings accurately - until he came to the part where Mary put the baby Jesus in the manger. Then Misha started to ad-lib. He made up his own ending to the story as he said, "And when Maria laid the baby in the manger, Jesus looked at me and asked me if I had a place to stay. I told him I have no mamma and I have no papa, so I don’t have any place to stay. Then Jesus told me I could stay with him. But I told him I couldn’t, because I didn’t have a gift to give him like everybody else did. But I wanted to stay with Jesus so much, so I thought about what I had that maybe I could use for a gift. I thought maybe if I kept him warm, that would be a good gift.

So I asked Jesus, "If I keep you warm, will that be a good enough gift?" And Jesus told me, "If you keep me warm, that will be the best gift anybody ever gave me." "So I got into the manger, and then Jesus looked at me and he told me I could stay with him—for always."

As little Misha finished his story, his eyes brimmed full of tears that splashed down his little cheeks. Putting his hand over his face, his head dropped to the table and his shoulders shook as he sobbed and sobbed.

The little orphan had found someone who would never abandon nor abuse him, someone who would stay with him-FOR ALWAYS. I’ve learned that it’s not what you have in your life, but who you have in your life that counts.

From Christian Stories

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

2007-03-12T23:58:00.000-04:00

A wealthy man and his son loved to collect rare works of art. They had everything in their collection, from Picasso to Raphael. They would often sit together and admire the great works of art.

When the Vietnam conflict broke out, the son went to war [as a medic]. He was very courageous and died in battle while rescuing another soldier. The father was notified and grieved deeply for his only son.

About a month later, just before Christmas, there was a knock at the door. A young man stood at the door with a large package in his hands.

He said, "Sir, you don’t know me, but I am the soldier for whom your son gave his life. He saved many lives that day, and he was carrying me to safety when a bullet struck him in the heart and he died instantly. He often talked about you, and your love for art.

The young man held out his package. "I know this isn’t much. I’m not really a great artist, but I think your son would have wanted you to have this."

The father opened the package. It was a portrait of his son, painted by the young man. He stared in awe at the way the soldier had captured the personality of his son in the painting. The father was so drawn to the eyes that his own eyes welled up with tears. He thanked the young man and offered to pay him for the picture. "Oh, no sir, I could never repay what your son did for me. It’s a gift."

The father hung the portrait over his mantle. Every time visitors came to his home he took them to see the portrait of his son before he showed them any of the other great works he had collected.

The man died a few months later. There was to be a great auction of his paintings. Many influential people gathered, excited over seeing the great paintings and having an opportunity to purchase one for their collection. On the platform sat the painting of the son.

The auctioneer pounded his gavel. "We will start the bidding with this picture of the son. Who will bid for this picture?" There was silence. Then a voice in the back of the room shouted. "We want to see the famous paintings. Skip this one." But the auctioneer persisted. "Will someone bid for this painting? Who will start the bidding? $100, $200?" Another voice shouted angrily. "We didn’t come to see this painting. We came to see the Van Goghs, the Rembrandts. Get on with the real bids!" But still the auctioneer continued. "The son! The son! Who’ll take the son?" Finally, a voice came from the very back of the room. It was the longtime gardener of the man and his son. "I’ll give $10 for the painting."

Being a poor man, it was all he could afford. "We have $10, who will bid $20?" "Give it to him for $10. Let’s see the masters." "$10 is the bid, won’t someone bid $20?" The crowd was becoming angry. They didn’t want the picture of the son. They wanted the more worthy investments for their collections. The auctioneer pounded the gavel. "Going once, twice, SOLD for $10!" A man sitting on the second row shouted, "Now get on with the collection!"

The auctioneer laid down his gavel. "I’m sorry, the auction is over." "What about the paintings?" "I am sorry. When I was called to conduct this auction, I was told of a secret stipulation in the will. I was not allowed to reveal that stipulation until this time. Only the painting of the son would be auctioned. Whoever bought that painting would inherit the entire estate, including the paintings. The man who took the son gets every thing!"

God gave his son 2,000 years ago to die on a cruel cross. Much like the auctioneer, His message today is, "The son, the son, who’ll take the son?" Because you see, whoever takes the Son gets everything.

From Christian Stories
Contributed by Gods Work Ministry Inspirational and Encouragement E-Mail

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

2007-03-05T17:45:00.000-05:00

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on Friday, March 2nd, 2007 was declared the winner in a competition to design the nation’s first hydrogen bomb in two decades, a major step in restarting production of nuclear weapons.

The Bush administration said the program would improve the U.S. stockpile’s reliability, security and safety and would allow for a reduction in the thousands of weapons held in reserve for a potential war.

Critics reacted sharply, saying the program sent the wrong international message when the U.S. was trying to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

Key members of Congress said the program was moving too fast.

From Livermore lab to build hydrogen bomb, Los Angelos Times

Would Jesus create a new hydrogen bomb? Would God create a new hydrogen bomb? Would Christians create a new hydrogen bomb?

Please leave me a comment.

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

2007-03-05T15:25:00.000-05:00

Dema, a 26-day-old male Sumatran tiger cub, and Irma, a 5-month-old female orangutan, cuddle at the Taman Safari zoo in Cisarua, Indonesia. Two tiger cubs and two baby orangutans, all abandoned by their mothers, became close friends and playmates sharing a room in the zoo’s nursery.

CNN.com

A female monkey fondly cuddles a puppy at a shop in the Bangladeshi capital Dhaka, 9 May 2002. The pet monkey, bought from an animal trader, "adopted" the puppy and spends many happy hours hugging it. Hunting and selling of monkeys are prohibited under Bangladesh laws but they are seldom enforced.

Reuters photo credit Rafiqur Rahman

Animals "adopting" and caring for each other speaks much about the Kingdom of God. After realizing their abandonment, the baby tiger and orangutan saw past each others’ differences. We are all abandoned orphans. We have a hard time realizing this sometimes. That’s why God wants to adopt us.

"He chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless in His sight, even above reproach, before Him in love. For He foreordained us to be adopted as His own children through Jesus Christ." Ephesians 1:4-5 (Amplified Bible)

God does not abandon people; people abandon people. People abandon. God adopts.

As we grow older we notice more differences. Prejudice is something we learn. A child’s faith is a blank slate without prejudice. "Anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it," Mark 10:15. This type of faith allows Hosea, the Prophet, to marry Gomer, a prostitute, and have a child with her. It is easy to talk about reconciliation generally, but when people start marrying across different races, economic/social backgrounds and education levels, then the conversation becomes more tense. When reconciliation in the church becomes real, people in the church will be comfortable with their children marrying children of prostitutes, thieves and murderers.

People kill. God saves. Thinking you are better than someone else is the root of all conflict.

There is nothing wrong about eating from the Tree of Knowledge. It is wrong how Adam and Eve respond once they gain knowledge. New knowledge made them proud, causing them to blame each other for the "misdeed." Gaining knowledge without love brought/brings death into the world. God told them to not eat from the Tree of Knowledge, because God knew: Truth without love kills.

National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C., January 8th, 2006

If Adam and Eve were the same gender, would they be ashamed of their nakedness? Could differences between their composition cause conflict? It may be tempting to say everyone is the same for the sake of unity. By overlooking differences, it would create a "Utopia" based on blind comfort and happiness. Struggle purifies. Our job is to recognize difference when necessary and overlook differences when needed. Love without truth lies.

The Bible is the Tree of Knowledge. The Pharisees who valued the Torah more than anything else were some of the most depraved people according to Jesus. When we study the Bible, we eat from the dangerous Tree of Knowledge. This creates "Christians" who know their Bible, but blame others for conflicts in the world, just like Adam and Eve did. Some may say, "This is a fallen world. That’s why there is sin, violence, lies and Satan in this world." This statement evades personal responsibility and blinds you of reality.

The Tree of Life, the source of love, is blocked with the flaming sword after Adam and Eve are unable to handle knowledge without becoming prideful.

Genesis 3:22-24
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

God did not block the Tree of Life, as some people think: "The flaming sword is sheathed, but not before its blade was bloody with the blood of our Kinsman Redeemer, the second Adam," (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/nl143.htm). Instead, humans block themselves from the Tree of Life. Knowledge brings pride. Pride creates a wall between us and love.

"The sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." Ephesians 6:17

"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." Hebrews 4:12

The flaming sword is the Bible. The Bible (the truth) separates people. Love brings people together. The person who overcomes differences by loving others gains eternal life (the paradise of God):

"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God." Revelation 2:7

These two passage advocate that love without truth lies, not violence or abandonment.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
   " ‘a man against his father,
      a daughter against her mother,
   a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—[Micah 7:6]
a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’
"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. (Matthew 10:34-39)

"I tell you the truth," Jesus said to them, "no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life." Luke 18:29-30 (Mark 10:29-30)

Truth without love kills our relationship with God and people. Love is more important than truth. Killing is worse than lieing. Truth and love are both necessary, because both the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life are present in the garden. God says that eating from the Tree of Knowledge, "the man has now become like one of us." The perfection God teaches comes from discarding knowledge that puffed us with pride and embracing God’s love for all people (e.g. orphans, widows, murders, prostitutes, thieves) by humbling ourselves before these people.

"External religious worship [religion as it is expressed in outward acts] that is pure and unblemished in the sight of God the Father is this: to visit and help and care for the orphans and widows in their affliction and need, and to keep oneself unspotted and uncontaminated from the world." James 1:27 (Amplified Bible)

P.S. If Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Life, rather than the Tree of Knowlege, first, then they would be far better off, since killing is worse than lieing. God said that, "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." God does not have any prohibitions against eating from the Tree of Life. The serpant is crafty to lead Adam and Eve away from the Tree of Life, and toward the Tree of Knowlege.

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

2007-03-05T15:23:00.000-05:00

CNN.com

Reuters photo credit Rafiqur Rahman

God does not abandon people; people abandon people. People abandon. God adopts.

People kill. God saves. Thinking you are better than someone else is the root of all conflict.

National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C., January 8th, 2006

The Tree of Life, the source of love, is blocked with the flaming sword after Adam and Eve are unable to handle knowledge without becoming prideful.

"The sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." Ephesians 6:17

The flaming sword is the Bible. The Bible (the truth) separates people. Love brings people together. The person who overcomes differences by loving others gains eternal life (the paradise of God):

"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God." Revelation 2:7

These two passage advocates that love without truth lies, not violence or abandonment.

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

2007-02-22T18:08:00.000-05:00

I got accepted to New York City Teaching Fellows today! I interviewed on Saturday, January 20th, 2007. I’ll start per-service training in NYC on Monday, June 18th. I’ll take the MCAT Friday, June 15th. I’ll move to NYC that weekend. Kamil might be moving to NYC too!

Plan for the future (my plans change often):

If I am a good teacher and God willing, after completing NYCTF, I will become a pastor.

If I am not a good teacher or God willing, after completing NYCTF, I’ll go to medical school and do Christian medical relief.

Either way, educating people and working to provide education for children will be an endless goal for me. I’m so thankful for this opportunity.

Acceptance letter:
Dear Mikhail:

Congratulations! On behalf of the New York City Department of Education, I am pleased to inform you that you have been accepted to the NYC Teaching Fellows June 2007 program to teach Biology/General Science. The subject you have been accepted to teach was determined by the staffing needs of the schools and a review of your teaching eligibility and preferences.

The Fellowship is one of the most competitive programs of its kind in the country. Fewer than 20% of candidates who apply are accepted, and this year was no exception, as we received a record number of applications for a limited number of spots. Your acceptance to the Fellowship recognizes your achievements to date, your demonstrated teaching potential, and your commitment to the children of New York City. We have great confidence in your ability to succeed in the classroom. You will be receiving a Welcome Packet in the mail with more information about becoming a Fellow, and we encourage you to review this information as you make your decision.

If you wish to participate in the June 2007 program, you must complete online enrollment and sign and submit the Fellow Commitment Form within three weeks. Your participation in the Teaching Fellows program is also contingent on a satisfactory reference and background check, possession of U.S. citizenship or a valid green card, and—before the beginning of pre-service training—our receipt of your official transcripts, and proof of conferral of a Bachelor’s degree. Any candidate who has reported inaccurate or incomplete information may have his/her acceptance rescinded. Additionally, you must pass both the LAST and the Biology CST before the start of the 2007-2008 school year in order to remain in the Teaching Fellows program and begin teaching.

Once again, we congratulate you and welcome you to the Fellowship. As a teacher, you will be assuming a critical role in the lives of the children of New York City. We look forward to working with you to help these students succeed.

Sincerely,

Vicki Bernstein, Director
Office of Alternative Certification

P.S. View the NYCTF June 2007 Enrollment Guide. There are a lot of ways to get kicked out of the program.

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

2007-02-20T23:34:00.000-05:00

To Jim Wallis, Sojourners and friends:

I am a huge supporter of Sojourners: I read it, distributed the pamphlets about "God is not a Democrat or Republican," and passionately share the message of social justice and nonviolence with my Christian and non-Christian friends. It is refreshing to read the God’s politics blog by Jim Wallis and friends.

Please hear my concern as if a friend with the most heart-felt compassion were talking with you.

I am a Christian who values the Bible greatly and naturally sees the call to social justice, nonviolence and love come through the entire Biblical narrative. All the wisdom for social justice, nonviolence and love are present in the Old Testament. Jesus uniquely interprets all of the Scriptures to bring the message of reconciliation intended from the beginning. Jesus is the new Adam.

The term "Red-letter Christian" does not seem to reflect the value of the whole Biblical narrative, which hinders Christians from proclaiming that social justice, nonviolence and love come from a relationship with the God of the Judea-Christian Bible. This is very troubling for me, because I deeply desire to follow socially conscience Christianity as proclaimed by Sojourners, but I also desire to value the authority of all Scripture. I do not see a contradiction between valuing all Scripture equally and proclaiming the social gospel.

The term "Red-letter Christian" is often explained as taking the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) seriously. The following quote is from the primary essay of René Girard from girardianlectionary.net. (René Girard is a core figure in explaining Christian nonviolence.)

"Is the teaching in the Sermon on the Mount the core of Jesus’ faith and teaching? The ultimate test must be the focus of the Gospels themselves, namely, Jesus’ act of going to the cross. Jesus came not primarily as a didactic teacher of principles to live by, but as a prophet who came to incarnate God’s Word through faith and action. When considering fundamental issues such as a nonviolent response to violence in light of the New Testament, the Cross itself is the center. For the Cross of Jesus Christ is essentially God’s nonviolent response to human violence."

We are immensely blessed to have Sojourners and many Christian leaders uniting around the social gospel message. Doesn’t "Red-letter Christian" seem to alienate itself from Jesus’ Talmudic Jewish heritage? Would Sojourners and friends consider shifting to a term like "Social Justice Christians"?

Shalom,
Misha

P.S. Paul Versluis is the pastor at my church, Shalom Community Church, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Paul Versluis helped start Sojourners.

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

2007-02-17T17:54:00.000-05:00

About a week ago on Thursday, February 8th Rob Bell came to the University of Michigan for the Sex God tour as I posted before. I asked the question I planned, "What do you think about nonviolence? If you favor nonviolence, how do you reconcile it with violence in the Old Testament?" His response was more amazing than I ever expected. He explained in detail what Jesus meant by turning the other cheek and going the second mile. Read a complete explanation of Matthew 5:38-41by Walter Wink. He explained that Jesus said ‘It is enough!’ with the violence from the Old Testament.

Rob Bell invited Craig Spencer and me on stage to demonstrate what it means to turn the other cheek.

I gave Rob Bell a copy of the primary article from the Girardian Lectionary and an abridged version of the Kingdom of God is Within You by Leo Tolstoy. This made him really happy and he gave me a hug.

P.S. If you are wondering why I am patting my leg during the video, it is because my Bible and planner are always in my left pocket, and they are drum-like. There is something attractive about using miscellaneous objects as musical intruments.

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

2007-02-16T19:07:00.000-05:00

As you can see from the "Christian Peace Bloggers" link above, I joined a group of Christian bloggers who write about Christian nonviolence. It’s great to be part of a community. I hope it provides access to me and others to more ideas about Christian nonviolence, especially from a Biblical basis. I already found a great story from a Christian at war from Chris Baker (sandalstraps.blogspot.com) and a person similar to me, Mark Van Steenwyk (jesusmanifesto.com). Visit sitemaker.umich.edu/globalnonviolence to see the 3 documents I have been distributing about Christian nonviolence (René Girard; Leo Tolstoy; conservative Christian). I think about Christian nonviolence all the time.

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

2007-02-04T03:27:00.000-05:00

Rob Bell seems to support Christian nonviolence! Since my "rebirth" in understanding my faith in light of nonviolence, I feel I’ve been fighting to proclaim Christ’s message all by myself. It helps the cause that Rob Bell is considered the #10 Most Influential Christians in America. (http://www.thecronline.com/mag_article.php?mid=875&mname=January). However, this list should be taken with a grain of salt considering the other people on the list.

I first learned about Rob Bell from Nooma videos at Bible study with Chris Shoemaker et al. Rob Bell is coming to campus this Thursday, Feb. 8th, 8pm, Power Center for a Q&A session about his new book "Sex God" and show a new Nooma video. I read the first chapter of this book called "God Wears Lipstick." As I read the book, I was amazed. Here are some excerpts. You can find this at sexgodtour.com.

"A concentration camp is designed to strip people of their humanity. It’s anti-human. And in the Scriptures, anything that’s anti-human is anti-God. Genesis begins with God creating the world and then creating people “in his own image.”"

"I just received an email asking if I would sign a petition protesting the use of torture to get information from enemy soldiers caught in battle. The email said this issue is being debated among politicians right now and that the public needs to speak up on the matter. There’s a debate about this? The issue isn’t just what torture does to the person being tortured, it’s what torturing does to the person doing it. We’re already in trouble when people debate the use of torture as if it’s only about what it does to the enemy. Our own humanity is at stake."

"When a human being is mistreated, objectified, or neglected, when they are treated as less than human, these actions are actions against God. Because how you treat the creation reflects how you feel about the Creator. To be a Christian is to work for the new humanity. Jesus commands his followers to feed and clothe and visit and take care of those who need it. They’re fellow image-bearers, they’re just like us, and when we love them, we’re loving God."

He is explaining the heart of the Greatest Commandment exactly. This is what I did not understand before understanding nonviolence. Basically, I did not understand the Gospel until my Junior year in college.

Since Rob Bell was saying all this, I started wondering if he supports nonviolence. Behold, on the Mars Hill website (http://www.marshill.org/teaching/index.php), he recently gave a three sermon series called "Calling All Peacemakers." The last sermon is "A Brief History of Non-Violence." He explains Matthew 5:38-42 in breath-taking detail. I recommend it to everyone (it is only available for a while; I downloaded it, so I have a copy if any needs one). I’ll be at the Q&A session on Thursday and will be sure to ask Rob Bell, "Do you support nonviolence? If you do support nonviolence, how do you reconcile nonviolence with violence in the Old Testament?" I want to know how deep his faith in nonviolence goes.

I feel like I finally understand the entire Bible message. The only consistent message I find in the entire Bible is the issue of scapegoating. Scapegoating starts from Adam/Eve, Cain/Abel, Joseph/his brothers, Noah/humanity, Isaac/Ishmael, Jonah/fishermen, etc and ends with Jesus and his disciples. Some may object, "Isn’t faith the overarching theme." Yes, faith is the overarching theme. It is the faith in the vast difference between us and God that saves us, because this difference causes us to repent from our violence. Every act of violence or preference (scapegoating) is a reflection of human, not divine, nature. Humans kill, God brings life. Christ died for our sins, not God’s sins because God does not sin. "Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death." Hebrews 11:19. Abraham believed that God’s desire to create would overpower all human power to destroy. This is the promise that Christ has overcome the world.

The entire Bible story is a gradual enlightenment about the holiness of God versus the depravity of humans. The climax comes when Jesus, the lamb of God (the scapegoat God uses to show us our own depravity in the greatest way), comes to earth and humans kill him. It is God’s way of saying Nietzsche’s phrase, "God is dead." It is obvious to God that humans are depraved, but humans cannot see this and need this revealed before we can change. Fortunately, God does not leave us with Nietzsche’s pessimistic view, and resurrects Christ to show God’s creative force and a hope that humans can overturn our culture of death.

It is a reflection of human, not divine, nature to kill an innocent person. When we all realize the innocence of each individual person and our own tendency to bring death, then we will know the Gospel message: peace through forgiving all.

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

2007-01-12T18:09:00.000-05:00

Even before the time of Jesus, Jewish teachers had discussed the Law of Moses and whether there were one or more commands that summarized the whole law. This debate is easily seen in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The debate also seems to be behind Luke’s account, which immediately precedes the parable of the Good Samaritan. We will look at examples of how some Jewish teachers proposed to resolve the question.

Not all teachers agreed that some commands might be more important than others. Because of the Jewish belief that all of the Torah (written and oral) came from God, most believed that all of the Torah was equal in importance. Yet some commands were thought to be more comprehensive than others. To keep those commands would mean keeping the whole of the Law of Moses.

The Talmud calculates that the numerical value of the Hebrew word "Torah" is 611. Thus, Moses’s 611 commandments combined with the two directly from God (the first two of the Ten Commandments commandments; they are phrased in the first person) add up to 613. 248 are mitzvot aseh ("positive commandments" commands to perform certain actions) and 365 are mitzvot lo taaseh ("negative commandments" commands to abstain from certain actions). 365 corresponded to the number of days in a year and 248 was believed by ancient Hebrews to be the number of bones and significant organs in the human body. Three of the negative commandments can involve yehareg ve’al ya’avor, meaning ‘One should let himself be killed rather than violate this negative commandment’, and they are murder, idol-worship, and forbidden relations.

In Leviticus Rabbah 24:5 (i.e. the homiletic midrash [Jewish commentary] to the Biblical book of Leviticus), Rabbi Levi taught that all the Torah is summarized in one chapter, Leviticus 19, and he shows how all of Exodus 20—the Ten Commandments—is included in this chapter. In subsequent discussion, Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Tanhuma saw that in three chapters Moses gave all of the Torah [Exodus 12; 21; Leviticus 19] because each one contains sixty specifications of religious duties (or some say 70 in each chapter). Then Rabbi Simlai says that David comprehended all the commands in eleven commands (in Psalm 15), Isaiah in six (in Isa 33:15), and Micah in only three (Mic 6:8, also noted by Jesus in Matt 23:23). Then Isaiah 56:1 is said to have comprehended all the commandments in just two: “Observe justice and do righteousness”; and finally, Amos 5:4 and Habakkuk 2:4 in just one statement. (Habakkuk 2:4 is, of course, also important for Paul in Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11)

This is mostly from wikipedia and http://www.bibleresourcecenter.org/vsItemDisplay.dsp&objectID=C9EFF70C-8099-43F7-B740B4AFAB3A329F&method=display

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

2006-12-12T15:07:00.000-05:00

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).

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

2006-12-08T20:02:00.000-05:00

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?

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

2006-12-06T18:00:00.000-05:00

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.

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

2006-12-06T17:51:00.000-05:00

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.

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

2006-12-05T22:49:00.000-05:00

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/

This entry was originally published at Interconnectedness

2006-12-04T19:59:00.000-05:00

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

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

2006-11-22T19:02:00.000-05:00

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?

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

2006-11-15T11:40:00.000-05:00

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.

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

2006-11-09T22:12:00.000-05:00

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.

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

2006-11-05T00:22:00.000-05:00

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.

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

2006-10-31T19:32:00.000-05:00

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

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

2006-10-28T16:49:00.000-04:00

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).

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

2006-10-26T20:45:00.000-04:00

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.

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