Witt's End

When possible sacred writings should be treated with respect. I hate to add this part but it should be regardless of if you share the view of their sacredness or not.  That doesn't mean that scripture needs to be placed on a pedestal. That's dependent on tradition. But it should be used appropriately. I've been hard on scriptures. Physical copies of them. I've carried them in uniform pockets in field. I've read and worn copies to the point the pages fall out or the covers separate. That's what happens when you use things. I would argue properly.  What's horrible is purposeful damage or debasement of someone else's holy text. When I was a missionary someone burned a copy of the Quran on the campus where I was serving. Earlier this week a Quran was struck with a slab of bacon and an attempt to burn it was made. What's most concerning is that Christianity was invoked by apologists in this instances.  How can we let this stand? As a member of the Mormon ...

Often public service requires actions that require compromise with our values. Actions that are at odds with faith and practice. That can cause long-term emotional stress and cognitive challenges. This can include a lot of things. Shame at perpetration. Guilt at surviving. Anger at being on the sidelines. A loss of trust in oneself. All of the above are signs of moral injury.  Some of you are wondering the hell am I talking about? What's moral injury? Some call it a soul wound, but that doesn't really explain it does it. So I'll turn to a couple definitions to lay the ground work.  First from the VA's National Center for PTSD , " In traumatic or unusually stressful circumstances, people may perpetrate, fail to prevent, or witness events that contradict deeply held moral beliefs and expectations." And a similar definition from Syracuse University's Moral Injury Project , " Moral injury is the damage done to one’s conscience or moral compass  when that...

 What has become Christian theology has always been debated. It was hashed out and formed over years of treatise writing and attempts at rhetorical persuasion that led to the creeds and interpretations we have today.  To think there is one simple all encompassing and easily understood theology that answers all problems and questions is the height of hubris. We lean into interpretation and understanding informed by our experiences and overall understanding. Early theologians and church fathers are amazing examples of this. We have regional variances. We have philosophical differences (Plato, the stoics, and the cynics were all often competing influences). And we have strongly various represented priorities. How did the ancient church handle this? Debates. Then a vote. Then a declaration of what was doctrine and what was heresy. It still happens today.  And it's not new. The debates over what we call Christian or not wouldn't surprise the early church fathers, the wouldn't ...