The Problem with Smorgasbord Spirituality

          Many people today make the mistake of either not understanding the distinctions between various mystical traditions and so they think they’re all kind of the same. Or they make the mistake of mixing and matching beliefs or aspect of religious systems and mystical traditions that they like while rejecting the parts they don’t. I call this “Smorgasbord Spirituality”. A take what you want and leave what you don’t like on the table approach. The reason why mixing and matching concepts among world religions and mystical traditions is a violation and not something to be encouraged, is that each world religion self-contained system of beliefs. To rip one idea out of context is deflate it of meaning. For the spiritual seeker they may not see how this is a problem. Yet, if they were to dig a little deeper they would begin to see how mixing and matching doesn’t work at all. There are three tests for truth that can aid in the task of understanding a religious in a deeper way, and help to understand why mixing and matching is so problematic. The three tests are: Coherence, Consistency, and Correspondence to reality.

The Three C’s

First, the test of Coherence looks for how beliefs, truth claims and philosophical and theological propositions match up with each other.  For example, a bicycle has two tires, a chain wheel, a chain and a pedal. (There of course are other parts, but these specific parts are necessary for the bike to move). A bicycle works or can move because the parts cohere with each other. The rider pushes the pedal, which rotates the chain wheel, causing the chain to rotate, which causes the tire to rotate and thus you go forward. Worldviews, philosophical views, and religions strive for the same thing. You cannot rip the Christian doctrine of Mercy and Grace out of its theological context. The grace God gives to the sinner is meaningful because of the presence of other theological concepts such as sin, God’s attribute of Holiness, and substitutionary atonement through Christ. They all cohere in that man is sinful, God is holy, the only holy response to sin is wrath, God instead of pouring out His wrath on humanity sent His Son Jesus to die on the Cross and complete the work of substitutionary atonement. Meaning, the God redirected His wrath that was intended for us onto His Son. Thereby, not punishing us as we deserve (mercy), but instead giving us salvation through faith in Christ (grace). To rip Grace out of its theological context is to negate the very power of the concept.

Second, the test for mystical traditions, worldviews, and religious systems is Consistency. No one every likes an inconsistent person. As self-evident as this statement is some of you may need convincing especially in how this relates to religion and mysticism. Take for example the 2008 presidential campaign between John Kerry and George W. Bush. Whenever I watched the news I couldn’t tell you how many times I heard the phrase “Flip-Flopper” in reference to Kerry. It seemed for most of the race the momentum was on Kerry’s side, yet he kept swapping back and forth on major issues. As the race was drawing to a close the one factor, among others, that set the balances in Bush’ favor was the fact that Kerry was inconsistent. If there is any indication of people’s distaste for inconsistency its politics. I do find it curious how we vilify the “Flip-Flopper” when it comes to politics, but in the religious or spiritual arena we tolerate if not applaud it. Yet, in regards to eternal destiny, how much more important is our religious and spiritual beliefs than our political ones? The Bible is a collection of 66 books, written by 40 different authors, over a time period of 1400 years, in three different languages Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and on 3 continents. Yet, despite all these the factors that would normally create a mangled mess; the Bible communicates a one clear message that God is our Creator, but man has fallen from fellowship with Him. Thankfully God has set out on a rescue plan to redeem sinful humanity. So that, one day faith will no longer be needed for the whole story will be consummated, evil will be defeated, and believers will have eternal intimate fellowship with the Trinity. In each piece of the story and as a whole, the themes of Creation, Fall, Redemption and Consummation can be seen.

Third, the test of Correspondence begins by asking the question, is there a clear connection between the truth claims of a religion and what we can observe in reality? For example, Hinduism claims that the universe is eternal. Christianity claims that the universe came into existence when God created it. Edwin Hubble, an astronomer in the 20^th century, in 1929 discovered that space is expanding and that there are star systems beyond the Milky Way (he was not the first one to conceive of an expanding universe, but his research and findings confirmed its validity). He surmised from that observation, that if you rewind the tape of cosmic history, everything— space, time, matter, antimatter, energy, dark energy— would have all coalesced into one point, the singularity. Cosmic history started with nothing, then the singularity burst forth with all matter, time and energy rapidly expanded. Planets, solar systems, galaxies and black holes began to form, yet the expansion from the Big Bang carries on. Big Bang cosmology gave credence to the Christian truth claim that the universe had a beginning. And so, there is a correspondence between the religious claim and what we observe in reality.

However, correspondence is not limited to issues of science; take for example the Christian idea of Humanity depravity and the Hindu idea of inner divinity. Humanity is a culpable source for great evil. This awareness of imperfection exists within each one of us even those we hold in high regard as being altruistic and self-sacrificing, for example Mohandas K. Gandhi. He was called Mahatma meaning “great soul” and Bapu meaning “father” because he stood up for the rights of underprivileged and needy. He was known for being a strong proponent of the Hindu worldview, self-divinity and universalistic thought. But even he felt the pain and frustration of his own imperfections. “For it is an unbroken torture to me that I am still so far from Him, who, as I fully know, governs every breath of my life, and whose offspring I am” (So What’s the Difference? p. 95). Another brilliant mind expressed his thoughts on the issue of depravity, G. K. Chesterton, a well known thinker in the early 1900’s, was once asked by a newspaper in England sampling some of the foremost thinkers of their time, “What is wrong with the world?” To which he promptly responded by saying, “Well you see my dear sirs, I am”. This thought-provoking answer speaks volumes of the realization Chesterton had, he recognized that the causal root of man’s problems was not because of enemy nations, extremism, intolerance and so on, or some factor outside of human nature breaking in and infecting the evil few. For Chesterton it was the sin nature within every human heart that was the cause for widespread evil.

 How does, for example, Hinduism or Buddhism explain human depravity? Buddhism offers no explanation, its only suggestion is to accept suffering as a brute fact and through one’s own efforts seek liberation. But if it our nature that is the problem, how then can we also be the answer? Hinduism proposes that each person possesses divinity.  The whole of human history is marked by subjugation of weaker people groups by dominant cultures, systematic conquering of foreign nations for the purpose of world domination (the Aztecs, the Mayans, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the unified Grecian cities under Athens, the Romans, the Carthagians, the Nazis, the Red army, and so on), slavery, ethnic cleansing, genocide, political deception, the war machine churning out profit for select instigators, racial intolerance, infanticide, murder, rape, lying, cheating, inconsideration, and all the way down the line to simple human selfishness. In light of all these atrocities, what does that say about divinity? Islam does explain human as fallen and sinful. The reason for all our problems is a rebellion of what is right, rejection of the laws of God. Islam correctly identifies the problem, yet the solution is through moral perfection. At the end of one’s life, one’s good deeds are weighed against one’s sinful deeds. Whichever scale is heavier determines your eternal destiny, paradise or Hades. I again ask the question, if it is our nature that is the problem, how then can we be the answer, vis-à-vis through living a morally perfect life?

The Ridiculousness of Band Names

Its been my observation that band names are kind of ridiculous. And they seem to be getting more as of late. For example Cracked.com has made a list of the 25 most ridiculous band names  (http://www.cracked.com/article_15118_the-25-most-ridiculous-band-names-in-rock-history.html#ixzz2c9uBZySu).

Porno for Pyros

Nickelback

The Alan Parsons Project

So I thought I would make up some of my own and have a laugh, enjoy:

1. The The's

2. Mr. Johnson's armchair

3. The Silly-putties

4. HammerHead Project

5. Creep Dog or Creep Dawg

6. The Chicken Pot Pie's

7. Shoulder Monkey

8. Corrupt Cupie Dolls

9. Sick Cat Vomit Ice Cream

10. Brown Snot Clouds

11. The Naked Mole Rats

12. Pukey Pups

13. Man

14. Demons Have Rights Too

15. Man Monkey

16. Nickelback (Oh wait that stupid name has already been taken)- Syphilis Dreams

17. Motor Bandits

18. General Tso Soldiers'

19. Hand in Hand Melting

20. My Organic Romance

The Nature and Relationship between Faith and Works

            Paul and James are often pitted against each other because they addressed the same issue, but on the surface seem to stating opposing conclusions about the nature of the relationship between faith and works. Paul says that we are justified by faith, and James seems to be saying that we are justified by works. However, it is important to note that these two biblical writers were addressing different issues. The letter of James was likely one of the first epistles written, he addressed the practicalities of one’s faith in Jesus. He used common sense to address a practical issue. Asking a very basic question, if you have faith in Jesus, yet there is no evidence of that faith in your life (i.e. works), then what’s the point of your faith? It’s useless. For as Paul wrote in Eph. 2:10, we were saved for a purpose, that purpose is to live righteously, which means doing good works.

            Paul, who wrote later than James, focused more on the theological aspect of justification. We are justified on the basis of our faith in Jesus, that He was who He said He was- Son of God, Messiah, and King; and that we agree with Him about the nature of sin and our own personal sin. God is holy, we are sinners, therefore we deserve condemnation, and we are in need of a savior. God has provided us a savior that is Jesus Christ. The saving action of the savior is Christ’s atoning work on the cross. This is the means for our salvation, not our own good works. No amount of good works or personal righteousness can put us in God’s good favor. Our best efforts are like dirty menstrual rags compared to God’s holiness (Is. 64:6).

            We, who have the benefit of studying both letters, must affirm both messages. We are saved only by the work of Christ, yet that salvation through Christ has an inbuilt purpose of transforming us into someone like Jesus. A person motivated to do good works, to live righteously before God and to love the savior. Faith in Jesus is one of action. James made the same point in his scenario about the lacking brother or sister (2:15-17). If our faith does not motivate us to help a brother or sister in need, what good is it? Why even have faith in Jesus? For true faith in Jesus motivates us to take action. Faith and works go hand in hand. Faith without works is not the faith that Jesus offers which that leads to salvation. James went on to discuss the examples of demons (who have belief without works= not saved), and Abraham and Rahab (who had faith with works= saved). In fact the relationship between faith and works is so inseparable, it is comparable to a body detached from the spirit, remove one from the other and the result is death (2:26).

Plat de Resistance

            What is it about people and change? What is about people and the unknown? When really the unknown isn't all that “unknown.” The unknown is something more like we know, but we don’t like all the necessary steps between me and that. I mean, don’t get me wrong. I’m not totally callous to the issue. It isn't totally foreign to me merely because I’m the one on the other end advocating for that most dread of all things, change. No, please do not misunderstand. I’ve been on the “Forced to change” “Need to change” “I’m afraid of change” end of the stick myself. Yes, it’s true I do make a paycheck from resistance and it’s opposite; to some degree if it didn't exist then neither would I professionally. So, yes it is a bit of tangle for me; a “love/hate” sort of thing. But c’mon, it is the thorniest of thorns in my back side. If I could only somehow exist in alternate plain of reality where resistance was at least less resistant so when I encounter it I don't come off as bruised by the experience. Or if I somehow developed a neuromechanical device that I could implant in my limbic system allowing me to not feel the full of weight of resistance wrath then I would be much happier indeed.

            The long and short of it is, to really help I do have to allow some bruising of myself in order to help the other in their nastiest ways of being. For at the heart of resistance is fear and an absence of trust. Fear of being without protection, and absent in trust because change is facing the unknown. In order for the change to happen there must be a safety net of relationship in place. I have seen in my experience especially for the one trying to help, they must be willing to plumb the depths. Because the absent trust has thrust its victim deep, deep down into inner layers of self and isolation. Obstinately at this moment, as uncomfortable as a truth that this is, I am reminded of the protoevangelium- a ten cent term that refers to something further elaborated in Isaiah 53. THE Savior in order to save had to be hurt in the process. If I were smart, and took my cue from His example, I would realize this same principle applies to the everyday. All those “Little savings” require the bruising of the savior’s heel. I can’t help unless in my attempt to help I’ve allowed my heel to be bruised in the process. Then as the strongman C.S. Lewis described, can reach down into the depths carrying its prize with it to the sunlight.

Davidic Kingdom in New Testament

             As we can see throughout the narrative of the Old Testament the Davidic covenant played a central role. However, direct mention of or even teaching of it is remarkably absent in the New Testament. This yet, is not an indication of its lack of presence. It is in fact very present. Acts begins with the pre-ascension appearances and teaching of Jesus. It is likely based on the context of His teaching before the crucifixion and resurrection that Jesus spoke to the disciples about the Kingdom. There is also the record in Acts 1:6-8 of the discussion between Jesus and the Apostles about the restoration of Israel. That was not a work that God was going to bring about until the second coming of Christ. According to the parables of Jesus about the Kingdom, the Kingdom of God is going to build slowly through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the establishment of Christ’s church and the inauguration of the New Covenant.

The relationship of the Davidic promises to the resurrection. God did promise to David that an heir of his would always sit on his throne. Jesus was that descendant of David, yet He died? So how was Jesus to be the eternal heir of David? And always sit upon His throne? The answer is the resurrection and ascension. Jesus died on the cross making atonement for all those who would believe in Him. And He also was resurrected by the power of God. Yet He did not resurrected as a ghost or trans-personal being, He resurrected as human being who ascended to the right hand of the Father in an eternal incarnation who will return and take His rightful place on David’s throne.

            The relationship of the Davidic promises to the Gentiles- Jesus came in fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise in Genesis 12:1-3. God promised that he would one day have an offspring that would bless the entire world. That descendant was the heir of David, root of Jesse, the rose of Sharon Jesus Christ. Through His work on the cross He made atonement for the entire world, “once and for all” (Rom. 6:5-11). The “once and for all” refers to all who believed in times past, present and future. The future includes Gentiles. As we can see Christ appeared before Paul and made him Apostle to the Gentiles, and even before that, in the Gospels Christ taught that the Gentiles would be one day welcomed into the family of faith. There are other references to Davidic promise in the Epistles and in Revelation. 

A-Mil, Pre-Mil, and Post-Mil- What's the Difference?

Revelation 20:4 has caused quite a bit of theological ruckus among theologians and Christians. The verse clearly indicates the saints resurrecting and reigning with Christ for a thousand years. Some disagree though if this verse is referring to a literal thousand years or a figurative thousand years, or they argue about when this thousand year reign is placed in the time frame of the last times] I’ll briefly distill each view below.

Amillenialism- The theologians in this camp reject the idea of a literal thousand years. They see the millennial Kingdom as something that is already present in the church age. It is interpreted as a symbolic period of time. They see this view as being consistent with the highly symbolic nature of the apocalyptic genre of the book of Revelation, sometimes indicating that the thousand years represent God's rule over his creation or the Church

            Postmillenialism- The theologians in this camp recognize the thousand year reign as literal, however they think Christ will return (second coming) after the thousand years is over. The thousand years will be a golden age for Christians when righteousness is practiced widely. They see Christ’s reign as physical and earthly during the millennial reign. In terms of the rapture, they typically tend to see it coming before (dispensational) or after (historic) the tribulation preceding the millennium.

            Premillenialism- The theologians in this camp believe in a literal thousand year reign, however, they see Christ’s return (second coming) happening first, then Christ is present throughout the thousand year reign. In terms of the rapture, the “Pre-mils” disagree with the “Post-mils” that Christ’s second coming will be before the Millennial Kingdom. Therefore the rapture would be after in conjunction with the Second Advent. 

Why is Accountability Important?

       

       This practice is more so under the umbrella of fellowship, but I think it is such an important ill used discipline that it deserves its own paragraph. There are several passages that I could mention on this topic, but I think Paul captured the idea best in his epistle to the church in Galatia, “Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:1-2). That “restoring” Paul speaks of we have example of in I Cor. 5 when Paul offers strong words for what the Corinthian church ought to do with a brother in sin. They were to correct, rebuke, and if the brother was repentant than as Matt. 18 stated “you have won him over”. 
       Paul describes that we are not merely dealing with flesh and blood, we battle against spiritual powers and forces (Eph. 6:12). In other words, when we battle against sin we are entering into an ongoing spiritual conflict between Satan and the hosts of the heaven. Satan, as we know wants to kill, steal and destroy (John 10:10). The answer to Daniel’s prayer was withheld because the angel was in battle with a fallen angel (Dn. 10:12-14). Make no mistake, there is a strong connection between the world seen and unseen, what we do matters, and sometimes what happens in our lives is borne out from the world unseen. Therefore, we need to keep each, through gentleness and love, in righteousness and away from sin, and do that by keeping each other accountable.

Mexico's Greatest Artist

           

            In the early 1900's Mexico went through a huge change from mostly rural, semi-literate revolutionary society to a developed, industrialized modern nation. (Rochford, Desmond. Mexican Muralist, pg. 11). Diaz's presidency from1876-1910 changed the structure of Mexico's society and economy. 90% of Mexico's peasants were landless. Because of Diaz's desire to launch his country into the twentieth century he allowed many foreign investors to supplant the nation's budgetary needs. Diaz's rule over Mexico simply crumbled apart from under him. Because of his departure this left a massive power gap creating great conflict between all opposing sides and there were many. This power struggle met with much bloodshed, during this era of revolution a million Mexicans died. All of this political upheaval had a huge effect on Diego

            This is the world Diego Rivera was born into on December 8, 1886, in Guanajuato City, Guanajuato Mexico. Diego's father had joined the Mexican army to fight against Napoleon III after that he became an elementary school teacher.

Diego was a twin; his brother's name was Carlos who died at eighteen months.

Diego's mother was one of the first women to graduate from medical school as an obstetrician. Diego's father was heavily anti-Catholic and did not allow Diego to attend church

            By age eleven, it was evident that Diego was not cut out for catholic school which was his mother's wish, or military school which were his father's wishes. He had one passion, art, he finally got a shot realizing his dream when his parents allowed him to attend the San Carlos Academy; "one of the foremost schools in the country" (Litwin, Laura Baskes. Diego Rivera: Legendary Mexican Painter, pg. 20).  When eighteen Diego had graduated from San Carlos with many honors and at age twenty he went over to Spain by the encouragement and support of Dr. Atl and a scholarship committee. He studied in Madrid, taught by Eduardo Chicharro. He studied some of Spain's finest artist like Goya, El Greco, and Velazquez as well as Spain's scenery. As Chicharro's student, he did extensive traveling painting streets and landscapes of Spain.

            After his two years in Spain, Diego started taking classes in Paris, France. This is where he met Angelina Beloff, who was a beautiful and talented art student who had studied with Paul Cezanne and was several years his senior. But that did not stop him; he instantly fell in love with her. After the first year of study Diego meet up with a good friend he had made in Spain, Maria Blanchard. She, Diego, and Angelina decided to do some traveling in their vacation time. Before classes started again, all three went to London and for the first time he saw the factories and realized the abject poverty of his people. The wealth in London contrasted bitterly with the poverty of his own Mexican people. It was also in London that Diego professed his to love to Angelina. At first she was taken aback and needed time to think.

            In 1910, Rivera's work was selected to be shown in the famous Salon Des Independants, this was a very big deal for a young artist like himself, and this also extended his scholarship funds. He had been gone from Mexico for four years and requested some time off to come back to Mexico from his scholarship committee, they granted his request. At this time Angelina and Diego decided to spend some time away from each other to consider their relationship. On his return, Rivera was given his first one-man show at his old school of San Carlos. The show was so successful half of his paintings sold and one was bought by the wife of Porfirio Diaz the current dictator of Mexico. Little did Diego realize that in six months time the Mexican revolution would start and his government funds would soon dry up.

            When the revolution began instead of taking up arms Rivera went to the country side of Mexico to paint. He then returned to Paris to be reunited in love with Angelina Beloff, who then reciprocated his love. They began living together and moved to a neighborhood called Montparnasse. This was an epicenter for many other artists, writers, and poets. The café lifestyle and beautiful scenery was what attracted them.

The community attracted such great artists such as Pablo Picasso who was a close neighbor to Rivera. He highly admired Picasso and his style; this is what first got him into the cubist style and movement. His chance finally came to meet Picasso; Pablo sent a messenger and demanded to meet with the budding artist. He was more than happy to accommodate, they had dinner and became fast friends. Because of this meeting and friendship Rivera's paintings became highly respected among the art community.

            Europe was now in the pangs of world war one, because of the dangers and lack of money Diego took Angelina to an isolated island called Majorca off the coast of Spain. But they were broke and after three months of bliss on this isolated island Angelina received an opportunity in Barcelona, they returned to Montparnasse. Incredibly the small community experienced some small, but no real effects of the war, Diego went on painting. It was during this time that many critics say that Rivera painted his greatest cubist painting of his career. The painting was called the "Zapatista landscape" and Rivera described his painting as "Probably the most faithful expression of the Mexican mood that I have ever achieved." This painting had a huge effect in two ways on his life and career. First, the painting was a massive endorsement for the revolutionaries in Mexico. Rivera was showing his support for the movement, this would push him in the direction of painting politically motivated paintings, which he would do for the rest of his career. Second, this painting caught the attention of a man named Leonce Rosenberg. Rosenberg was kind of an agent for very famous artists including Picasso.

            Rosenberg offered to represent Rivera and he agreed he was now under contract to produce four canvases a month to a dealer. This gave him a stable income and a chance to start a family with Angelina; they had their first child, Diguito on August 1916. Life was good for Diego at this point, he was becoming nationally acclaimed for his cubist paintings and a lot of his work was being sold. Then he decided to experiment with new styles other than cubism, he thought that he received all that he could get from the cubist style and wanted to explore alternative techniques. Rosenberg wanted him to only paint cubist paintings. He and Rosenberg split, money and food became scarce in Europe from WWI and Diguito died at fourteen months old. Diego's split with Rosenberg was not the only relationship that he severed, because of the baby's death and Diego's year long love affair with another woman that produced a daughter, Morika. This greatly strained his relationship with Angelina. Angelina once said at the end of Rivera's life, "He has never been a vicious man, but simply an amoral one. His paintings [are] all he has ever lived for and deeply loved."

            1918, WWI ended and with that a new phase in Rivera's art had just started. Taking the advice of one a friend, he went to Italy to see the art of the fifteenth century masters. This is where he saw the Fresco style of painting that was done with wet plaster. This technique would be one of the biggest influences on his work in the near future. But for now after his trip Diego wanted to return home, which he did in 1921. When he arrived home, Mexico had seen ten years of bloodshed and new governments, but President Obregon was now in office and wanted to rebuild. Part of this rebuilding included endorsements for the Mexican art scene. Rivera couldn’t have come home at a better time, he was offered a teaching position in a university, but Rivera wanted a job of mural painter for public buildings. It was during this time that Rivera went on a trip through the Yucatan seeing the Mayan ruins and remains of its culture. It was also at this time that his father died, this had a crushing effect on him.

            Diego got the mural painting position he had hoped for and his first job was in a lecture hall in the National Preparatory school. While doing this year long project he married his model Guadalupe Marin in June 1922. This was also a period in which he became politically active and conscientious. His communist views have a prevalent place in most of his work and especially in his murals. "Los Tres Grandes" or the Big Three (DR, LMP pg 55) at this time came together to create some of the most profound murals the world had ever seen. Rivera, Siqueiros and Orozco all three united in their communist ideals and cause feeding off each others political fervor and artistic abilities.

            Diego was now given a job painting the Ministry of Education Building; he was to paint 128 walls in the building. The entire task took his four years and by the end of that time he had completely mastered fresco style of painting and was Mexico's foremost painter. In 1926 while doing some painting on his scaffold he was intrigued by a persistent young 20 year woman named Frida Khalo. The young artist asking to have her work evaluated intrigued Diego. By 1927 Rivera had divorced Guadalupe, and in 1928 he was married to Frida. They were what you would call an odd couple he being six foot tall and weighing 200 pounds more than Frida, they were often called "The Elephant and the Dove."(DR, LMP, pg 65). In the same year of his marriage to Frida Khalo he was commissioned to paint a mural in the National Palace, this offer once again cemented his position as the greatest painter in Mexico. He also received another huge commission from the Palace of Cortés to paint a mural for the United States, which would then be given to Mexican government as a gift. Because of these two commissions Rivera was expelled from the communist party for taking business with capitalists.

            In 1930 Rivera was offered two major commissions in the United States one was to paint a wall in the Californian School of Fine Arts and the second was to paint a mural in a restaurant which was in the San Francisco Stock Exchange. He and Frida make their way to San Francisco, causing quite a stir at their arrival even the famed photographer Ansel Adams came out to photograph them. This trip to California and the two murals marked not so much a change, but an evolution in his painting. He was fascinated by machinery and he started to include them in these two murals. Rivera finished his mural in May 1931 and returned to Mexico to continue his work on the National Palace. While working a representative from the Museum of Modern Art in New York asked him if he would like to have his own one man show. Rivera readily agreed, later saying "To every modern artist, this is the pinnacle of professional success" (DR, LMP, pg. 77).

            When he arrived in New York he was overwhelmed by the mass poverty caused by the Great Depression. He painted his first impressions, thoughts and emotions of New York in a painting called "Frozen Assets."  It depicts the stark separation between the rich and poor while mass technological and structural progress was being made. The painting was a chilling, but honest portrayal of the average person's life in New York at the time. Because he could not show his murals in the show, he replicated some on to portable canvases. He had about 150 pieces being shown and it was a huge success. The public poured into the Museum to look at the Mexican artists work. Diego Rivera was an unfamiliar name in America, but after the publics, Medias and arts enthusiasts' positive reaction to his work, Rivera became a world wide hit.

            Because of his show in New York Edsel Ford wanted Rivera to paint a mural series in a Ford plant in Dearborn, Michigan. He would get paid $15,000 which was quite a sum for that time and especially during the Great Depression.  Once again he got to dabble in his interest of machinery. Rivera would spend 8-16 hours a day painting rarely taking a break. Frida was often left alone to deal with the pain of her recent miscarriage and the fact that her mother was dying. This was the main reason why she left for Mexico to visit her dying mother. It was also during this time that Rivera's two old friends Siqueiros and Orozco were painting murals in the United States, but they could not contend with Rivera for fame. In 1933 he finished his work and the couple returns to Mexico for some rest.

            Due to some medical problems and a fiasco that happened when he painted the communist leader Lenin into one of his murals for the Rockefeller building causing uproar, he was suffering from depression and malnutrition. To take his mind off the pain he painted a mural in the Hotel Reforma in Mexico, 1936. In the painting Rivera mocked a government official and tourists, the Hotel complained and attempted to paint over the controversial sections of the painting. A court battle ensued, Diego won, but the Hotel refused to show the painting. This took a huge toll on Diego and he then decided to not paint anymore murals and he wouldn’t for six more years. Now he turned his attention to painting portraits for the Mexican socialites and elitists, which turned out for a good payout, less work requiring no assistants and especially no controversy. Also during this time Rivera painted many of the common and poor Mexican people. This period in his painting reflected his love for the poor and indigenous people of Mexico.

            In August if 1940 Rivera accepted a commission for a mural in San Francisco. He happily accepted because he feared for his life and wanted to flee the country. A few years back Stalin and Trotsky split, then Stalin wanted Trotsky's death. Rivera obtained asylum and a house for Trotsky in Mexico. He stayed in Frida's childhood house, while staying there with his wife Trotsky had an affair with Frida. She then left to do a one-man show in New York, when she came back Rivera wanted a divorce. Trotsky was killed by Stalin's assassins and Rivera feared that he was next; this is why he was more than happy to take the job in San Francisco.

            On December 8, 1940 Diego and Frida remarried. Jumping ahead in Diego's life we now see Rivera as a sixty year old man in 1947. Rivera has just finished one of his biggest murals yet "Dream of a Sunday Afternoon in Alameda Park."  The painting is fifty feet long and sixteen feet high. The mural includes important historical and personal facts about his experiences of Mexico's history and of his own life. This painting is a short history of Rivera's life and all whose who had an important impact upon him. The painting was praised as one of his greatest murals, not so much for his skill at painting, but for his ability to tell a story.

            On July 13, 1954 Frida died and Rivera remembered it as one of the saddest days of his life. In 1955 Rivera married Emma Hurtado. After his marriage he was diagnosed with cancer. After seeking out medical attention in the Soviet Union and declaring that he was a catholic he died on November 24, 1957.

            Diego Rivera at an early age was instilled with a passion to fight and represent those who could not provide and defend for themselves. Through a process of life experiences he learned to use his art as form of communication to tell the story of his life, political views, of the Mexican culture and people. Even though Rivera never took up arms in a revolution he was a revolution in his own right. And he will always be regarded as the greatest painter of Mexico, giving the Mexican people more than just great art, but also a sense of pride in their own national identity.

Different Treatment Plans for Adults with ADHD

            What happens to children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder when they become adults? Do the symptoms vanish with adulthood? The reality of the situation is that “90% (Bierdman et al)of adults diagnosed with ADHD in childhood report continued low levels of overall functioning”(Wadsworth & Harper, pp. 102). The disadvantages of hyperactivity and impulsivity, which characterize children with ADHD, usually fade away as children become adults. The defining characteristics of ADHD in adults are under stimulation and inattentiveness, which can lead to various social, relational and occupational difficulties.  The ADHD of childhood and the ADHD of adulthood are two very different things with very different approaches to treatment.  This is an important distinction to make; one cannot apply a treatment model for ADHD children to ADHD adult.  This will not only be ineffective, but it could also adversely affect adult patients to not seek treatment and live with the difficulties of ADHD with shame and lack of medical treatment. The scope of this report will cover types of treatment measures for adults with ADHD, they are: psychotherapy/cognitive-behavioral skill training and preventative disclosure strategies. But before different types of treatment approaches and measures are to be considered, an understanding of the background and diagnosis of ADHD in adults is necessary.

            In the early nineteen hundreds some physicians thought the behaviors that we now recognize as ADHD disorder behaviors were a lack of morality and a resistance to accept the surrounding cultural expectations. Two decades later other physicians began to make the link between these behaviors and neurobiological damage or disorder, particularly in the cerebrum. This sparked more research that would eventually recognize the correlation between impulsivity and hyperactivity in children and “neurobiological disorder of the frontal lobe” (Quinn et al 1995). The sad truth is that the majority of parents with ADHD pass on those dysfunctional genes to their children. The neurobiological disorder manifests itself in abnormal behaviors that we all have seen in a friend or co-worker, but what is really happening inside the mind of someone with ADHD? “The hyperactive and inattentive behaviors in adults are thought to be the result of an under-responsive regulation of neurotransmitters or neurotransmitter functions in the prefrontal cortex” (Erk 2000). This is the neurobiological disorder that children and adults have within their neurological makeup, having this disorder hinders the patients from doing many things that we who have normative neurobiological makeups take for granted. “The clinical expression of the under-responsive behavioral inhibition system includes the inability to prioritize and implement four executive functions: (a) nonverbal working memory, (b) internalization of self-directed speech, (c) self-regulation of mood and arousal, and (d) reconstitution of the component parts of observed behaviors”(Barkely,1997).

Little to none research has been done on adults with ADHD; even though the diagnosis of ADHD is prevalent in our culture. The majority of studies and treatment plans have been for children, but no one has worked at solutions to the problems adults face with ADHD. “It is important to note, however, that those with behavioral disturbances (such as ADHD) face stigmatization, which may play a role in the social difficulties they experience (Crisp, Gelder, Rix, Meltzer, & Rowlands, 2000). Research has demonstrated that the general public endorses stigmatizing attitudes towards individuals with psychological disorders and that this stigmatization often results in negative outcomes such as rejection, social withdrawal, and exacerbation of psychiatric symptoms (Schumacher, Corrigan, & Delong, 2003).”  The options for treatment plans are few and the social and occupational difficulties can feel overwhelming. That’s what motivated a research team to look for ways that these adults can alleviate and cope with the stigmatizations of ADHD behaviors. A treatment plan was proposed, the main focus would be an attitude change in the patients. This is manifested by the proactive approach of “Preventative disclosure-an attempt to counteract social stigma by selectively using both concealment and disclosure of one’s condition” (Joachim & Acorn, 2000; Troster, 1997). The idea is that by disclosing one’s condition early on in a social interaction would hopefully prevent misattribution by peers or stigmatization by the public. What makes this study unique is that a preventative disclosure study has never been done for young adults with ADHD; the treatment has only been applied to those with other chronic illnesses. This study had 306 participants, around half were female, and the age range was from 18-26 with an average age of 22.5. The participants had to fill out a survey consisting of vignettes “The vignettes differed according to a two (ADHD symptom presentation: hyperactivity vs. inattentive) by two (preventative disclosure of disorder vs. nondisclosure) design.”(Jastrowski et al). The results of the study produced some very significant observations about this method. “There was a large effect of preventative disclosure in socially rejecting attitudes and a medium effect on beliefs that characters would benefit from treatment… First, the data indicate that individuals with ADHD who disclose their diagnosis may prevent negative social consequences, such as social rejection.”(Jastrowski et al). Of course this preventative treatment is not a cure, but it is an effective way of dealing with one aspect of the difficulties that adults with ADHD deal with. The researchers suggest more studies are needed to be conducted with a greater diversity so that these results may be more generalized.

In this section the psychotherapy/cognitive-behavioral skills treatment plan for adults with ADHD will be discussed.  A pilot study was conducted by Hesslinger et al 2002, in this research study researchers recognized that there were no Psychotherapeutic and behavioral skills studies being done or that have been done.  They decided to perform a study that analyzed how Adults who fit the DSM-IV criteria for ADHD disorder would respond to Psychotherapy involving cognitive-behavioral treatment. What they decided to use was the “DBT” or Dialectical Behavioral Therapy first developed by Linehan et al 1993. This treatment plan is usually used for those dealing with Borderline Personality Disorder; this treatment plan was chosen because often times those who have BDP exhibit similar psychopathologies with those who have ADHD. Such behaviors include “deficits in affect regulation, impulse control, substance abuse, low self-esteem, and disturbed interpersonal relationship are common in both conditions.”(Hesslinger et al 2002).  Before introducing the test subjects to the treatment and DBT program they first modified it by conducting a pre-treatment group of ADHD adults who went through the treatment. After going conducting sessions with the test subjects they modified the DBT so that it would be geared more to ADHD. The test consisted of eight participants, 5 male and 3 female, their age range was 19-44 with an average age of 31.9. Two of the participants were on medication at the time, Methylphenidate and anti-depressants, participants with ADHD participating in research studies with medication is common due to misdiagnoses, anti-depressants and or new stimulant drugs that are being newly developed. The treatment developed by Hesslinger et al were conducted in a group setting, the contents of the treatment included various skills: mindfulness was the first skill learned, the source of this skill was from the DBT program. “In DBT there are three “what” skills (observing, describing, participating) and three “how” skills (taking a nonjudgmental stance, focusing on one thing at a time, being effective)” (Linehan M et al). The second skill that the participants learned was “Chaos and Control”, essentially it is a perspective change for the patient, learning how to take control of their ADHD instead of letting it take control of them.  The third step was a whole process of analyzing behaviors that the patients wanted to change, this involved “detailed and precise description of the behavior, preceding events, predisposing constellations,” etc… (Hesslinger et al). The next step was more educational; participants were taught how ADHD can create emotional stability. This step had them using a journal to record their thoughts and education on emotional regulation.  The other steps of the treatment involved education with skill training, they were skills of impulse control, dealing with stress, substance dependency, how ADHD affects one’s personal relationships, and the some sessions involved family members and significant others in these sessions. The results of the treatment were extremely positive, on several skill inventories and a depression scale all the patients had scores that showed significant improvement. Not only were the numbers positive, but

“The treatment was generally regarded as helpful and, in particular, as very specific for the deficits that patients experienced. Patients felt better educated and felt they were better able to cope with ADHD. All patients stated that the setting as a group was most helpful. Psychoeducation, the therapists, and the exercises were mentioned as further helpful factors in a descending order. The rating of the different therapy modules mentioned above was very heterogeneous; however, none of the modules was assessed as unhelpful.”(Hesslinger et al 2002).

The success of this study is also evident by how many dropouts they had, none and many wanted to continue the therapy. This is an astounding lack of dropout rate considering the disadvantages of the subject group’s tendencies towards lack of persistence and instability. There were some drawbacks to the study; mainly the study’s low sample number creates a difficulty in trying to generalize the findings to the whole adult ADHD population. There are also limitations to this study as well; many behavioral treatment measures have been tested on children with no significant results. This means that the treatment cannot be universalized to children; this seems to be true because children lack the self motivation that the adults do. But the successes of this study cannot be overlooked, if anything this pilot study should be the harbinger for many more studies like it to come along and the treatment to be more widely used in ADHD adults.

            Even though not many studies have been done in the past on adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, the future looks hopeful due to the growing interest in researching this population. Many research teams are now taking a closer look at the problems and solutions of this disorder. Psychotherapy/Cognitive-behavioral skills training proved to have significant results as well did the Preventative disclosure approach. These and hopefully many more treatment options will be available to adults with ADHD.

References:

Biederman, J. (2000). Impact of comorbidity in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 152, 431-435.

Wadsworth, J.S. & Harper, D. C. (2007). Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Assessment and Treatment Stratgies. Journal of Counseling & Development, 101, Vol. 85.

Quinn, D. Q. (1995). Neurobiology of attention deficit disorder. In K.G. Nadeau (Ed.), A comprehensive guide to attention deficit disorder in adults: Research, diagnosis, and treatment (pp. 18-31). New York: Brunnel Mazel.

Erk, R. R. (2000). Five frameworks for increasing understanding and effective treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Predominately inattentive type. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 389-399.

Barkely, R. A. (1997). Behavioral inhibitions, sustained attention, and executive functions: Constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 65-94.

Linehan. M. (1993a). Cognitive-behavioral Treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder. The Guilford Press, New York.

Linehan. M. (1993b). Skills Training Manual for Treating Borderline Personality Disorder. The Guilford Press, New York.

Hesslinger B, Tebartz van Elst L, Nyberg E., D. P, Richter H, Berner M, Ebert D (2000). Psychotherapy of attention deficit hyperactivity disaster in adults: A pilot study using a structured skills training program. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci, 252, 177-184.

Hallowell, EM. & Ratey J. (1994). Driven to Distraction. Pantheon Books, New York.

Crisp, A.H., Gelder, M.G., Rix, S., Meltzer, H. I., & Rowlands, O. J. (2000). Stigmatisation of people with mental illnesses. British Journal of Psychiatry, 177, 4-7.

Schumacher, M., Corrigan, P. W., & Delong, T. (2003). Examining cues that signal mental illness stigma. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22, 467-476.

Joachim, G., & Acorn, S. (2000). Stigma of visible and invisible chronic conditions. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32, 243-248.

Troster, H. (1997). Disclose or conceal? Strategies or information management in persons with epilepsy. Epilepsia, 38, 1227-1237.

Jastrowski, K. E., Berlin, K. S., Sato, Amy F., Davies, W. Hobart (2007). Disclosure of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder May Minimize Risk of Social Rejection. Psychiatry, 70, 274-282.

A Religious Response to the Legalization of Gay Marriage

If the debate were simply about inclusion in terms of equality of rights, I think homosexuals should receive rights for unions. But why the effort to redefine marriage? Marriage is defined by a monogamous, legal and religious relationship between a man and a woman. It is a religious institution. Therefore, this debate is not about equal distribution of rights and privileges, if it were I think this would be an easier debate. Simply because homosexuals in certain states do have the same rights and privileges afforded to a married couple. The debate is really about forced acceptance of a way of living. I think that is intolerable.

As to the issue of the government’s role of inclusion versus exclusion, I wonder where the line is. If we are going to redefine a long held, culturally practiced religious institution such as marriage because a special interest group carried out an effective lobbying campaign, what is to stop other groups from wanting the same? For example NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association), they argue that what they do is nature and feels right. They are essentially advocating pedophilia. Why should we suppress their rights to freely express the love that feels natural to them?

Some have objected and associated the Gay rights movement with slavery. To equate the SSM movement with slavery I think is untenable. Slaves were regarded as less than humans. A slave constituted 3/5 of a person and from that supposition the atrocities of slavery were justified. Homosexuals are not regarded as less than a person; in fact individually they have the same rights as a heterosexual person. In the case of legally recognized unions, as I have stated before several states afford the same rights to same-sex unions as they do to married heterosexual people and I think that is appropriate. We need not redefine marriage to afford SSM’s the same rights as heterosexual people.

Where the trouble comes in is that homosexual lobbying groups not only wants parodied union rights, but they also want to change the definition marriage so that their lifestyle is accepted. This to me is ridiculous. To we live in a free country where people can have various and conflicting viewpoints. But for one person or group to then go a step beyond that and say, not only is my lifestyle allowable, it must also be accepted and legalized. I say if you want to live a gay lifestyle then live a gay lifestyle, however, to demand that we redefine a long held, culturally practiced, religious institution is wrong.

In regards to the objection of, “What two consenting adults do is their own decision, if it doesn’t affect anyone else, why is it wrong?” If I didn’t hold a Christian worldview then I would wholeheartedly agree with this with it not being wrong. But you have to understand that this question assumes moral relativity. Meaning, what’s right for you is right, but what is right for me is also right, regardless of any apparent differences or contrasts. There is not final arbiter of right and wrong, it is merely a social construct that is subject to change depending on the culture or individual within the culture. This I cannot agree with, I believe morality is objective, in that is true, binding, immaterial and invariant regardless if a person or culture recognizes it or not. If this were not case then murder for some would be right and no one could say otherwise. Or lying would be right for some and no one could contest that, the result would be chaos.  

These are pretty common mistakes; moral relativity seems on the surface the fairest position to take. However, if you were to really examine the logic of moral relativism and all of its logical entailments, the picture would be somewhat frightening. In his book When God Goes to Starbucks: A Guide to Everyday Apologetics Paul Copan, an apologist, discussed four central maxims or moral relativism that seem on the surface an appeal to fairness, but have a hidden assumption underlining its arguments that are riddled with problems.

·         ““You can do whatever you want— as long as it’s between two consenting adults.” What if the two consenting adults engage in sadomasochistic acts? Aren’t such actions deviant? And why limit the discussion to adults? What’s ultimately wrong with lowering the age of sexual consent, as the North American Man/Boy Love Association desires?

·         “You can do whatever you want— as long as it’s in the privacy of your own home.” Again, why should absolute autonomists insist on privacy as opposed to doing whatever one wants in public— including shouting, “Fire!” in a crowded theater or “Bomb!” on a transatlantic flight? And is child abuse or wife-beating okay since it’s done in the “privacy” of one’s home?

·         “People can believe and do whatever they want; they should just be tolerant of other’s views.” If the relativist believes that her views are true for her but not necessarily for others, then why should she insist on laying this standard of tolerance on everyone— relativist or not? Where does that standard come from? What is if a person doesn’t want to be “tolerant” (whatever that means)?

·         “You can do what you want; just don’t violate another person’s rights.” Why respect anyone’s rights? Where do rights even come from in a godless world? How can the relativist believe we can do what we want but, out of the other side of her mouth, insist that other’s rights ought to be respected? Isn’t it ironic (and contradictory) that our society both freely accepts the “true for you but not for me” relativism as well as insists on watching out for people’s “inviolable rights”? If relativism is justified, humans don’t have rights that ought to be respected. If humans have genuine rights, then relativism is false.” (p. 24).

There is much more I could say on this topic and would if I had the time, more could be said such as an argument from history— how homosexuality has been viewed historically. The argument of the slippery slope (already alluded to)— if we open the door for SSM what’s to stop any group, fetish, or desire to be limited if we assume moral and cultural relativity? The argument from identity and purpose— do we define and shape the way we live based on our own preferences and desires, on upon a higher law or are there fixed norms that are inherently obvious from an outside source namely God? The argument from false neutrality— it is patently false to claim neutrality and a non-bias in this issue, for to say that the state should be neutral about gay marriage is a moral stance and position. To be neutral on the issue is passive agreeance. For example, the statement there is no right and wrong, to say this is not being unbiased, this is absolutely a position with a consequent truth claim of moral relativity. I could go on, there are many more arguments that could be made, but I will stop here.

Discipleship

          

         “Discipling is a relational process in which a more experienced follower of Christ shares with a newer believer the commitment, understanding, and basic skills necessary to know and obey Jesus Christ as Lord.”  (Connecting: The Mentoring Relationships You Need to Succeed, p. 48). I totally agree with Stanley and Clinton, I think from all the Biblical data we can gather that Jesus left us with a basis and methodology for disipling. The primary aspect of Jesus’ discipleship with the twelve was relational, this composes the basis, and giving of the self on the part of the discipler, this composes the methodology. For further support of this matrix of seeing Discipleship observe what Robert E. Coleman had to say on the topic, “Having called his men, Jesus made it a practice to be with them. This was the essence of His training program—just letting His disciples follow Him” (p. 38).

            First of all, as to the basis of discipleship, it is important know that God is a relational God; this statement needs little refutation, but for those who need convincing there are a few key passages that demonstrates this fact. God established relationship with His people through an ancient of form of connection called a Covenant. What a covenant created was a permanent and binding relationship between the Suzerain and a Vassal based on the Vassals adherence to certain stipulations, based on the Vassals obedience or disobedience there would be blessings or cursings (Deut. 28). We can see a primary example of this in the Mosaic covenant (Ex. 19:3-6, 20:1-6). God created a relationship with the Chosen people, the Israelites, in this way so that they would understand. It was an accommodation on God’s part to work in such a way that humans would understand, therefore His reason for using a human convention. But we must understand that before this formal and conditional relationship started as we can see in Exodus, there was a more intimate and personal foundation laid between God and Abraham.

            In Genesis 12:1-3 God made a permanent, unchanging and unconditional promise to Abraham, that He would give him land, nation and blessing. And that this blessing would be a blessing for the whole world. This relationship was not determined by obedience or merit, God chose simply because He chose. God loves simply because He loves. God chose, loved and acted in this relational way simply because it is His character to do so, and because of that we can always always trust Him. We need not be afraid that God will one day abandon us or desert us based on our actions or failings. If that were the case, then God would have checked out long ago, but He hasn’t, and we can be confident of that because of His character and ongoing work in human history. This relational foundation of love was the basis for the Mosaic, Davidic and New covenants and everything else God affected in the lives of humans and our history. It also provides us with a basis discipleship as I said before. We are to reflect God in the way we disciple others, and we have the best example of that in Jesus Christ. Jesus came to earth and manifested in human form what God had been doing since creation, which was being loving and relational.

Second, Jesus’ methodology with the twelve was unique simply because He didn’t use a methodology.  His methodology what Himself, He lived out God’s will and let the disciples experience Him as lived and endured various circumstances. This provides for us a methodology of allowing others to be with us as we follow God, for others to see how we experience hardship and turn to God, and for others to learn as we obey God. Essentially, letting others do life with us as we follow God. I love this because it adheres with the truth that God has uniquely and wonderfully made each one of us. That is to say, in the diversity of our beings we reflect the glory of God. Consider the scene in Revelation of people from all over the world, coming various cultures and languages all giving glory and praise to God.

“After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice:

“Salvation belongs to our God,

who sits on the throne,

and to the Lamb” (Revelation 7:9-10).

I think the picture shows us that we glorify God best in our composite diversity, displaying the magnificent creativity of God and His love for all kinds of people. We individually and collectively reflect something of our Creator; this concept in the Bible is called the Imago Dei. Therefore it would stand to reason, within the bounds of Scriptural truth, that our own beings communicate something of God to others, in what He has done in our lives, the truths He has revealed to us experientially, our intellects, personalities and ways we live obediently to God. So it wouldn’t make sense then to have one standard model that everyone had to conform to. If that were the case, we would have one bland representation of a disciple and discipleship. Many would not be able to be a disciple because they would have to cleave off certain aspects of themselves in order to follow Christ.

            Now, do not confuse what I’m saying in terms of standards of obedience, those are not transitory or relative. We are all conforming ourselves to Christ in the way He obeyed and submitted Himself to the Father, but I would argue that submission and obedience will look differently person to person. As an example, for some it may be easy to tithe, money is not an object of worship for them, but for another it is a huge struggle. For the person who doesn’t struggle with tithing, their obedience t God in that regard requires little submission of their will, even though he ought to do it. However, for the one who does struggle, if he submitted to God through his tithing, that would be cause for celebration and praising him as a disciple, because he submitted his will to the Father even when He did not want to, thus showing that obedience is far better and important than personal comfort.

            In our culture, believers are uncomfortable saying, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (I Cor. 11:1). However, the Bible has no problems establishing the discipler as the one to be followed by the disciple. When submit our wills to the Father and obey Him, we are essentially being “little” Christs to each other. Because of this Paul can said with confidence, “Be imitators of me”, this would be by our standards arrogant. But in the logic of the Bible, this makes absolute sense, for when believers are assembled we are then called the body of Christ. Individually and collectively we reflect Jesus when we obey and we are to follow each other as they follow Christ (I Thess. 1:6, 2:14, I Cor. 4:16, Eph. 4:32, 5:1-2). This assemblage we would call the church, and it suggest something more than a one-to-one relational model of discipleship, but one of mutuality, where each member is concern and actively working to take care of the needs of others. A body that grows and supports itself, which means the job of discipling is not up to a select few, but of the many. In other words, disciples are to be discipled and then disciple others. “The form of discipleship Jesus intended for his disciples was unique, and it was not intended only for the time when they could follow him physically; it was also intended for the time when they would gather as the church” (Wilkins, p. 309).      

            In summary, the basis for discipleship ought to be relationships, and the method ought to be the discipler gives themselves to the disciple. If one can do this they are following the pattern God has set since the foundation of the world with His chosen people, and living out the example that Jesus has set for us. Discipleship can only truly be done in the presence of others. A key principle of discipleship is mutuality. And so the standard ought to be a disciple who is discipled in turn disciples others, in other words an organism where the whole provides for the needs of the parts. This is the living dynamic body that Jesus and the Apostles spoke of as the church. 

What is a Disciple?

        

          The issue of Discipleship in the modern context of the church presents a rather frustrating and confusing topic for many Christians. Many Christians are confused on what a disciple is and are further mystified on what a disciple does. Theological confusion among churches and pastors has not helped the situation. Sermons topics on discipleship range from seeing disciples primarily as learners, or believers, or committed believers who become disciples, or as the conditions of salvation. I too, like many Christians across the denominational spectrum, have experienced existential turmoil and pain because I wasn’t sure if the characteristics of discipleship were conditions of salvation, if Jesus’ message to the apostles were intended for me, and if I met the qualifications for a “second tier” of Christian spirituality. Because of this ongoing frustration I have felt burnout by my Christian experience, always wondering if I was good enough to be considered a disciple.

For some time I wondered if there ever would be an answer to these questions or if this was area of mystery that I would have to take up with God upon my death. Yet this is not the position God wishes for His children to be in, God desires for those He has given to Christ to be empowered, encouraged, and impassioned to follow after His Son, not discouraged, burnt out and confused, throwing their hands in the air hoping for their death so that they can finally understand what God meant. Therefore, God has not left us with a fractured piecemeal picture of discipleship which leaves the interested student wondering. Through careful study of God’s word we can build a theology of what a disciple is and what he does. It is true that orthodoxy produces orthopraxy, this gives us confidence that if we are faithful to God’s word in our understanding then we will be empowered and encouraged to live out the Spirit empowered life of discipleship that Jesus intended.

In his book Following the Master: A Biblical Theology of Discipleship Michael Wilkins builds his biblical theology of discipleship by first examining the etymology of the word “disciple” which in the Greek language is Mathetes. The definition of the word is “learner”; however, the meaning of the word is not limited to its definition.  In the Ancient Near East during the mid 1^st century the word also included the additional sense of adherent. This would indicate that a disciple was much more than an interested student. In the case of a Christian disciple an adherent would be a believer in Jesus Christ for this is what Jesus made evident in His teaching, “For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:40). There are numerous passages especially in the Gospel of John where Jesus made this abundantly clear (John 3:15-18, 36, 6:47, 11:25-26, 20:30-31) also Peter in Acts and Paul in his Epistles. In order to follow Jesus you must believe that He is the Son of God, anything less will not please God. Also, the way Mathetes was used in the early church recorded in Acts was synonymous with the terms Christian, Brother/Sister, Believer, and Follower of the Way. Therefore, we can conclude from the etymology of the word Mathetes, from the way it was used in the Ancient Near East and in the early church recorded in Acts, that a disciple was someone who learned from and believed in Jesus.

It would seem from the Biblical and cultural-historical data that a disciple was a convert, suggesting a 1 to 1 relationship— convert equaled disciple. However this view is not held by many, some hold the view that a disciple was merely a learner, others seem to think a disciple was a minister, and still others think discipleship was a secondary step of the committed Christian. I’ve demonstrated that a disciple cannot be simply a learner, but what does scripture have to say about these other options?

At this point it is important to understand what a disciple does. It is critical to identify the point at which Jesus was teaching the masses, the disciples or the apostles. First of all, Jesus gave a general call to discipleship. Jesus when He was addressing the masses put forth this invitation, “Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, ‘“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple”’ (Luke 14:25-27).  This call was to hate your mother and father and brother and so on, basically communicating that the disciple was to possess a love for their heavenly Father that made all other love look like hate. Let me be clear, Jesus was not advocating hate,  but a love that looks like hate in comparison to the intensity of love for the heavenly Father, our love for God should be supreme (v. 26). Secondly, in order to be a disciple one had to take up their cross and to come after Jesus (v. 27).  Jesus’ general call of discipleship, not His call of Apostleship, also included abiding in belief (John 15:4) and again obedience by taking up ones cross (Matthew 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23).

This call was drastically different than the call to Apostleship, which was to leave home and family (Luke 9:60), sell all you have (Luke 12:33), and come physically follow Jesus (Mark 1:17). Jesus selected twelve for this special task. For three years Jesus trained and taught the apostles/disciples, then He died, resurrected, ascended and poured out His Spirit at Pentecost. This enabled the Apostles to remember Jesus’ teaching and be anointed to carry out miracles for the purpose of spreading the Gospel and establishing the church. This was a very specific call, one that was not intended for the disciple.

Jesus intention was that He should die, be resurrected and ascend into heaven. However, this creates a problem because how was a disciple to follow after Jesus if Jesus was not physically present. As Jesus discussed in John 14 through 16, He was leaving so that one better will come in His place. The Holy Spirit provides the presence of Christ so that all can follow Jesus regardless of location and time periods. This is another reason why it makes sense that Jesus’ general call to all disciples was not one to sell everything one had and to physically leave family and home to come and follow. Jesus foreknew that this would be an impossible task for all of the billions of believers that would follow after His death, resurrection and ascension to the right hand of the Father. Jesus desired for the whole world to hear the gospel, be saved and follow Him (Matt. 28:19). The specific call to sell everything, leave family and home, and physically follow Jesus was intended only for His Apostles. So this rules out the possibility that a disciple was only a minister. In fact, every disciple is called to minister and serve, Jesus died so that He might have a nation of priests (I Pet. 2:5-9). Observe what Wilkins has to say about this issue, “Therefore our preliminary observation is that as disciples the Twelve give us an example of how Jesus works with all believers, and as apostles the Twelve give us an example of how Jesus works with leaders of the church” (pg. 36).

However, the issue of a disciple being a committed believer still lingers. The view that there are Christians and there are disciples, a disciple being a committed and obedient Christian. To understand this issue better consider the account of the disciples not able to believe the hard sayings of Jesus in John 6, “After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him” (v. 66). It is important to note that Jesus was speaking to a mix of disciples, the masses (v. 22 “the crowd”), Jews (v. 41) and the Apostles. It would seem that based on the context surrounding verse 66 that the term disciple was being used loosely here. Wenham, Motyer, Carson and France note in New Bible Commentary “The grumbling of many of the disciples (60-61) shows that the word ‘disciple’ is used here in a loose sense for those fringe followers of Jesus. They were not true believers for they found it hard to accept his teaching (60). They could not even imagine anyone accepting it. Jesus knew their real position and proceeded to advise” (pg. 1039, emphasis in the original).

Looking at the previous verses it can be gathered that Jesus knew the true intentions of those He was speaking to, and so He spoke evangelistically to persuade them to belief, “Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent” (v. 29) and using His words to act as a winnow for He knew that some could not believe after hearing His words concerning Himself being the bread of life, “But there are some of you who do not believe” (v. 64). Therefore, some “disciples” walked away among the mix of people, not possessing true belief in Jesus, contrast that with the belief of the true disciples found among the twelve, “So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God” (v. 67-69). The twelve here model true discipleship, which is belief that Jesus is the Son of God upon whom we depend for eternal life.

It would seem, there is no secondary step of Christian spirituality, these “disciples” did not walk away and cease to follow Jesus because they didn't want to live a committed life of obedience, it was because they could not believe that Jesus was who He said He was. Therefore, keeping in mind the definition of disciple which was a learner and adherent, they did not qualify as disciples since they did not believe. It is also important to note that a disciple was never conceptualized outside the context of a community. To be a disciple was to identify and participate in a community of disciples. This idea was developed further in Acts and the Epistles, when the nascent church was established and the body of Christ was starting to operate in its redemptive capacity.

Some people after reading this might raise the objection that if Mathetes meant learner and adherent, then it is a copout to say based on the context of John 6 the meaning of the word would allow for someone who was not fully a believer. In response to this objection it is important to understand Jesus’ mission and how that mission unfolded. Jesus first came on the scene in Matt. 3 when He was baptized by John the Baptist; this event identified Jesus with John’s ministry of preparing the way for the Messiah. It is important to know that Jesus not only was born, matured to adulthood, did some teaching, then died on the cross and then went to heaven. But He entered into a movement which served as a vehicle for His ministry, that was the Messianic Movement prepared by John the Baptist. This movement unfolded over time, for example after the temptation in Matt. 4:1-11 Jesus then preached about the Kingdom (Matt. 4:17) and only later did He perform signs and wonders to demonstrate that He was the Messiah, anointed one of God, Divinity in human form (Matt. 8-10). There was a progressive unfolding of the Movement and therefore, an unfolding understanding of who Jesus was.

It is possible to see this unfolding through five stages in the gospels. First, in John 1:25-42 people took the personal initiative to follow Jesus out of curiosity or to question Him in order to find out more, therefore a full understanding of Jesus' identity had not fully emerged. The second stage can be found in Matt. 4:18-22 (also Mark 1:16-20) where Jesus called people to follow Him, this was a challenging and costly call that entailed two separate calls, the first to discipleship and the second to apostleship. At this point we see the third stage, Jesus began sifting those who truly believed from those who didn't this was the account described above in John 6. After this the fourth stage was a smaller group of committed believers/disciples, and stage five the establishment of the church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Taking this into account, it is entirely possible to see how there was a progression of the Jesus Movement, understanding of the Messianic nature of Jesus and His message of belief in Him. So that by the time we come to the early church described in Acts, disciple had a robust meaning of learner and adherent with associations to other terms such as Christian, Brother/Sister, Believer, and Follower of the Way. And most importantly, we can conclude that those disciples who walked away from Jesus in John 6 had up to that point an underdeveloped belief in Jesus, because full knowledge had not yet been unfolded.

In conclusion, based on the Biblical and cultural-historical data a disciple was a learner and an adherent who responded to the costly call of life commitment to following Jesus with belief. Discipleship begins at the point of salvation, we all are disciples if we are Christians, and there is no upper or secondary tier of Christian. A key component of following Jesus is to participate in His New Covenant post-resurrection community.