There are a few books that have radically shifted my view of Ultimate Reality. MYSTERY WITHOUT MAGIC, BEYOND TRAGEDY, SLAYING THE DRAGON and most recently CATCHING THE LIGHT. SLAYING made me realize how important the Combat Motif is in the Bible. The idea that there was this ancient, primordial chaos serpent which God slayed to create the universe, and that this cosmic beast raises it's ugly head from time to time to threaten creation also appealed to me. It makes me think of Lovecraft's Cthulu mythos or Barker's HELLRAISER series. I was obsessed with these when I was younger. They seemed to me to capture something true. I see now that they do justice to the cosmic scope of evil in ways other models just didn't.
From MYSTERY I learned how to conceive of God and indeed all spiritual realities in an intellectually sophisticated way that made sense in the context of science and ALL our experiences. BEYOND TRAGEDY made sense of sin, and helped me see why Jesus Himself is important. Reinhold Niebuhr was generally lacking in Christology. But BEYOND was his most Christological book and it really made sense of Jesus for me. Both MYSTERY and BEYOND speak to the importance of suffering love and the juxtaposition of vulnerable and coercive power.
CATCHING has brought up some theological problems I'm not done wrestling with. It made me realize that the interplay of light and dark forces can itself be creative, and it presented divine models that seemed as good as the ones I'd been using yet were in some ways very different, allow which I've yet to finish struggling with. But it also seeded some positive ideas to help me integrate many other insights. I see creation itself as an act of redemption. The whole Christ story seems to me to be a historical playing out of a cosmic reality. The cancer model of sin seems more apt than ever now. I think these cosmic forces of evil cannot be defeated by conceiving of a force of good with more coercive power. God's power overcomes these forces because His power is radically different. To conceive of greater coercive power is to conceive of a greater Cthulu hidden. To see God as the power of love is to see the true ultimate power in the universe, and one that is truly on our side. Only vulnerable and creative live is worthy of worship.
I'm still working on all this. But I hope you can see where I am going with is. Light gives, darkness only takes. Light reveals truth, darkness always conceals. 1 John is right: "the children of God and the children of the devil are made plain."
Friday, May 31, 2013
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Hope
If you want hope for the future, just stop by one of my youth ministry meetings some time. The conversations that go on there are amazing. New ideas, perspectives and thoughts that never occur to me personally often come up. It is this creative interplay of spirit, mind, and heart that yields such fruitful results. If these young people can maintain this level of relationship with the divine and this level of creativity and freedom, the world has some awesome things in store for it.
This is an age of amazing art. If you go to a good comic book convention you will be exposed to sights and ideas that will blow your mind. And there is so damn much of it. I could go broke buying all the stuff I want. This level of creativity is exactly what we want in Christianity. If religion and politics can get a touch of this magic then we can really start solving some of our problems in this world. The conversation in my youth group swirls between the personal-concrete and the abstract-theoretical, between issues of morality, politics, time and eternity, the divine and the human and on and on. Jesus Christ, the living God, the dynamic God, is alive in that place at that time and that is the Spirit of God, my friends. If you could just be a fly on the wall at those meetings, you'd feel much better about this world.
This is an age of amazing art. If you go to a good comic book convention you will be exposed to sights and ideas that will blow your mind. And there is so damn much of it. I could go broke buying all the stuff I want. This level of creativity is exactly what we want in Christianity. If religion and politics can get a touch of this magic then we can really start solving some of our problems in this world. The conversation in my youth group swirls between the personal-concrete and the abstract-theoretical, between issues of morality, politics, time and eternity, the divine and the human and on and on. Jesus Christ, the living God, the dynamic God, is alive in that place at that time and that is the Spirit of God, my friends. If you could just be a fly on the wall at those meetings, you'd feel much better about this world.
Juxtapositions
There are certain contradictions, tensions and paradoxes in this world that really stand at the heart of the religious quest. We experience them, but we cannot understand them. Art and religion can speak to those experiences, and help us explore them, but they can never claim to really explain them in some simple formula. In that sense religion speaks to a human condition that ultimately stands beyond rational consistency.
The Biblical contradictions can be understood from this point of view. Each story, each pronouncement, each law, speaks to one or the other side of the paradox, to the tension, to the contradiction. The Bible as a whole holds onto both stories, to both horns of the bull if you will, because it speaks to an experience beyond simple rational explication.
God is spoken of as omnipotent and omniscient, as the supreme sovereign of the universe. But He is also presented as within the temporal process, experiencing things He hasn't before, and being wrestled to a standstill by a lowly human being. The truth is that we experience God in both ways. We know of a universe where struggle as at it's heart, but also a universe grounded in love, and righteousness. We know of a call to purpose, and a frustration of that purpose. We experience a moral order that is supreme, and a physical world that exhibits it very little. The Bible speaks to both experiences. It is up to us to decide what to do with it. It may be necessary to maintain the tension, or perhaps one or the other horn must be emphasized at the expense of the other. Or maybe there are other more creative ways to create pictures that include both insights. These decisions are personal. We must make them, however, one way or the other, for we must needs know how we should live, and what to do with all of this Revelation is directly relevant to that quest.
There are countless other examples. I see certain recurring ideas that really seem to be the center of the whole storm. These are a few of the tensions, paradoxes, and contradictions that seem to be the music of the spheres:
The tension between grace and responsibility
The contradictory idea that God is perfectly just and perfectly merciful
The tension between vulnerability and control as two different types of power
Relatedly, the paradox of Jesus' vulnerability being the ultimate power.
The tension between light and dark
The paradox that we are both the victim of sin and responsible for it
Any more you can think of?
The Biblical contradictions can be understood from this point of view. Each story, each pronouncement, each law, speaks to one or the other side of the paradox, to the tension, to the contradiction. The Bible as a whole holds onto both stories, to both horns of the bull if you will, because it speaks to an experience beyond simple rational explication.
God is spoken of as omnipotent and omniscient, as the supreme sovereign of the universe. But He is also presented as within the temporal process, experiencing things He hasn't before, and being wrestled to a standstill by a lowly human being. The truth is that we experience God in both ways. We know of a universe where struggle as at it's heart, but also a universe grounded in love, and righteousness. We know of a call to purpose, and a frustration of that purpose. We experience a moral order that is supreme, and a physical world that exhibits it very little. The Bible speaks to both experiences. It is up to us to decide what to do with it. It may be necessary to maintain the tension, or perhaps one or the other horn must be emphasized at the expense of the other. Or maybe there are other more creative ways to create pictures that include both insights. These decisions are personal. We must make them, however, one way or the other, for we must needs know how we should live, and what to do with all of this Revelation is directly relevant to that quest.
There are countless other examples. I see certain recurring ideas that really seem to be the center of the whole storm. These are a few of the tensions, paradoxes, and contradictions that seem to be the music of the spheres:
The tension between grace and responsibility
The contradictory idea that God is perfectly just and perfectly merciful
The tension between vulnerability and control as two different types of power
Relatedly, the paradox of Jesus' vulnerability being the ultimate power.
The tension between light and dark
The paradox that we are both the victim of sin and responsible for it
Any more you can think of?
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
From The Film WAKING LIFE
***
(We enter a movie theatre where, on the screen, we see a film of two men who are talking with one another. The first speaker is filmmaker Caveh Zahedi - to the right in the image below - and the second is poet David Jewell.)
THE HOLY MOMENT
Cinema, in its essence, is, well it's about an introduction to reality, which is that, like, reality is actually reproduced. And for him, it might sound like a storytelling medium, really. And he feels like, um ... like ... like ... like literature is better for telling a story. You know, and if you tell a story or even like a joke, like you know "This guy walks into a bar and, you know, he sees a dwarf." That works really well because you're imagining this guy and this dwarf in the bar and there's this kind of imaginative aspect to it. But in film, you don't have that because you actually are filming a specific guy, in a specific bar, with a specific dwarf, of a specific height, who looks a certain way, right?
So like, um, for Bazin, what the ontology of film has to do is it has to deal with, you know, with what photography also has an ontology of, except that it adds this dimension of time to it, and this greater realism. And so, like, it's about that guy, at that moment, in that space. And, you know, Bazin is like a Christian, so he, like, believes that, you know, God obviously ended up like, everything ... he believes, for him reality and God are the same. You know, like ... and so what film is actually capturing is like God incarnate, creating. And this very moment, God is manifesting as this. And what the film would capture if it was filming us right now would be like God as this table, and God as you, and God as me, and God looking the way we look right now, and saying and thinking what we're thinking right now, because we are all God manifest in that sense. So film is actually like a record of God, or of the face of God, or of the ever-changing face of God. You have a mosquito. Do you want me to get it for you? You got it.
I got it?
Yeah, you got it.
And like the whole Hollywood thing is just taking film and trying to make it like the storytelling medium where you take these books or stories, and then you like, you know, and then you have the script, and you try to find a person who sort of fits the thing. But it's ridiculous, because it's not, it shouldn't be based on the script. It should be based on the person, you know, or the thing. And in that sense, they are almost right to have this whole star system, because then it's about that person, you know, instead of, like, the story.
Truffaut always said the best films aren't made ... the films ... The best scripts don't make the best films, because they have that kind of literary narrative thing that you're sort of a slave to. The best films are the ones that aren't tied to that slavishly. So I don't know. The whole narrative thing seems to me like, um ... Obviously, there's narrativity to cinema 'cause it's in time, just the way there's narrativity to music. But, you know, you don't first think of the story of the song, and then make the song. It has to come out of that moment. And that's what film has. It's just that moment, which is holy. You know, like this moment, it's holy. But we walk around like it's not holy. We walk around like there's some holy moments and there are all the other moments that are not holy, right, but this moment is holy, right? And if film can let us see that, like frame it so that we see, like, "Ah, this moment. Holy." And it's like "Holy, holy, holy" moment by moment. But, like, who can live that way? Who can go, like, "Wow, holy"? Because if I were to look at you and just really let you be holy, I don't know, I would, like, stop talking.
Well, you'd be in the moment, I mean ....
Yeah
The moment is holy.
Yeah, but I'd be open. And then I'd look in your eyes, and I'd cry, and I'd like feel all this stuff and that's like not polite. I mean it would make you feel uncomfortable.
Well you could laugh too. I mean, why would you cry?
Well, 'cause ... I don't know. For me, I tend to cry.
Uh-huh. Well ... Is, is full ...
Well, let's do it right now. Let's have a holy moment.
Okay.
(Long moments pass with them staring at each other)
Everything is layers, isn't it?
Yeah.
I mean, there's the holy moment and then there's the awareness of trying to have the holy moment, in the same way that the film is the actual moment really happening, but then the character pretending to be in a different reality. And it's all these layers. And, uh, I was in and out of the holy moment looking at you. Can't be in a holy ... You're unique that way, Caveh. That's one of the reasons I enjoy you. You can ... bring me into that.
(We enter a movie theatre where, on the screen, we see a film of two men who are talking with one another. The first speaker is filmmaker Caveh Zahedi - to the right in the image below - and the second is poet David Jewell.)
THE HOLY MOMENT
Cinema, in its essence, is, well it's about an introduction to reality, which is that, like, reality is actually reproduced. And for him, it might sound like a storytelling medium, really. And he feels like, um ... like ... like ... like literature is better for telling a story. You know, and if you tell a story or even like a joke, like you know "This guy walks into a bar and, you know, he sees a dwarf." That works really well because you're imagining this guy and this dwarf in the bar and there's this kind of imaginative aspect to it. But in film, you don't have that because you actually are filming a specific guy, in a specific bar, with a specific dwarf, of a specific height, who looks a certain way, right?So like, um, for Bazin, what the ontology of film has to do is it has to deal with, you know, with what photography also has an ontology of, except that it adds this dimension of time to it, and this greater realism. And so, like, it's about that guy, at that moment, in that space. And, you know, Bazin is like a Christian, so he, like, believes that, you know, God obviously ended up like, everything ... he believes, for him reality and God are the same. You know, like ... and so what film is actually capturing is like God incarnate, creating. And this very moment, God is manifesting as this. And what the film would capture if it was filming us right now would be like God as this table, and God as you, and God as me, and God looking the way we look right now, and saying and thinking what we're thinking right now, because we are all God manifest in that sense. So film is actually like a record of God, or of the face of God, or of the ever-changing face of God. You have a mosquito. Do you want me to get it for you? You got it.
I got it?
Yeah, you got it.
And like the whole Hollywood thing is just taking film and trying to make it like the storytelling medium where you take these books or stories, and then you like, you know, and then you have the script, and you try to find a person who sort of fits the thing. But it's ridiculous, because it's not, it shouldn't be based on the script. It should be based on the person, you know, or the thing. And in that sense, they are almost right to have this whole star system, because then it's about that person, you know, instead of, like, the story.
Truffaut always said the best films aren't made ... the films ... The best scripts don't make the best films, because they have that kind of literary narrative thing that you're sort of a slave to. The best films are the ones that aren't tied to that slavishly. So I don't know. The whole narrative thing seems to me like, um ... Obviously, there's narrativity to cinema 'cause it's in time, just the way there's narrativity to music. But, you know, you don't first think of the story of the song, and then make the song. It has to come out of that moment. And that's what film has. It's just that moment, which is holy. You know, like this moment, it's holy. But we walk around like it's not holy. We walk around like there's some holy moments and there are all the other moments that are not holy, right, but this moment is holy, right? And if film can let us see that, like frame it so that we see, like, "Ah, this moment. Holy." And it's like "Holy, holy, holy" moment by moment. But, like, who can live that way? Who can go, like, "Wow, holy"? Because if I were to look at you and just really let you be holy, I don't know, I would, like, stop talking.
Well, you'd be in the moment, I mean ....
Yeah
The moment is holy.
Yeah, but I'd be open. And then I'd look in your eyes, and I'd cry, and I'd like feel all this stuff and that's like not polite. I mean it would make you feel uncomfortable.
Well you could laugh too. I mean, why would you cry?
Well, 'cause ... I don't know. For me, I tend to cry.
Uh-huh. Well ... Is, is full ...
Well, let's do it right now. Let's have a holy moment.
Okay.
(Long moments pass with them staring at each other)
Everything is layers, isn't it?
Yeah.
I mean, there's the holy moment and then there's the awareness of trying to have the holy moment, in the same way that the film is the actual moment really happening, but then the character pretending to be in a different reality. And it's all these layers. And, uh, I was in and out of the holy moment looking at you. Can't be in a holy ... You're unique that way, Caveh. That's one of the reasons I enjoy you. You can ... bring me into that.
Andre Bazin
He believed that film's true mission was to capture the Face of God. Cinema created reality, or rather captured it. Art at it's highest is just this kind of quest. Photography can also re-present to us God's presence...His Face. Painting and drawing too. There are several films that have accomplished this, none better than Terrance Malick's TREE OF LIFE. This is what I meant in my earlier post about the need to posit God to fully understand the aesthetic experience of great art.
Art can accomplish this goal by looking without, or within. The everyday is seeded with the Divine presence. I suppose a painting of a bowl of fruit, done expertly enough, could capture God's presence visually. The Holy Spirit lies within. Imagination can reach it. And so the mind's eye too, properly represented, can bring God's presence near. The internal is externalized.
There are a few times I've seen these heights reached on film. Shades of them exist in any great art.
What films would you say have accomplished Bazin's cinematic goal?
Art can accomplish this goal by looking without, or within. The everyday is seeded with the Divine presence. I suppose a painting of a bowl of fruit, done expertly enough, could capture God's presence visually. The Holy Spirit lies within. Imagination can reach it. And so the mind's eye too, properly represented, can bring God's presence near. The internal is externalized.
There are a few times I've seen these heights reached on film. Shades of them exist in any great art.
What films would you say have accomplished Bazin's cinematic goal?
Quotables
"Music is telling us that life isn't that bad."- Nathaniel Ayers
(Cross-reference with my last post)
(Cross-reference with my last post)
Great Art...
...is not about escape from reality, it is about it's exploration. This seems true to me. Yet for the most beautiful and exciting pieces, it can only be true in at least a paratheistic world.
Monday, May 27, 2013
The Fool's Faith
Someone I know was at a science fiction convention recently and got into a conversation about faith. Another person, dressed up in costume no less, overheard and commented, "faith is for fools." The irony in this case is sweet, for there is a profound truth in it.
For what could be more foolish than the obsessive fandom of cosplay? Or the childishness of Geekdom? My response would've been, "yep, you'd fit right in." Christians cannot deny the foolishness of their beliefs. 1 Corinthians 1 and Erasmus' IN PRAISE OF FOLLY are all but proofs of this, for me. I'm a fool. I'm weak and childish and sinful and stupid. I can't pretend to be otherwise without the worst kind of deceit.
But isn't that the point of Geekdom too? It is the bravery of embracing silliness. Indeed much of human life, and nearly all that makes human life meaningful and enjoyable, is silly and foolish. Play, laughter, even love...all follies, if you really reflect on them. The Christian merely includes his or her living into the experiences that inform their worldview. They embrace the folly of human existence in a paradoxically more serious way. They see truth in living, and profundity in the folly of it all. They bring their living and believing together, and indeed I would argue Christianity speaks to the silliness of our living better than any other faith. No, a Christian cannot deny his folly. He can point out, however, the essential folly of us all.
Note: compare Paul's embrace of folly to Simon Pegg's quote about geekiness:
For what could be more foolish than the obsessive fandom of cosplay? Or the childishness of Geekdom? My response would've been, "yep, you'd fit right in." Christians cannot deny the foolishness of their beliefs. 1 Corinthians 1 and Erasmus' IN PRAISE OF FOLLY are all but proofs of this, for me. I'm a fool. I'm weak and childish and sinful and stupid. I can't pretend to be otherwise without the worst kind of deceit.
But isn't that the point of Geekdom too? It is the bravery of embracing silliness. Indeed much of human life, and nearly all that makes human life meaningful and enjoyable, is silly and foolish. Play, laughter, even love...all follies, if you really reflect on them. The Christian merely includes his or her living into the experiences that inform their worldview. They embrace the folly of human existence in a paradoxically more serious way. They see truth in living, and profundity in the folly of it all. They bring their living and believing together, and indeed I would argue Christianity speaks to the silliness of our living better than any other faith. No, a Christian cannot deny his folly. He can point out, however, the essential folly of us all.
Note: compare Paul's embrace of folly to Simon Pegg's quote about geekiness:
“Being a geek is all about being honest about what you enjoy and not being afraid to demonstrate that affection. It means never having to play it cool about how much you like something. It’s basically a license to proudly emote on a somewhat childish level rather than behave like a supposed adult. Being a geek is extremely liberating.”
Note: Geeks are the future of Christianity in this country, or could be. If these connections could be made clearer, or more bridges built, evangelism here had great potential.Secrets To Happiness At MavPhil
Minus the political polemic, this is good advice for all:
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/05/happiness-maxims-2013-version.html
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/05/happiness-maxims-2013-version.html
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Quotables
"When you love, you know more about God than you will ever know with your intellect"-- St Augustine.
Quotables
"A growing contemporary understanding is that evolution is a planetary phenomenon, and that the Earth system at its highest level evolves as a single global entity. Natural selection cannot address or even recognize this global evolution because there is no population of replicating and competing Earth systems on which natural selection can act; the Earth is a population of one." Swenson & Turvey, Thermodynamic reasons for perception-action cycles
Lessons From Meditation
One thing I've learned from meditation is the power of silence. Silence can accomplish so much more sometimes than words. Sometimes it is the best thing we can do: listen quietly. Sometimes it is the best way to avoid fighting evil with evil. There are times to speak, but more often, quiet is what is called for. For a motormouth like me, this is a hard lesson, but an important one.
The Power of Dualism
Dualism is attractive because it is so damned explanatory. It speaks to the depth of our negative experiences. In the depths of Jobian suffering, we feel assaulted by God. The evil of the moment is cosmic in scope. The great dark science fiction of literary history comes to life when bad times hit. "To suffer is to experience life as the hatred of God."
Yet our good experiences are also spoken to. Our deepest interior experiences, our most beautiful 'exterior' experiences. These moments are like the love of God, it is like God is love and we are within God. This is what it is like to experience the best life has to offer.
In a dualistic world, both sides are naturally true. Moreover, we have some sense as to where the consistency of natural law comes from. Two equally powerful forces would create a kind of consistency from their actions.
Yet ultimately, there is one experience left out, that of overcoming the dark. To suffer creatively is to experience life as light overcoming dark, to experience a promise, a promise that life in it's essence is 'good'. Moreover, our experience of meaning would be obliterated by a truly dualistic worldview. The softer dualism of Classical Christianity is thus a better fit existentially and morally.
There is truth in dualism. Extracting it without falling for the overall picture is difficult.
Yet our good experiences are also spoken to. Our deepest interior experiences, our most beautiful 'exterior' experiences. These moments are like the love of God, it is like God is love and we are within God. This is what it is like to experience the best life has to offer.
In a dualistic world, both sides are naturally true. Moreover, we have some sense as to where the consistency of natural law comes from. Two equally powerful forces would create a kind of consistency from their actions.
Yet ultimately, there is one experience left out, that of overcoming the dark. To suffer creatively is to experience life as light overcoming dark, to experience a promise, a promise that life in it's essence is 'good'. Moreover, our experience of meaning would be obliterated by a truly dualistic worldview. The softer dualism of Classical Christianity is thus a better fit existentially and morally.
There is truth in dualism. Extracting it without falling for the overall picture is difficult.
Saturday, May 25, 2013
North vs South
That Israel split into two nations is unknown to most readers of the Bible. Yet much of the Bible is influenced by this split and by religious differences between the two sub-nations. Reading the Bible in light of the conflicts is illuminating. I am right now wondering if the story of Joseph does not speak to the idea that only some of the Jewish tribes were taken into exile (which I have long believed). This on turn probably caused the cleave between some of the tribes that helped lead to the break up of the nation. Perhaps some of the tribes literally sold their brothers to the Egyptians, and the Joseph story allegorizes this. I'm still inclined to take the story at face value, but the thought is interesting. That is the freedom of not being a literalist: you can explore Biblical ideas in ways that are fun and fruitful.
The Accuser
Satan is truly the accuser. He stands before us, listing our shortcomings, telling us we are not enough, or yet he accuses God, reminding us of our pain and claiming that this is proof that God is somehow against us. He uses our sin, yes, but also our guilt. He prosecutes and persecutes. The goal is always the same: to get us to doubt God's love for us.
Friday, May 24, 2013
Love Boldly
Love truly is the power of God. If all is in God, and God is love, the the one in whom we "live and move and have our being" (Acts) is love itself. We swim in it, we live it. It is all but impossible for us to admit just how often we fall in love in this world. As long as discipline and righteousness are our goals, and we make sustained commitments to a particular person, there is no shame in admitting just how prevalent our falling in love is. Love boldly, live disciplined.
The Pain of the Truth
Every day, all over the world, sin is committed. And this sin, by my lights, brings God to suffering. God suffers every time someone inflicts sin on another. Every rape is a rape of God. Every murder is the murder of God. Every torture is God's torture. Moreover, every act of separation from God, every personal sin, visits on God the pain of adultery, of betrayal, of abandonment (Hosea). This is the real truth of the Cross, a truth that most Christians give lip service to, but rarely ever truly face.
I believe this to be true. I believe in God the eternal, and I believe in His Incarnation, and I believe in what this really means for humanity, and for God. And yet I think, if my wife or my niece was pained every time I sinned, what would this mean for me? Would I sin as I do now? I doubt it. Yet I love God, I believe in God, I do have faith. But do I? If I did, would I not live as one who realized the real weight, the real consequences of his sin?
Ask yourself the same question: if your loved one was physically pained by your sin, how would your behavior change? Does the Cross cause that kind of change? I doubt it. I know it doesnt with me. Yet I also know that I should love God as much as this. What little faith we all have! Praise be to God his love is stronger. I know the pain my sin causes, I know the true cost of grace and the reality of the cross. It pains me, this knowledge. It also pains me that I am surrounded by Christians who think their faith saves them. Their faith saves them? They have no faith! Well they do (as do I) but they don't (nor do I). If they did, their answer to my earlier question would be different.
We murder God daily and proclaim our faith. What hypocrites we all are. We have faith, but less than an atom's worth. Always dubious, rarely effectual (and then only miraculously), this faith-that-yet-allows-deicide couldn't save anything.
I'm not judging, I'm not. But I know I'm judged. I'm judged because I truly rely on God's suffering love alone. My universalism brings condemnation to hell by my fellow Christians. They hate what I believe. I feel it wrong usually to say, "I hate what you believe." For I want us to focus on Jesus, on unity through love. Think however of the God-experience I wrote hear. How do you think I feel about your confidence in your faith to save? Answer that question honestly: if the weight of sin were borne by your closest loved one, how then would you live? Does your life with your faith look this way, honestly?
Maybe I'm projecting. Maybe I'm a bad dude who thinks I know your answer but do not. I don't think this is the case. And from my vantage point we are all faithless and without hope within ourselves. But in Christ there is hope for all. Amen.
I believe this to be true. I believe in God the eternal, and I believe in His Incarnation, and I believe in what this really means for humanity, and for God. And yet I think, if my wife or my niece was pained every time I sinned, what would this mean for me? Would I sin as I do now? I doubt it. Yet I love God, I believe in God, I do have faith. But do I? If I did, would I not live as one who realized the real weight, the real consequences of his sin?
Ask yourself the same question: if your loved one was physically pained by your sin, how would your behavior change? Does the Cross cause that kind of change? I doubt it. I know it doesnt with me. Yet I also know that I should love God as much as this. What little faith we all have! Praise be to God his love is stronger. I know the pain my sin causes, I know the true cost of grace and the reality of the cross. It pains me, this knowledge. It also pains me that I am surrounded by Christians who think their faith saves them. Their faith saves them? They have no faith! Well they do (as do I) but they don't (nor do I). If they did, their answer to my earlier question would be different.
We murder God daily and proclaim our faith. What hypocrites we all are. We have faith, but less than an atom's worth. Always dubious, rarely effectual (and then only miraculously), this faith-that-yet-allows-deicide couldn't save anything.
I'm not judging, I'm not. But I know I'm judged. I'm judged because I truly rely on God's suffering love alone. My universalism brings condemnation to hell by my fellow Christians. They hate what I believe. I feel it wrong usually to say, "I hate what you believe." For I want us to focus on Jesus, on unity through love. Think however of the God-experience I wrote hear. How do you think I feel about your confidence in your faith to save? Answer that question honestly: if the weight of sin were borne by your closest loved one, how then would you live? Does your life with your faith look this way, honestly?
Maybe I'm projecting. Maybe I'm a bad dude who thinks I know your answer but do not. I don't think this is the case. And from my vantage point we are all faithless and without hope within ourselves. But in Christ there is hope for all. Amen.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Without Hell
Without hell morality can only be motivated by love. Love of God and love of the other. The two are one and the same. That is why Jesus tells us first to Love God and then to love our neighbor as ourselves. For the two great commandments are interconnected. If you have experienced a pure vision of the divine, that in and of itself is motivating. What if morality made it harder to reach that vision, what if you were addicted to God and being a better person kept you close to Him? Would this not function more effectively as a motivating force. It has in my own life. I try to be a better person (and trying is about all I can do) so that I can maintain the heights of the divine presence. The effects are immediate and right at hand. I don't have to plan what I do based on some fate 'up there', 'in the future'. Bad behavior breeds a hell for me almost immediately. Put people in touch with God and they will get hungry for it, that hunger will motivate them more than any fear of hell ever could. For love is stronger than fear. "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casteth out fear" (1 John).
A Touch of Madness Is Good For the Soul
If it be true that God's wisdom is foolishness to humanity, then there is no way to be faithful to Christ without appearing a bit mad to the rest of the world. And what is madness, but the appearance of madness to the rest of the world. It makes some sense to me that a radical change in perception is necessary to really stare into the face of God. For humanity certainly hasn't evolved to get to the very heart of reality itself. We evolved for more mundane and survival-friendly tasks.
The saint, the philosopher, the sage, these people always stand outside the norm. And so there is no way to remain 'normal' and reach for these heights. The average Pentecostal movement seems to outsiders to be a gathering of madmen. This in and of itself indicates to me that there may be something very profound and very true going on there. I have found that a touch of madness is good for the soul. There is nothing wrong with being a little crazy, so long as one knows one is a little crazy. But then, I must admit that invitation into this life is an invitation to a bit of madness too. I am inviting you into the crazy, wanna come? Don't say yes unless you are willing to pay the price. The mad are not well-treated in our society.
Does this sound disturbing to you? Good. For so would've Paul's message about the folly of Christianity to those of his day. I feel I am on firm Biblical ground.
The saint, the philosopher, the sage, these people always stand outside the norm. And so there is no way to remain 'normal' and reach for these heights. The average Pentecostal movement seems to outsiders to be a gathering of madmen. This in and of itself indicates to me that there may be something very profound and very true going on there. I have found that a touch of madness is good for the soul. There is nothing wrong with being a little crazy, so long as one knows one is a little crazy. But then, I must admit that invitation into this life is an invitation to a bit of madness too. I am inviting you into the crazy, wanna come? Don't say yes unless you are willing to pay the price. The mad are not well-treated in our society.
Does this sound disturbing to you? Good. For so would've Paul's message about the folly of Christianity to those of his day. I feel I am on firm Biblical ground.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Increased Activity On My Blog
Yesterday this blog had the highest level of traffic in it's history. We usually have page views in the dozens, and peaking near or above 100 is not uncommon. Not too shabby, given that when I started blogging infrequently so many years ago, I would be lucky to get 10 page views. Thanks again to my sister who pushed me to start blogging daily, for it really paid of. And a huge thanks to all of my readers. I hope you get something out of all of this. I know I do.
Peace Within The Storm
When the darkness comes and chaos rages all around us, what are we to do? How are we to respond and how are we to see such events? In ancient times storms were believed to be the wrath of God. No doubt, for many people this is still how they see such things. But to believe these things we must ignore the books of Ecclesiastes, Job and the Gospels, not to mention ignore our personal encounters with the world. Such a view cannot hold up to the rational scrutiny of a basically moral person.
Yet one cannot escape the sense of the numinous within the tragedy. The scope of the whole thing outstrips our ability to talk about or think about, like any of our religious experiences. It is no less awesome than love, or a beautiful sunset, or the warming presence of the Holy Spirit, though it is obviously negative rather than positive. We stand in awe of the great tragedies of life. But it is an awe of terror, not of love.
Peace cannot be found by circumventing the storm. And all attempts to 'justify' suffering are just that: routes by which the storm may be circumvented. One keeps the fullest power of the tragedy from crashing into one's heart. It isn't really tragedy, it is just apparent tragedy. My suffering must be mine. I cannot run away from it, to do so is to deny my very humanity, and in my eyes the image of God within myself. The storm cannot be denied, it must be faced.
Peace, if it is to be found, must be found within the storm. The darkness cannot be denied, it must be defeated, and defeated not with more darkness (which is impossible), nor with the false light of human optimism or with self-deception (for such deception would indeed be nothing but darkness pretending to be light), but with the True Light of Christ. Only Jesus Christ, only God made man, can give us peace within the storm, and true light within the very heart of darkness. If we deny the numinous power of the moment, we deny something as real and palpable as the very keyboard on which I type. We must speak to the experience, the first-person encounter, with the moment. How do we give form and function to what we feel in such moments? Only, I believe, by speaking to the religious depth of the experience, by accepting the reality of the world of the spirit, a world we cannot prove, but which experience gives us ground to believe in all the same.
Such a conviction is no self-deception, for it admits of itself it's own uncertainty, and embraces the risk and venture which underlies human life as we all know it. And so suffering, to be properly understood, must be brought into the very life of God. If we speak of evil visiting suffering upon the divine, if we imagine the Cross as the essence of God, then we have a way to fully understand the numinous aspect of tragedy without creating enmity between God and man. Evil forces are at work in the world as well. That they can cause God any pain is a cosmic truth, a numinous truth, and that is the awe we experience in the storm. It is not the awe of power, but of the willingness of God to be with us even in our most miserable and painful of times. God is there, in the tragedy. But God did not bring it. It is the result of the toxic waste of a free universe, a cancer that while it's ultimate destruction is assured, can continue to strike at God's heel even now. Jesus Christ is God. If we fully embrace this truth we can finally have a way in which to speak of our most difficult experience. Moreover, our struggles to overcome tragedy: to mitigate damage, to financially support the hurt, to lend time and talent to the rescue efforts...are seen to be of ultimate significance. For they are part of the ongoing fight against evil, and are actually attempts to mitigate the Pain of God.
It is for this reason that I am today, and will ever be, a Christian. Only in the Cross is there truth. Only in the Resurrection is there hope.
Amen.
Yet one cannot escape the sense of the numinous within the tragedy. The scope of the whole thing outstrips our ability to talk about or think about, like any of our religious experiences. It is no less awesome than love, or a beautiful sunset, or the warming presence of the Holy Spirit, though it is obviously negative rather than positive. We stand in awe of the great tragedies of life. But it is an awe of terror, not of love.
Peace cannot be found by circumventing the storm. And all attempts to 'justify' suffering are just that: routes by which the storm may be circumvented. One keeps the fullest power of the tragedy from crashing into one's heart. It isn't really tragedy, it is just apparent tragedy. My suffering must be mine. I cannot run away from it, to do so is to deny my very humanity, and in my eyes the image of God within myself. The storm cannot be denied, it must be faced.
Peace, if it is to be found, must be found within the storm. The darkness cannot be denied, it must be defeated, and defeated not with more darkness (which is impossible), nor with the false light of human optimism or with self-deception (for such deception would indeed be nothing but darkness pretending to be light), but with the True Light of Christ. Only Jesus Christ, only God made man, can give us peace within the storm, and true light within the very heart of darkness. If we deny the numinous power of the moment, we deny something as real and palpable as the very keyboard on which I type. We must speak to the experience, the first-person encounter, with the moment. How do we give form and function to what we feel in such moments? Only, I believe, by speaking to the religious depth of the experience, by accepting the reality of the world of the spirit, a world we cannot prove, but which experience gives us ground to believe in all the same.
Such a conviction is no self-deception, for it admits of itself it's own uncertainty, and embraces the risk and venture which underlies human life as we all know it. And so suffering, to be properly understood, must be brought into the very life of God. If we speak of evil visiting suffering upon the divine, if we imagine the Cross as the essence of God, then we have a way to fully understand the numinous aspect of tragedy without creating enmity between God and man. Evil forces are at work in the world as well. That they can cause God any pain is a cosmic truth, a numinous truth, and that is the awe we experience in the storm. It is not the awe of power, but of the willingness of God to be with us even in our most miserable and painful of times. God is there, in the tragedy. But God did not bring it. It is the result of the toxic waste of a free universe, a cancer that while it's ultimate destruction is assured, can continue to strike at God's heel even now. Jesus Christ is God. If we fully embrace this truth we can finally have a way in which to speak of our most difficult experience. Moreover, our struggles to overcome tragedy: to mitigate damage, to financially support the hurt, to lend time and talent to the rescue efforts...are seen to be of ultimate significance. For they are part of the ongoing fight against evil, and are actually attempts to mitigate the Pain of God.
It is for this reason that I am today, and will ever be, a Christian. Only in the Cross is there truth. Only in the Resurrection is there hope.
Amen.
Monday, May 20, 2013
The Mentality of the Enemy Summed Up
This is a quote from a demon in the film CLOUD ATLAS:
"The weak are meat and the strong do eat."
A better distillation of the devil's mind I could hardly imagine.
"The weak are meat and the strong do eat."
A better distillation of the devil's mind I could hardly imagine.
Sin As Separation
Sin is not simply acting wrongly, it is separation from God. Too often, Christians get moralistic. Rather than holding to broad principles they make laundry lists of which actions are 'sinful' and which are 'good'. To me, this completely misses the point of the New Testament.
Life cannot be a constant accounting of every action, in the fervent fear that one might make a mistake. Paul, as I understand him, does not think of sin as simply 'acting badly' but as separation from God. In every moment of moral calculation, the question I try to ask myself is 'does this separate me from God?' This has some unfortunate consequences for a moralistic person, it rightly makes people uncomfortable. But when examining Paul's dichotomies of flesh/spirit or law/faith, I have come to the conclusion that it is the right way to understand Paul vis a vis sin.
The discomfort comes when we realize that there is no easy once-and-for-all-time-and-all-people calculation regarding right and wrong. To be sure, there are general principles that will exclude some actions all the time. There is no way to murder or torture someone without separating oneself from God. For in such an act one literally murders and tortures God, creating a gulf between oneself and God that can not easily be traversed. Similar things go for all of the basics of the Ten Commandments. So a broad question of 'does this separate me from God' naturally excludes a number of acts across the board.
But things get complicated and grey very quickly. Is homosexuality a sin? If a homosexual says that their love for their partner brings them closer to God, how am I to evaluate this? Let me say unequivocally, that the circumstances under which homosexuality would be possible for me would so separate me from who I am that for me, such an act would undoubtedly separate me from God. I am not sure this is true in all cases. There may be some people for whom such behavior is a sin, and some for whom it is not. Perhaps some are born homosexuals and others choose it. Secularists and religionists alike are likely to dislike this view, because humans yearn from a singular and decisive 'cause' of all human behavior. I am disinclined to this view. People are complicated and their reasons for doing something are complicated. There are some sexual examples that are easier. Casual sex, I think, is such a basic violation of the purpose of sex that it cannot but separate one from God. But homosexuality is not so clear, at least to me.
There are other examples:
I know that mind-altering substances used for mind-altering ends are evil for me. I know that if I drink, it would separate me from God. I am inclined to the view that this is true for all people, but I am not certain of it. Perhaps you can drink without this separation (though I would state a strong case, I think, that casual drinking and drug use of any kind necessarily separates one from God), in which case this is not a sin for you, though it is for me.
I meditate a lot and find myself very sensitive to imagery and ideas. Horror movies affect me in a deeper way than others. I KNOW that watching such movies are sins for me. They are not sins, I think, for some of my friends who can watch them and walk away without a second thought.
In Romans 14 Paul talks about how some people observe certain holidays in a faithful way and for others such holidays would be a sin. Paul implicitly is setting up a framework like the one I have here. A framework like this is less certain, and far less moralistic. But in the end, it just makes sense to me. I cannot see into your heart on all matters. Some things are open for public judgment. Other things are about you and God. Christianity could greatly benefit by making some of these distinctions.
Life cannot be a constant accounting of every action, in the fervent fear that one might make a mistake. Paul, as I understand him, does not think of sin as simply 'acting badly' but as separation from God. In every moment of moral calculation, the question I try to ask myself is 'does this separate me from God?' This has some unfortunate consequences for a moralistic person, it rightly makes people uncomfortable. But when examining Paul's dichotomies of flesh/spirit or law/faith, I have come to the conclusion that it is the right way to understand Paul vis a vis sin.
The discomfort comes when we realize that there is no easy once-and-for-all-time-and-all-people calculation regarding right and wrong. To be sure, there are general principles that will exclude some actions all the time. There is no way to murder or torture someone without separating oneself from God. For in such an act one literally murders and tortures God, creating a gulf between oneself and God that can not easily be traversed. Similar things go for all of the basics of the Ten Commandments. So a broad question of 'does this separate me from God' naturally excludes a number of acts across the board.
But things get complicated and grey very quickly. Is homosexuality a sin? If a homosexual says that their love for their partner brings them closer to God, how am I to evaluate this? Let me say unequivocally, that the circumstances under which homosexuality would be possible for me would so separate me from who I am that for me, such an act would undoubtedly separate me from God. I am not sure this is true in all cases. There may be some people for whom such behavior is a sin, and some for whom it is not. Perhaps some are born homosexuals and others choose it. Secularists and religionists alike are likely to dislike this view, because humans yearn from a singular and decisive 'cause' of all human behavior. I am disinclined to this view. People are complicated and their reasons for doing something are complicated. There are some sexual examples that are easier. Casual sex, I think, is such a basic violation of the purpose of sex that it cannot but separate one from God. But homosexuality is not so clear, at least to me.
There are other examples:
I know that mind-altering substances used for mind-altering ends are evil for me. I know that if I drink, it would separate me from God. I am inclined to the view that this is true for all people, but I am not certain of it. Perhaps you can drink without this separation (though I would state a strong case, I think, that casual drinking and drug use of any kind necessarily separates one from God), in which case this is not a sin for you, though it is for me.
I meditate a lot and find myself very sensitive to imagery and ideas. Horror movies affect me in a deeper way than others. I KNOW that watching such movies are sins for me. They are not sins, I think, for some of my friends who can watch them and walk away without a second thought.
In Romans 14 Paul talks about how some people observe certain holidays in a faithful way and for others such holidays would be a sin. Paul implicitly is setting up a framework like the one I have here. A framework like this is less certain, and far less moralistic. But in the end, it just makes sense to me. I cannot see into your heart on all matters. Some things are open for public judgment. Other things are about you and God. Christianity could greatly benefit by making some of these distinctions.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
A Lesson From My Dog
I don't know that God exists. There are good arguments to the end that God exists, and they are rational but not compelling. A rational person can be moved by them, or not. There are good arguments to the end that God does not exist. They are rational but not compelling. A rational person can be moved by them, or not. You can stack up a good case on both sides, but in the end, the individual is stuck making a choice. You have to choose to believe and love God or not. Nobody can make this choice for you. Nor do I believe God will punish those who make the wrong choice. But that isn't to say the choice isn't important.
A similar situation can be found in the arguments regarding mind. What is mind? What is consciousness? There are nearly as many answers and arguments about this as their are philosophers. If you read the history, you'll see a never-ending debate with no end in sight. Every side makes a good case, most are rational, but none are absolutely compelling. Like the situation with God, a person is stuck making a choice. You have to decide what you think the mind is, and how it is we have conscious experience.
The consequences of this choice can be massive. Some theories of consciousness, for instance, exclude animals as having consciousness, on various grounds. The arguments to this end are good and strong, though they are open to debate, as the entire field of philosophy of mind is. From these points of view, animals may pretend to feel pain, but they really don't. These are reactions of neuron complexes, and not the reactions of a feeling being. Phenomenal consciousness is reserved for people alone. I don't believe this, but I wouldn't want to debate some of the people who do.
Think about the consequences of this for things like animal rights or animal cruelty laws. I love my dog. I believe my dog, in some way, feels love for me. I have a relationship with my dog, and my relationship with my dog is important, to me. Yet I know cognitively that I am in a very real sense CHOOSING to believe my dog's apparent feelings are genuine signs of real feelings. The consequences of this choice are huge for me, for my relationship with my dog, and for my dog (but only if I'm right, there is no consequence for my dog if i am wrong.) Yet I do believe my dog feels, and I believe this strongly. But I know enough to know I don't KNOW he feels, you know?
The same thing is roughly true with God. I have a deep and powerful relationship with God. Deeper than any I know. I talk to God, and He talks to me. But I know enough to know that I may be just crazy, and that my experiences may not be real. It appears that God is real, and that my relationship is genuine, but I do not know it, as I don't know the truth about the appearance of my dog's feelings. The consequence of not believing would be huge for me, and (if God is real) for God. Believing may be stronger than knowing. But it is not simply the same thing.
A similar situation can be found in the arguments regarding mind. What is mind? What is consciousness? There are nearly as many answers and arguments about this as their are philosophers. If you read the history, you'll see a never-ending debate with no end in sight. Every side makes a good case, most are rational, but none are absolutely compelling. Like the situation with God, a person is stuck making a choice. You have to decide what you think the mind is, and how it is we have conscious experience.
The consequences of this choice can be massive. Some theories of consciousness, for instance, exclude animals as having consciousness, on various grounds. The arguments to this end are good and strong, though they are open to debate, as the entire field of philosophy of mind is. From these points of view, animals may pretend to feel pain, but they really don't. These are reactions of neuron complexes, and not the reactions of a feeling being. Phenomenal consciousness is reserved for people alone. I don't believe this, but I wouldn't want to debate some of the people who do.
Think about the consequences of this for things like animal rights or animal cruelty laws. I love my dog. I believe my dog, in some way, feels love for me. I have a relationship with my dog, and my relationship with my dog is important, to me. Yet I know cognitively that I am in a very real sense CHOOSING to believe my dog's apparent feelings are genuine signs of real feelings. The consequences of this choice are huge for me, for my relationship with my dog, and for my dog (but only if I'm right, there is no consequence for my dog if i am wrong.) Yet I do believe my dog feels, and I believe this strongly. But I know enough to know I don't KNOW he feels, you know?
The same thing is roughly true with God. I have a deep and powerful relationship with God. Deeper than any I know. I talk to God, and He talks to me. But I know enough to know that I may be just crazy, and that my experiences may not be real. It appears that God is real, and that my relationship is genuine, but I do not know it, as I don't know the truth about the appearance of my dog's feelings. The consequence of not believing would be huge for me, and (if God is real) for God. Believing may be stronger than knowing. But it is not simply the same thing.
More on the Victimhood of God Part 2
...In each moment we have a choice to make. Are we going to make God more or less present in this world. All things everywhere have the power to make the ideal real. God's very being, His very soul, is found in that ideal. The ideals with which God fertilizes the world are what keep it going. Without this influx of ideals, the freedom that the world exhibits would tear it apart. The ideals that God IS become limiting factors, an object can only stray so far from that ideal. Thus the freedom of objects is limited. It is limited to varying degrees, but still limited. Yet the freedom itself is dependent on the ideals. Without some direction, freedom is pure chaos. Every choice has to be graded off an ideal, to be sensical at all.
What's more, this ideal image ensures the eternity of all good acts. For every ideal God creates has within it an entire history of all the actualized ideals that have come before. God's vision of the future is based on what has happened in the past, and so every positive act, and every suffering that was part of the struggle towards a better world, is contained within the ideal that God exists as. God remembers all that happens, and uses that past history to try to make the world a better place.
Yet it remains true that the ideal is often thrown aside. God dies in the world. But this death is not permanent. If it were, the world itself would cease to exist. God in the next moment seeds the world with new ideals, increased or decreased by what has come before. In every moment, Christ is born, crucified and resurrected.
Jesus, for me, was the culmination of one particular line of ideals God started a long time ago. Jesus is the ideal image of God's actions in the world. Jesus shows us what God is. God slowly, by guiding love and seeded ideals, moved the world forward, until it culminated in a single event: the coming of the man Jesus. In Jesus God pushed back from the other side, and gave us a message of love. Thus Jesus plays an ontological role for me. He is the source of a 'good contagion', a vaccine that is spreading throughout human kind. That contagion is an idea, an idea that came into the physical universe from the realm of ideas. It is the idea that God is Suffering, Redeeming love.
What's more, this ideal image ensures the eternity of all good acts. For every ideal God creates has within it an entire history of all the actualized ideals that have come before. God's vision of the future is based on what has happened in the past, and so every positive act, and every suffering that was part of the struggle towards a better world, is contained within the ideal that God exists as. God remembers all that happens, and uses that past history to try to make the world a better place.
Yet it remains true that the ideal is often thrown aside. God dies in the world. But this death is not permanent. If it were, the world itself would cease to exist. God in the next moment seeds the world with new ideals, increased or decreased by what has come before. In every moment, Christ is born, crucified and resurrected.
Jesus, for me, was the culmination of one particular line of ideals God started a long time ago. Jesus is the ideal image of God's actions in the world. Jesus shows us what God is. God slowly, by guiding love and seeded ideals, moved the world forward, until it culminated in a single event: the coming of the man Jesus. In Jesus God pushed back from the other side, and gave us a message of love. Thus Jesus plays an ontological role for me. He is the source of a 'good contagion', a vaccine that is spreading throughout human kind. That contagion is an idea, an idea that came into the physical universe from the realm of ideas. It is the idea that God is Suffering, Redeeming love.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
The Pentecostal Insight
Pentecostals seek direct encounters with God and seek to engage in spiritual warfare against the powers of darkness. In this they have the right attitude. But they generally lack the intellectual sophistication to explore these realities in a way that is useful for the rest of humanity. There are exceptions. Velli-Matti Karkkainen is one. Bill Alston another. If Christianity has a relevant future it will come from men such as this.
Leisure and Struggle
The increase of leisure time in the West should've opened up the possibility of deeper spiritual paths. Freed on the endless conflicts of daily survival, the most important battle, the struggle against evil's very source, should've been joined. Instead people became bored, and focused on creating new worldly struggles and distractions to fill the void. The greatest adventure is at hand, yet most folks float in the shallows of the superficial.
The Intellectual Freedom Of Universalism
Universalism frees one up to evaluate others' religious ideas without condemnation. I don't think beliefs will send one to Hell. As such I can look at people's bad ideas as mistakes rather than sins. This also allows me to see grains of truth in otherwise wrong ideas, much as scientists and philosophers do. This is very freeing for theology.
Friday, May 17, 2013
More on the Victimhood of God Pt 1
In Whiteheadian philosophy, God exhibits two sides. On the one side, God is an ideal image of all the world could be. God exists in a kind of timeless ever-present now, wherein each thing is full realized as the best 'it' it can be. It is all of the things in the world working together to make a harmonious whole. This image is limited by what came before. God cannot exist as an image of a rock becoming superman. God can only exist as an image of the best rock that rock can be. Of course with inanimate objects like rocks, the options are limited. A rock can't be much more than a rock, at least in the short term.
As you move to greater levels of complexity, more options are available. A galaxy is imaged in God as maximally beautiful. A gorilla as doing something novel, and perhaps caring. A human is imaged as doing the best they can do with the moment.
The other side of God is how that ideal is actualized in the world. All things are graded according to that ideal. Things 'lurch forward' using their limited by real freedom to move closer or farther from that ideal. The ideal limits what a thing can do in the world. The thing in the world also limits what ideal might come next. Whitehead used this framework to explain change and consistency in the world, the growth of complexity and beauty, and the creation of ideals. It was the only way that Whitehead could make sense of a world where freedom is fundamental, as it at the quantum level.
For Whitehead every 'thing' can be looked at from a number of different angles. Every object is both an object, a collection of objects, a self, and a collection of selves. There had to be some center of selfhood for the universe, or else, there could be no way in which there was an all-encompassing unifying vision or ideal that could hold the universe together. Whitehead started out an agnostic but became a believer in God when he saw the necessity of some kind of overarching center of self to make sense of the adjustment of all individual ideals to some uber-ideal.
Charles Hartshorne was a theologian who thought this whole picture could be simplified by accepting divine personalism, the idea that all things are a part of God, who is the mind of all of existence, the universe or 'multi-verse'. Then the overarching vision would come not from some outside realm of ideal 'somethings' but simply from the mind of the universe. The universe sees what it, and thus all of us, should be, and reaches for it. But we do the reaching. The universe would have psychical but no somatic influence. It supplies the vision, we supply the action.
In this way, every moment God dies and is resurrected. For Whitehead, Jesus plays an epistemological, not ontological, role. God gives Himself to the world, and the world's failure to manifest God is God's death. The re-construction of a new ideal image is God's resurrection. I am not an unmodified Whiteheadian. I believe in a more active and revelatory God than he did. But the basic outline here makes a lot of sense to me. This is much of what God is...to be continued
As you move to greater levels of complexity, more options are available. A galaxy is imaged in God as maximally beautiful. A gorilla as doing something novel, and perhaps caring. A human is imaged as doing the best they can do with the moment.
The other side of God is how that ideal is actualized in the world. All things are graded according to that ideal. Things 'lurch forward' using their limited by real freedom to move closer or farther from that ideal. The ideal limits what a thing can do in the world. The thing in the world also limits what ideal might come next. Whitehead used this framework to explain change and consistency in the world, the growth of complexity and beauty, and the creation of ideals. It was the only way that Whitehead could make sense of a world where freedom is fundamental, as it at the quantum level.
For Whitehead every 'thing' can be looked at from a number of different angles. Every object is both an object, a collection of objects, a self, and a collection of selves. There had to be some center of selfhood for the universe, or else, there could be no way in which there was an all-encompassing unifying vision or ideal that could hold the universe together. Whitehead started out an agnostic but became a believer in God when he saw the necessity of some kind of overarching center of self to make sense of the adjustment of all individual ideals to some uber-ideal.
Charles Hartshorne was a theologian who thought this whole picture could be simplified by accepting divine personalism, the idea that all things are a part of God, who is the mind of all of existence, the universe or 'multi-verse'. Then the overarching vision would come not from some outside realm of ideal 'somethings' but simply from the mind of the universe. The universe sees what it, and thus all of us, should be, and reaches for it. But we do the reaching. The universe would have psychical but no somatic influence. It supplies the vision, we supply the action.
In this way, every moment God dies and is resurrected. For Whitehead, Jesus plays an epistemological, not ontological, role. God gives Himself to the world, and the world's failure to manifest God is God's death. The re-construction of a new ideal image is God's resurrection. I am not an unmodified Whiteheadian. I believe in a more active and revelatory God than he did. But the basic outline here makes a lot of sense to me. This is much of what God is...to be continued
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Quotable
"Humankind is never the victim of God; God is always the victim of humankind."- Rene Girard
The Razor's Edge
I walk a thin road. All around me there are whispering pits. On the one side there is a stultifying skepticism that brings with it a small but strong community of intellectuals who will reassure me of my rightness and praise me for my bravery and intelligence. "Don't believe, don't trust, don't risk". On the other side is fundamentalism, a way of denying what is obviously true so I can believe only that which brings comfort. Simplicity and certainty beckon me. "Just believe, don't question, don't risk." It would be so much easier to ignore the contradictions, to deny the vagaries, to de-complexify life. Yes easier, but I think in the end far less satisfying. I'd be missing something.
Being Crushed Down, Being Raised Up
Paraphrasing Ecclesiastes, there is a time to be crushed down, and a time to be raised up. The trick is to see how the one leads to the other. Today is a 'crushed down' kind of day. I want to say in the words of Ben Skyles "God crush me down, so I can be raised up" or in the words of Wittgenstein "I am a worm, but through God I become a man, may Christ guide me", or in the words of Paul "may I die to myself so I may live with Christ." God let me say those things, and accept all that comes as having meaning and value, emanating from your very being.
The Phenomenon of Being Too Dumb For One's Gifts
I have been given by the Grace of God incredible visionary experiences. My life has become a feedback loop, wherein my waking world echoes my spiritual experiences from dreams and meditation and prayer, and my experiences in my dreams and meditations and prayers echo my waking life. I can see all that the most extreme religionists see, without being dragged into over-belief. Thanks to my exposure to science, and philosophy, I'm able to filter my raw encounter with the Bible, tradition and personal experience through the strainer of reason, which purifies my vision and keeps me from idolatry. I am coming to know my limits, and just how much one is capable of when God is on their side. Yet, something is missing. What is missing is my ability to really invite other people in to what I am encountering. Some are able to walk a similar path and can share in my joy. Most seem all but incapable of processing even the vaguest expressions of what I'm talking about. And even to those who do understand, I feel I've made myself more a burden than a blessing. For I can see the great work they have to undertake to stretch and see what I'm getting at.
I feel arrogant and full of myself for putting people through such hoops. It should be simple, I make it extremely complicated and hard. I feel like the pharisee who puts an undo burden on those around them. I feel more connected to the whole world, to God, to the people closest to me, than I ever have. Yet on another level I'm more isolated than I've ever been. This causes me no grief. I have my wife, and my love is more sustaining than ever.
The problem, I think, is that I'm too dumb to fully utilize all I've been given. I feel sometimes, like God's gifts to me are a mistake. Like they were supposed to be given to someone else. I remember a scene from the film PHENOMENON with John Travolta, who has gained great mystical and intellectual power from a mysterious light he saw in the sky. He realized that this great gift had limited effectiveness, because if it had gone to a great scientist or philosopher, so much more could've been done. I have done everything wrong in my life, I've run from God and wallowed in anger, ego and self-destruction, all at various times. Yet God through circumstance and insight has forced His Holy Spirit into my heart. To what end?
A greater man would be able to organize a community of thousands with such vision, a community that would go out and transform the fact of this world like no other. A richer man would be able to use it to maximize profit and use that money to make the world a much better place. A smarter man would be able to write books everyone could enjoy and understand and actually get something out of. A more creative man would write stories that inspire people to much greater heights. If I were an artist I could paint or draw what I see. If a novelist I could draw you into the magic of this mystical feedback loop in a way that was inviting and creative. If a musician I could spread it like wildfire.
Yet I am me. For whatever reason I have what I have. God has raised up the most worthless of people to meet a few times a week, speak some (mostly confusing and rarely useful) words, and write a blog here and there. I love all of this. I am so lucky and so happy, and so very satisfied with all I'm called to do. But if I'm honest, I just don't think I'm very good at it. Maybe I'm better than most, even where I'm at. That isn't much of a comforting thought, though. Quite the opposite. They say God does not call the equipped, He equips the call. Sounds good, sounds true. But I'm not so sure. I'll just keep plugging away. He knows what he's doing.
I feel arrogant and full of myself for putting people through such hoops. It should be simple, I make it extremely complicated and hard. I feel like the pharisee who puts an undo burden on those around them. I feel more connected to the whole world, to God, to the people closest to me, than I ever have. Yet on another level I'm more isolated than I've ever been. This causes me no grief. I have my wife, and my love is more sustaining than ever.
The problem, I think, is that I'm too dumb to fully utilize all I've been given. I feel sometimes, like God's gifts to me are a mistake. Like they were supposed to be given to someone else. I remember a scene from the film PHENOMENON with John Travolta, who has gained great mystical and intellectual power from a mysterious light he saw in the sky. He realized that this great gift had limited effectiveness, because if it had gone to a great scientist or philosopher, so much more could've been done. I have done everything wrong in my life, I've run from God and wallowed in anger, ego and self-destruction, all at various times. Yet God through circumstance and insight has forced His Holy Spirit into my heart. To what end?
A greater man would be able to organize a community of thousands with such vision, a community that would go out and transform the fact of this world like no other. A richer man would be able to use it to maximize profit and use that money to make the world a much better place. A smarter man would be able to write books everyone could enjoy and understand and actually get something out of. A more creative man would write stories that inspire people to much greater heights. If I were an artist I could paint or draw what I see. If a novelist I could draw you into the magic of this mystical feedback loop in a way that was inviting and creative. If a musician I could spread it like wildfire.
Yet I am me. For whatever reason I have what I have. God has raised up the most worthless of people to meet a few times a week, speak some (mostly confusing and rarely useful) words, and write a blog here and there. I love all of this. I am so lucky and so happy, and so very satisfied with all I'm called to do. But if I'm honest, I just don't think I'm very good at it. Maybe I'm better than most, even where I'm at. That isn't much of a comforting thought, though. Quite the opposite. They say God does not call the equipped, He equips the call. Sounds good, sounds true. But I'm not so sure. I'll just keep plugging away. He knows what he's doing.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Random Biblical Thoughts Part 3
The proper offerings for sacrifice in Leviticus are supposed to be 'without blemish'. This is a very significant fact for Christians, though it's original meaning for Jews is unclear. It may have to do with the perfection that is required to stand before God, or it may simply have to do with bringing the best one has to offer.
Everything is scaled according to what one has to offer. If one doesn't have a bull or goat or lamb, a dove is acceptable. If no dove, grain offerings are possible. What matters is the spirit in which the sacrifice is brought.
The priest or rabbi in Judaism stands for the entire community. The Rabbi during the Days of Awe confesses the community's sins as if they were his or her own. This has Christic significance, certainly. It also speaks to the communal nature of selfhood, as found in the Bible. Who you are is in part the community.
The offerings in Leviticus include both sin and guilt offerings. Humanity needs both. We need to be relieved of our sin and the subjective burden of our sin. I need God to take away my sin AND the guilt of my sin.
Aaron and his descendants are the priests. Aaron was descended from Levi. Yet not all Levites are descended from Aaron. Non-Aaronic Levites have some priestly duties as well. All priests are Levites, not all Levites are priests, though all have some religious role to play. It is important to remember that Levites lost their tribal status when they became set apart for religious duties. They had to be available to serve all the tribes, and so could have not tribal status of their own.
Much of the Levitical law is about keeping separate symbols of death and symbols of life. This is why women are sent out during menstruation and why meat cannot be eaten with milk. It is also probably behind some of the prohibitions against homosexuality, interesting enough. Other parts of the law are functional, they probably grew up because they tended to make people healthier. No doubt separating lepers or the injunction against pork has this background. The two are connected. Obviously that which prolongs life would be come to seen as in line with a God of Life. When examining the law we can affirm the underlying theological principle without affirming the specific laws that express that principle. Life-affirmation is absolutely vital, I think. It is the true genius of the Bible: that God is Life alive. Yet affirming only the principle and not the law is tricky. The sacredness of sex, and the need to take control of the sexual impulse is righteous. Blaise attitudes about sex are destructive in ways that proponents of such attitudes rarely comprehend, especially among the poor.
Much of the Levitical law is brutal and distasteful. It is clear that good principles are being badly applied. The attribution of many of these laws to God is clearly misguided. The God of life sounds often more in love with death in many of these passages.
The Passover has roots as a harvest religion but became associated with the escape from Egypt. What is the interplay of life and death here? It is interesting to think about. Passover is about a death being, but the one who directs his steps is Life Divine. What does all this mean?
On the Day of Atonement the priest was supposed to sacrifice two goats. One was sacrificed to the Lord. Over the other the sins of the people were confessed and this one was sent out 'to Azazel'. This is one of the great mysteries of the Bible. Certainly this is a scapegoating scene, and the goat sent out is called the scapegoat, so and Girardian theologians should and do have a field day with that passage. Azazel may simply be an reference to the goats place as scapegoat, but few scholars think this way. It is more than likely some kind of evil spirit, a primitive version of the satan trope. Azazel may have been an ancient desert god and the practice of sacrificing to it got carried over into the Biblical tradition. How interesting, that one of the earliest forms of embodied evil in the Bible is associated with 'scapegoat'. It has connections to satan's later role as accuser, no doubt. Leviticus 16 is a passage I keep coming back to, puzzling over. There is something cosmic, and important here. Some vital lesson I only scratch the surface of. Who or what is Azazel?
Monday, May 13, 2013
Not Really Off-Topic: Cloud Atlas
A film is coming out tomorrow, Tuesday, May 14th, that I highly recommend for adult audiences. It is CLOUD ATLAS, a science fiction film about several lives all intertwined across time. It follows certain people as they are reincarnated through different time periods and struggle for love, peace and justice in different places and times. It is a wonderful exploration of reincarnation, and the inter-connectedness of all things. I don't believe in the former, but I strongly believe in the latter. Certainly a lot of the theology leaves much to be desired, but it is a damn good movie that explores really deep issues. It didn't do great in the theaters but it should've. Check it out on DVD tomorrow.
Good Religion, Bad Religion & The Environment
Fundamentalism is likely helping to kill this planet. A disinterest in this world, and an over-concentration on End Times theology combines to help facilitate a general malaise about environmental issues. Fundamentalism hides an inchoate gnosticism, wherein the next life is the only one we live for, and everyone looks forward to a time when the world is completely recreated, erasing any sense that what we do in this world matters. For if the world is just going to be completely re-created, nothing we do in this world has any real permanent impact FOR this world.
Combine this with an over-simplistic and literalistic approach to Creation, and you have a very deadly combination. I'm a rather conservative guy, but I believe something needs to be done about global warming, and I think market forces can be used to help facilitate positive change. But rather than conservatives using their (I think correct) methods to solve this problem, the ignore it or worse. That is due in large part to the influence of fundamentalists.
Atheistic humanism is no solution to the problem, however. As Dostoesvky rightly pointed out at length in his books, survival is not motivation enough to actually produce results. Convincing people that their lives or the lives of future generations depend upon their actions will not really move them to action. People seek to live for something more than life. If there is nothing more than life itself, then they will not have the proper motivation to do anything at all. Giving them a sense that their actions in this world matter ULTIMATELY will make a difference in a way no secular philosophy ever can. People need a mission, they need something to actually fight for. This is why the combat motif in the Bible is so important. The sense that we have an enemy out there and we really are empowered to do something about it speaks to our need for, and experience of, meaning. Environmentalists problem is the opposite of fundamentalists: they are too worldly. Looking at global warming as the offshoot of human greed and selfishness, and seeing these forces as part of the larger spiritual conflict with evil, is the only way to really get people moving. Abandoning the language of religion, you abandon the very power by which you can actually make a difference.
Non-hierarchical, and liberal interpretations of Creation can help spur people to action as well. If we look just at Genesis 2, where humanity is created to be caretakers of the garden in which they were placed, where the very purpose of creation is not humanity itself, but the world God made to house humanity, can give us a sense of divine mission, and rightly so. Adam was created to tend the Garden. Christians are supposed to be freed from the sin of Adam. Doesn't it make sense, then, that a redeemed person will take up the job that Adam lost, and start tending the garden as we were always intended to do?
There are some liberal theologians who have taken up this cause, unfortunately they are too tightly connected to leftist politics to come up with the kind of solutions that would really make a difference. Until zeal starts getting properly directed, we are in trouble. Good religion could help restore balance to the planet, bad religion is likely to destroy it.
Combine this with an over-simplistic and literalistic approach to Creation, and you have a very deadly combination. I'm a rather conservative guy, but I believe something needs to be done about global warming, and I think market forces can be used to help facilitate positive change. But rather than conservatives using their (I think correct) methods to solve this problem, the ignore it or worse. That is due in large part to the influence of fundamentalists.
Atheistic humanism is no solution to the problem, however. As Dostoesvky rightly pointed out at length in his books, survival is not motivation enough to actually produce results. Convincing people that their lives or the lives of future generations depend upon their actions will not really move them to action. People seek to live for something more than life. If there is nothing more than life itself, then they will not have the proper motivation to do anything at all. Giving them a sense that their actions in this world matter ULTIMATELY will make a difference in a way no secular philosophy ever can. People need a mission, they need something to actually fight for. This is why the combat motif in the Bible is so important. The sense that we have an enemy out there and we really are empowered to do something about it speaks to our need for, and experience of, meaning. Environmentalists problem is the opposite of fundamentalists: they are too worldly. Looking at global warming as the offshoot of human greed and selfishness, and seeing these forces as part of the larger spiritual conflict with evil, is the only way to really get people moving. Abandoning the language of religion, you abandon the very power by which you can actually make a difference.
Non-hierarchical, and liberal interpretations of Creation can help spur people to action as well. If we look just at Genesis 2, where humanity is created to be caretakers of the garden in which they were placed, where the very purpose of creation is not humanity itself, but the world God made to house humanity, can give us a sense of divine mission, and rightly so. Adam was created to tend the Garden. Christians are supposed to be freed from the sin of Adam. Doesn't it make sense, then, that a redeemed person will take up the job that Adam lost, and start tending the garden as we were always intended to do?
There are some liberal theologians who have taken up this cause, unfortunately they are too tightly connected to leftist politics to come up with the kind of solutions that would really make a difference. Until zeal starts getting properly directed, we are in trouble. Good religion could help restore balance to the planet, bad religion is likely to destroy it.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Off-Topic: Top Five Movies
A note on CITIZEN KANE: Citizen Kane is almost universally accepted by movie critics as the best movie of all time. While the film is not terribly 'entertaining', it is profound in a way that words fail to describe. But it is a hard film to 'get'. In fact, I think the best way to understand the film is to study the work of Andre Bazin, the film theorist whose philosophy is brought to live in KANE. I think Kane transcends genre, and so it is not on my list. Watched with the right eyes, and you have to have the right eyes to get it, it really is the finest thing ever produced on film. It stands in a class by itself.
Action Films
1) THE AVENGERS
2) RONIN
3) DIE HARD
4) THE DARK KNIGHT
5) LETHAL WEAPON
Comedies
1) YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN
2) GROUNDHOG DAY
3) BLAZING SADDLES
4) ARMY OF DARKNESS
5) GHOSTBUSTERS
Science Fiction
1) STAR WARS: THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK
2) STAR TREK: THE WRATH OF KHAN
3) ALIENS
4) THE MATRIX
5) AVATAR
Fantasy
1) PAN'S LABYRINTH
2) LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS
3) THE PRINCESS BRIDE
4) DRAGONSLAYER
5) STARDUST
Musicals
1) WIZARD OF OZ
2) LES MISERABLES
3) OH BROTHER WHERE ART THOU
4) DAMN YANKEES
5) ACROSS THE UNIVERSE
Horror
1) EXORCIST
2) THE SHINING
3) EVIL DEAD II
4) THE LOST BOYS
5) THE THING
Animated- Children's
1) UP
2) CINDERELLA
3) THE SECRET OF NIMH
4) WALL-E
5) MONSTERS VS ALIENS
Drama
1) AMERICAN BEAUTY
2) TREE OF LIFE
3) CASABLANCA
4) AFRICAN QUEEN
5) THE GREEN MILE
Action Films
1) THE AVENGERS
2) RONIN
3) DIE HARD
4) THE DARK KNIGHT
5) LETHAL WEAPON
Comedies
1) YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN
2) GROUNDHOG DAY
3) BLAZING SADDLES
4) ARMY OF DARKNESS
5) GHOSTBUSTERS
Science Fiction
1) STAR WARS: THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK
2) STAR TREK: THE WRATH OF KHAN
3) ALIENS
4) THE MATRIX
5) AVATAR
Fantasy
1) PAN'S LABYRINTH
2) LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS
3) THE PRINCESS BRIDE
4) DRAGONSLAYER
5) STARDUST
Musicals
1) WIZARD OF OZ
2) LES MISERABLES
3) OH BROTHER WHERE ART THOU
4) DAMN YANKEES
5) ACROSS THE UNIVERSE
Horror
1) EXORCIST
2) THE SHINING
3) EVIL DEAD II
4) THE LOST BOYS
5) THE THING
Animated- Children's
1) UP
2) CINDERELLA
3) THE SECRET OF NIMH
4) WALL-E
5) MONSTERS VS ALIENS
Drama
1) AMERICAN BEAUTY
2) TREE OF LIFE
3) CASABLANCA
4) AFRICAN QUEEN
5) THE GREEN MILE
More On Sibling Rivalry & Scripture
There are some thinkers who have suggested that the real original sin is Cain's killing of Abel. While I generally reject this view, it has some merit. After all, the Cain/Abel story begins a pattern of sibling rivalry and struggle that in many ways defines the rest of Genesis. Abraham and Lot part ways. Ishmael and Isaac are set at odds by their mothers' rivalry. Jacob contends with his brother Esau and later his uncle Laban. Then the biggest of sibling rivalry's: Joseph's conflict with his brothers.
At the heart of all these stories is the theme of scapegoating. Rene Girard, who argues that scapegoating is the central sin in scripture and that scripture should be read as a working out of the scapegoating process in human history, is one of those who argues for the Cain and Abel Story as the true story of original sin. Cain of course kills Abel to work out his conflict with God, and out of envy. Isaac and Ishmael are the victims of Hagar's place as the scapegoat for Abraham and Sarah, whose unresolved issues are visited on Hagar and Ishmael. Jacob and Esau, and Joseph and His Brothers, are all examples of similar situations, if not identical situations.
And the whole of Genesis is the long story of people dealing with parental conflict by turning on their siblings. Limited resources add to the tension, a situation which is no one's fault becomes a reason to attack some individual as sinful or evil (Jacob and Esau grow up at a time when the Israelites' ancestors face limited water resources, as the various fights over wells in Genesis attests to). What is amazing is how open and honest the Bible is about the Scapegoating theme. Whereas other myths and stories try to conceal the theme, in the Bible it is open for all to see. Jacob the scapegoater is scapegoated himself, and realizes the errors of his ways.
Certainly, the Bible speaks to a universal human truth here. Siblings' unresolved parental issues often lead to in-fighting. Brothers and sisters scapegoat each other. Indeed, the family structure is the first one that provides a framework for scapegoating. The legacies of these practices in the Bible are monumental: they lead to family feuds that become tribal feuds and later national feuds that last for centuries, and in some cases millenia. All of this surely speaks to Girard's hermeneutic. He was right in detecting the scapegoating theme as important and pervasive, though I disagree with him that it is foundational. What is certainly true is that the Girardian framework helps explain the importance of sibling rivalry in the Bible.
At the heart of all these stories is the theme of scapegoating. Rene Girard, who argues that scapegoating is the central sin in scripture and that scripture should be read as a working out of the scapegoating process in human history, is one of those who argues for the Cain and Abel Story as the true story of original sin. Cain of course kills Abel to work out his conflict with God, and out of envy. Isaac and Ishmael are the victims of Hagar's place as the scapegoat for Abraham and Sarah, whose unresolved issues are visited on Hagar and Ishmael. Jacob and Esau, and Joseph and His Brothers, are all examples of similar situations, if not identical situations.
And the whole of Genesis is the long story of people dealing with parental conflict by turning on their siblings. Limited resources add to the tension, a situation which is no one's fault becomes a reason to attack some individual as sinful or evil (Jacob and Esau grow up at a time when the Israelites' ancestors face limited water resources, as the various fights over wells in Genesis attests to). What is amazing is how open and honest the Bible is about the Scapegoating theme. Whereas other myths and stories try to conceal the theme, in the Bible it is open for all to see. Jacob the scapegoater is scapegoated himself, and realizes the errors of his ways.
Certainly, the Bible speaks to a universal human truth here. Siblings' unresolved parental issues often lead to in-fighting. Brothers and sisters scapegoat each other. Indeed, the family structure is the first one that provides a framework for scapegoating. The legacies of these practices in the Bible are monumental: they lead to family feuds that become tribal feuds and later national feuds that last for centuries, and in some cases millenia. All of this surely speaks to Girard's hermeneutic. He was right in detecting the scapegoating theme as important and pervasive, though I disagree with him that it is foundational. What is certainly true is that the Girardian framework helps explain the importance of sibling rivalry in the Bible.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
The Sufferer
The final truth one might glean from Job is that the true sufferer is beyond moral judgment. The internal response of the sufferer is not ours to evaluate. All grieving is holy. The sufferer is the revelation of God to others. Ours is to love and serve as a service to God, not to try to stand in God's place for the sufferer, as explainer and judge. To do this is to mock God.
Living and Believing
All true and passionate existence involves believing beyond the evidence. There is no real life without risk and risk necessitates uncertainty. The question of faith is the question of whether one is willing to take a fundamental risk with one's very self. I respect a person no matter what decision they make on that issue. It is a decision beyond judgment.
Sibling Rivalry
One strong argument in favor of Renee Girard's approach to scripture is the centrality of sibling rivalry in scripture. It is the central conflict in Genesis and persists as a theme throughout...more on this tomorrow.
"It Is Good"
It is a good thing that the more recent Creation Story comes first in the Bible. For the first foundation of Christian faith is the ultimate goodness of life, of existence. Yahweh is life, being, as person. That God proclaims all creation "good" is an important first principle for scripture.
Friday, May 10, 2013
How is being a Christian like being a nerd?
1) Both involve an inversion of our normal ranking of importance. Nerds are the lowest and the weakness. What the world calls ridiculous and childish nerds consider central and important. Some silly little story is worth giving your whole self over to, if only for a moment. Nerds are the picked on in school, the hated, and the isolated. But step into their world- the conventions, the comic book stores, and the world is turned upside down. The lowest are made kings of the earth, and the weakest are indomitable.
2) Both exalt childlikeness. Related to #1, both nerddom and Christianity see something vital and true in childhood. Truly both teach that the Kingdom of God belongs to little children. Telling a nerd to grow up is futile. And Christianity embraces the childlike weakness of the Christian spirit.
3) Both are all about community. A Christian alone is incomplete. We discover who we are in and through community. We are a community bound by our shared acknowledged weakness and sinfulness, and our love of Christ. We are bound together by a singular focus. Nerds get together, too. And our focus is also singular. But we are also bound by the silent acknowledgement that we really don't fit in. Our shared weakness and obsessions are our bond.
4) Both express a fundamental dissatisfaction with life as it exists before us. Christians are not truly at home in the world. The are travelers and sojourners on the way home. Life without God is grey and dead. Only Christ brings life. Nerds embrace escapism. They do not treat this world as their home.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
It Is All About Christ
We are saved neither by faith nor by works but by Christ Jesus. We are saved by the Man on the Cross, by the God on the Cross. We know we are saved by His Resurrection. It is the blood of Jesus that saves us. None of us are worthy, none of us earn our place. Humanity is wretched and sinful, but under God transformed and raised up. Sanctification is gained by faith and through struggle within faith. We are conformed to the image of God. Faith matters because we want to conform this world, and ourselves, to that image. The Holy Spirit is given but must be exercised and used to be useful. But entry into this life, that which makes conformity possible, that which opens a direct line to God, is simply the Cross itself.
I look to a future when the center becomes once again the Incarnation. The man Jesus. Yahweh alive in Jesus. This fact, this historical moment, this as the center, that is the future, if there is any. Denominations will realize that doctrines are important, but pale before the glory of the Man on the Cross Who Was Resurrected. It is not that all denominations will become one. But real Christianity will also be done in Bible studies at Starbucks, in people's homes, on the street, and on the Big Screen. Yes it will permeate all that is what I call 'nerddom' or rather 'pop culture'. People will realize that the dreams they seek are at their disposal, if they will only say 'yes' to Jesus Christ. Work will be done in soup kitchens, in schools, at hospitals, and all with a mind to the man Jesus. It will be the Incarnation that will matter most. Christianity will not be unified by treating doctrines as unimportant, but rather by treating Jesus as the most important.
All around the world, things will find coherence again in the Christian community. Jesus will be the bridge between science and religion, between various religions, and finally we will find a brotherhood of man. Not based on our own goodness, but on our recognition of the cost paid on our behalf on the Cross, by God and His son. Is this a pipe dream? Maybe. Am I certain of it? Absolutely not. But it is what keeps me going. I believe it possible, and I think that in the end the simple man on the cross is the only thing that can blow this entire mess sky high.
I look to a future when the center becomes once again the Incarnation. The man Jesus. Yahweh alive in Jesus. This fact, this historical moment, this as the center, that is the future, if there is any. Denominations will realize that doctrines are important, but pale before the glory of the Man on the Cross Who Was Resurrected. It is not that all denominations will become one. But real Christianity will also be done in Bible studies at Starbucks, in people's homes, on the street, and on the Big Screen. Yes it will permeate all that is what I call 'nerddom' or rather 'pop culture'. People will realize that the dreams they seek are at their disposal, if they will only say 'yes' to Jesus Christ. Work will be done in soup kitchens, in schools, at hospitals, and all with a mind to the man Jesus. It will be the Incarnation that will matter most. Christianity will not be unified by treating doctrines as unimportant, but rather by treating Jesus as the most important.
All around the world, things will find coherence again in the Christian community. Jesus will be the bridge between science and religion, between various religions, and finally we will find a brotherhood of man. Not based on our own goodness, but on our recognition of the cost paid on our behalf on the Cross, by God and His son. Is this a pipe dream? Maybe. Am I certain of it? Absolutely not. But it is what keeps me going. I believe it possible, and I think that in the end the simple man on the cross is the only thing that can blow this entire mess sky high.
What Happens In The Youth Group I Lead
We watch a television episode, or an extended clip from a film. Then we read a Bible passage and talk about the connections between the two. All of a sudden, the film is not just a film, it is God speaking through art. And the Bible passage is illuminated, it is clearer and more accessible, and thereby it becomes that much more the word of God. Then people start talking. One person says one thing, and another person says something else. There is monologue, and dialogue, sometimes agreement, sometimes disagreement. But the words that are said are so often sublime, beyond anything I could think of or formulate by myself. It is God speaking in and through conversation. We all stand before the Great Mystery hidden behind art and religion. We speak to that Mystery and that Mystery speaks through us. We reach our hands into another world, and in a very real sense create art all our own. Christ becomes present in a way that is palpable and physical. We are the Body of Christ. Yet living out the man Jesus, and making the Holy Spirit present within us, I (at least) become aware that those realities, present and real as they are, are so much bigger than what can be contained in our particular group or conversation. Christ in conversation, pointing to a reality beyond anything we can imagine. That is what Youth Ministry is for me.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Exegesis of Proverbs
Proverbs is a strange book. It has moments of rapture, lines of true greatness, and individual thoughts that evoke a deep beauty. Yet it also contains much that is repetitive, all but useless, repulsive, and untrue. All of it sits together, placed in some kind of poetic form that is yet inferior to the Psalms or Job. I have long avoided an in-depth study of the Book, except for chapters here and there, until now.
Proverbs is to be approached differently than other books. There is no doubt that my overall conversational framework is uniquely apt to approaching Proverbs, as many of the contradictions speak to an ongoing conversation between various thinkers, prophets, and sages. Yet whereas generally I take the Bible to be something that should be read as a complete unit, and eschew proof-texting, I take proverbs to be something that should be atomized. Reduce it down to it's parts and investigate each thread. The individual saying is the locus of the divine revelation, the book as a whole can't be read 'all together'...it just doesn't hang together. There are exceptions. Proverbs 8 for instance should be read as a complete unit. But most of the book needs to be broken down and thought about very piecemeal. By doing this you can more easily draw the real divine value from the Book.
Proverbs is to be approached differently than other books. There is no doubt that my overall conversational framework is uniquely apt to approaching Proverbs, as many of the contradictions speak to an ongoing conversation between various thinkers, prophets, and sages. Yet whereas generally I take the Bible to be something that should be read as a complete unit, and eschew proof-texting, I take proverbs to be something that should be atomized. Reduce it down to it's parts and investigate each thread. The individual saying is the locus of the divine revelation, the book as a whole can't be read 'all together'...it just doesn't hang together. There are exceptions. Proverbs 8 for instance should be read as a complete unit. But most of the book needs to be broken down and thought about very piecemeal. By doing this you can more easily draw the real divine value from the Book.
Pondering Selfhood
A thought often hits me like a ton of bricks: "I am me, Joshua, living in Texas in the 21st century". I stand in awe of this thought. I know of a rich and vast history, an ocean time that stands before my coming. I could've been born in any other time period, in any other country, yet I am me, here, now. Somehow, in those moments, I get the sense that I am not ONLY me, that somehow who I am is inclusive of all the people that "I" am not.
I feel all of a sudden the reality of my very self, like I am standing at the edge of the very infinite. It is not unlike the feeling I got when I was a child, pondering the possibility that we may all be just figments of God's dreams, and that His choice to continue sleeping is all that maintains our very existence. If God woke up, we'd just blink into nothingness. Or when I read one philosopher's reflection upon the possibility that all of reality may have been created just one moment ago, with the entire memory of human history intact. After all, my direct experience is only of the present. A similar feeling bubbles to the surface when I'm in a lucid dream or deep meditative states and I have conversations with dream characters who by all accounts are simply a part of me, and yet who have a strange and awe-inspiring independence.
That which is most present to me, that which I can most directly experience and which is my most common companion, is my soul, my very self. The reality of this 'something' is as palpable, indeed in many ways more palpable, as the computer in front of me or the chair I sit on. It is real, and it is present, and yet it remains a total mystery, a deep mystery, a wide mystery. For all the mysteries science has shed a light upon, for all the grandeur of it's theorizing and worldview-building, the most immediate mysteries: consciousness, and the self, all remain all but untouched. Many scientists, unable to face the essential mysteriousness of our existence, deny that these realities even exist. They 'eliminate' the self, and consciousness. Ridiculous, says I.
All religion, at it's most fundamental, struggles and ponders these most ultimately mysteries. It is here that the heart of religion has always been found, as Rodney Stark persuasively argues in his book DISCOVERING GOD. The superstitious side of religion comes from a crossing of the streams, a mixing up of experiential inputs. There is religious experience and sense experience, they must somehow reconcile, but they are not the same thing. Religion's shaping and exploration of the mysteries of the self, experience, and of simply living life, do shed some light, but not in the same way science does. They are about living within the mystery, rather than somehow trying to solve of dominate it. For the mystery of who I am retreats behind any need to know. It is like water, the harder one holds onto it, the quicker it slips through one's fingers. It must be handled with gentleness and reverence. When it is so handled, these great questions bubble to the surface, and some deeper truths are apprehended, if not completely understood.
Monday, May 6, 2013
The Prophets Vs Job
I have finished my most recent study of Job using Robert Alter's translation of the Wisdom Books w/commentary. It is very good. In the end, Job is really about one very simple message: you cannot justify suffering. Suffering stands beyond explanation and justification. The universe does NOT look like a place ruled by a moral God. Yet the beauty and grandeur of the universe, for Job, somehow 'drowns out' the frustration that suffering brings. This is Job in it's essence: "The universe is not arranged toward some moral end. This causes within us tension and frustration. Open yourself up fully to the aesthetic end which the universe does speak to, and your frustration will be quieted."
Job's criticism of the prophets, who held that the universe exhibited a clear moral structure and that all suffering was a result of that structure, is a righteous one. Yet the prophets' experience of God as absolute goodness, as a goodness so great that next to Him all human actions are 'but filthy rags', seems to hold some truth as well. The prophetic experience of God seems genuine, to me.
The Apocalyptic writers made sense of all of this by positing a universe where there were forces that worked over and against God. Satan is their answer to the problem of evil. The combat motif in the Bible seems also to hold some truth. There is definitely some sense in which all of life is a battlefield. But the Apocalyptic writers, unlike Job, worked firmly within the prophetic world-view. Thus God remains in all ways all-powerful and so it is hard to see how God isn't at least indirectly responsible for satan's actions.
Any answer to the problem of evil must speak to the following issues: that suffering is real and stands beyond justification or rationalization, that God is absolutely good, and that the struggles in life lead to experiences of evil as palpable as our experiences of the good.
My answer has been, as many of you know, to give up the idea of an in-all-ways omnipotent God. God remains the ultimate power, and love is guaranteed to ultimately overcome, but God can at times experience frustration of His plans. God can vouchsafe the overall universe without vouchsafing every moment that makes up the universe. I further think a re-visioning of God's power as being in and through the Cross, rather than as coercion is important. These are high theological prices to pay, but no more than the ones paid by the prophets or Job himself.
Job's criticism of the prophets, who held that the universe exhibited a clear moral structure and that all suffering was a result of that structure, is a righteous one. Yet the prophets' experience of God as absolute goodness, as a goodness so great that next to Him all human actions are 'but filthy rags', seems to hold some truth as well. The prophetic experience of God seems genuine, to me.
The Apocalyptic writers made sense of all of this by positing a universe where there were forces that worked over and against God. Satan is their answer to the problem of evil. The combat motif in the Bible seems also to hold some truth. There is definitely some sense in which all of life is a battlefield. But the Apocalyptic writers, unlike Job, worked firmly within the prophetic world-view. Thus God remains in all ways all-powerful and so it is hard to see how God isn't at least indirectly responsible for satan's actions.
Any answer to the problem of evil must speak to the following issues: that suffering is real and stands beyond justification or rationalization, that God is absolutely good, and that the struggles in life lead to experiences of evil as palpable as our experiences of the good.
My answer has been, as many of you know, to give up the idea of an in-all-ways omnipotent God. God remains the ultimate power, and love is guaranteed to ultimately overcome, but God can at times experience frustration of His plans. God can vouchsafe the overall universe without vouchsafing every moment that makes up the universe. I further think a re-visioning of God's power as being in and through the Cross, rather than as coercion is important. These are high theological prices to pay, but no more than the ones paid by the prophets or Job himself.
Sunday, May 5, 2013
What I Did Last Night
Last night we had our STAR WARS BROOMBALL & BOWLING LOCK-IN. Today we had YOUTH SUNDAY, where we ran the church service. Above is a video of the broomball. I am extremely tired so this will be my only post for the day.
Days like this make me think of Alfred N Whitehead's conclusion towards the end of his book RELIGION IN THE MAKING: "The passage of time is the journey of the world towards the gathering of new ideas into actual fact. This adventure is upwards and downwards. Whatever ceases to ascend, fails to preserve itself and enters upon its inevitable path of decay. It decays by transmitting its nature to slighter occasions of actuality, by reason of the failure of the new forms to fertilize the perceptive achievements which constitute its past history. The universe shows us two aspects: on one side it is physically wasting, on the other side it is spiritually ascending."
Saturday, May 4, 2013
Why We Need Revelation
Personal experience is important but it is not enough. We need the collective encounter of that particularly enlightened group of people who stand behind scripture. They give us an overall picture that must guide our lives. Personal experience can get you to the point where you can have faith, but it is a faith that is missing something. For our experience of good is deep and wide, and with it comes a call. But the same is true of our experience of evil. Experience by itself will lead one into the mistakes of Gnosticism and hard spiritual dualism. The human encounter with the world, the first person perspective reflected upon, is the experience of good and evil cosmicized, we touch the face of light and the face of darkness. It is the Bible, the collected experience of many who had some special historical perspective and spiritual insight, that gives us a faith that we can really rest in: a faith that the good is greater than the evil, and the evil has been and will be defeated.
Proving God Exists
I think if I were to debate some of the most famous atheists and scienticians of our time, it would be a rather short debate. My simple retort to all their musings would be something like, "if you want proof God exists, let me introduce you to the chocolate mousse cake at Killen's Restaurant in Pearland." It sounds like a joke, and it is meant to be humorous, but it is also very true. I cannot prove that God exists, but I cannot conceive of some of what I experience without Him. Life is just that good.
Reinhold Niebuhr
He was simply one of the greatest theologians of all time. He had so much figured out, I think. If he could've taken his brother H Richard's criticisms about his muted Christocentrism to heart, and been more open to Whiteheadian Philosophy (which he apparently despised), he really might have gotten close to something big.
Childhood & Maturity
Jesus said that we must become like little children to enter the Kingdom of God. Paul said that we must put childish things behind us when we mature. I find Jesus words far more enlightening on this matter.
Some Great Stuff At MavPhil
I recommend William Vallicella's recent posts on Absurdity:
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/05/the-absurd-nagel-camus-lupu.html
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/05/the-absurd-again-weak-and-strong-nagelian-theses.html
I agree with Vallicella that there is at least SOMETHING TO the Weak Absurdity Thesis, and that the Strong Absurdity Thesis assumes some things that cannot be simply assumed.
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/05/the-absurd-nagel-camus-lupu.html
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/05/the-absurd-again-weak-and-strong-nagelian-theses.html
I agree with Vallicella that there is at least SOMETHING TO the Weak Absurdity Thesis, and that the Strong Absurdity Thesis assumes some things that cannot be simply assumed.
Apostles
As I understand it, we are all called to be apostles. We are called to proclaim Christ's crucifixion and resurrection as divine events in history. Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, Peter the Apostle to the Jews. I feel like I'm AN Apostle to the Geeks and the Nerds. God has a message for them, and that message is good.
Trusting The Crazy
I have been getting crazy thoughts and having crazy dreams and experiences that I have been allowing to guide my life for about a decade now. There is a droplet of madness in all good religion, I think. (Or maybe it is the droplet of sanity in a mad world, I can never tell.) Since I let myself believe (and I find it easy to doubt if I so choose) that these experiences point to something real, and let them guide my life, my life has been steadily improving. Not in terms of the material benefits, but no doubt those as well, but primarily in terms of who I am. Religion works, or at least the kind of religion I've been practicing. Faith in God works (notice I believe in GOD, not in 'belief' contrary to some atheist accusations that musings like this amount to 'believing in belief'), if understood and used properly.
Off-Topic: Renaming The Month of May
The month of May is a good month to be a nerd. A geektastic movie almost always opens, and the summer movie season begins (this year was Iron Man 3, a great flick, btw). The first Saturday in May is FREE COMIC BOOK DAY and May the 4th is STAR WARS DAY (which fell on the same day this year, and that was so cool). And in Texas we have comic book conventions (Comicpalooza here in Houston... love it.). Yep, it is good to be me in May. We should rename it Nerdvember.
A World Without Fairies
Douglas Adams reportedly once said: "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it?"
When I first heard this I thought, "he experiences beauty without the fairies? That must suck." The content of experience is magical, to me. I hear music in the sunset and a message in the stars. There are times when I doubt the music and the message, but I can only run away from them and into oblivion. I guess there are some who don't see the fairies. I would think such a world rather bland, and it probably lends itself to atheistic attitudes and beliefs.
When I first heard this I thought, "he experiences beauty without the fairies? That must suck." The content of experience is magical, to me. I hear music in the sunset and a message in the stars. There are times when I doubt the music and the message, but I can only run away from them and into oblivion. I guess there are some who don't see the fairies. I would think such a world rather bland, and it probably lends itself to atheistic attitudes and beliefs.
Friday, May 3, 2013
Inspirational Lines From Songs Part 2
"People killin', people dyin'...Children hurt and you hear them cryin'...Can you practise what you preach, And would you turn the other cheek...Father, Father, Father help us, Send some guidance from above 'Cause people got me, got me questionin' Where is the love (Love)"- WHERE IS THE LOVE, The Black Eyed Peas Et Al
Comment: Isn't this a powerful prayer, and the prayer so many of us make almost every day. The whole song is like that. We feel this Transcendent Force within Love, we experience Love as God, and yet so little of this world seems guided by Love. We pray to Love for guidance in a world without Love.
"Hey, glory glory Hallelujah...welcome to the future"- WELCOME TO THE FUTURE, Brad Paisley
Comment: The Bible moves from a focus on the past to a focus on the future. God ceases to 'push forward' the world from 'back there' in the past, and starts 'coming in' from 'up there in the future, guiding us forward. There is something terrible about time, but something glorious too. It is the source of all decay and all hope.
"I don't care...I don't care what you believe...As long as you are in my heart, You're just as real as me...Maybe even more...Someone has touched so many lives, Can never never die"- THIS IS NOT THE END, The Bravery
Commentary: There is something sacramental about this line. I have long maintained that being remembered in this world cannot satisfy our need for significance. But there may be something sacramental about being remembered. It may be a sign of a deeper significance, a more permanent and lasting imprint we make, in the life of God Eternal.
"Lord help me to keep in front of my mind, that you gave your Son so that mine would have life"- THIS IS MY SON, Cherryholmes
Commentary: I kind of change these words as I sing them. The central truth is that God gave His son for us, that God Himself died for us. Sacrifice is at the heart of the universe. Existence, being, life, consciousness, grace, happiness, depth, even taste and smell and sight, and all that makes life worth living, everything is a gift, and not a free gift. That Creation and Redemption cost God...this is the truth that must always remain at the forefront of our faith.
"God I'm down here on my knees, 'cause it's the last place left to fall. Beggin' for another chance if theirs any chance at all."- MAN I WANT TO BE, Chris Young
Commentary: This always makes me think of when I was getting off of drugs. I sat in the shower daily just begging God to help me through one more minute, one more day, one more week. God gave me that strength. This was when I re-discovered faith. God did exist. God mattered. God could DO something.
Comment: Isn't this a powerful prayer, and the prayer so many of us make almost every day. The whole song is like that. We feel this Transcendent Force within Love, we experience Love as God, and yet so little of this world seems guided by Love. We pray to Love for guidance in a world without Love.
"Hey, glory glory Hallelujah...welcome to the future"- WELCOME TO THE FUTURE, Brad Paisley
Comment: The Bible moves from a focus on the past to a focus on the future. God ceases to 'push forward' the world from 'back there' in the past, and starts 'coming in' from 'up there in the future, guiding us forward. There is something terrible about time, but something glorious too. It is the source of all decay and all hope.
"I don't care...I don't care what you believe...As long as you are in my heart, You're just as real as me...Maybe even more...Someone has touched so many lives, Can never never die"- THIS IS NOT THE END, The Bravery
Commentary: There is something sacramental about this line. I have long maintained that being remembered in this world cannot satisfy our need for significance. But there may be something sacramental about being remembered. It may be a sign of a deeper significance, a more permanent and lasting imprint we make, in the life of God Eternal.
"Lord help me to keep in front of my mind, that you gave your Son so that mine would have life"- THIS IS MY SON, Cherryholmes
Commentary: I kind of change these words as I sing them. The central truth is that God gave His son for us, that God Himself died for us. Sacrifice is at the heart of the universe. Existence, being, life, consciousness, grace, happiness, depth, even taste and smell and sight, and all that makes life worth living, everything is a gift, and not a free gift. That Creation and Redemption cost God...this is the truth that must always remain at the forefront of our faith.
"God I'm down here on my knees, 'cause it's the last place left to fall. Beggin' for another chance if theirs any chance at all."- MAN I WANT TO BE, Chris Young
Commentary: This always makes me think of when I was getting off of drugs. I sat in the shower daily just begging God to help me through one more minute, one more day, one more week. God gave me that strength. This was when I re-discovered faith. God did exist. God mattered. God could DO something.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Jesus Christ & The Trinity
Jesus Christ and the Trinity are central to everyone I do, think, feel. I cannot conceive of God without thinking about Jesus Christ. Only Christ makes God something I can believe in. The experience of God as One yet Triune, as living community, as love, 'infects' all I do. It spreads throughout my thoughts and my reflections. Everywhere I look I see the cross and the resurrection, and the manger. Everything I feel is full of the Holy Spirit. The Trinity Family is God. I speak Christ, I live Christ, I breath Holy Spirit, I eat Holy Spirit, I think Yahweh. I could not abandon these things without abandoning all sense of the world making any kind of sense, without abandoning life itself.
The Syro-Phoenician Woman
Jesus calls her a 'dog'. What this some kind of hyperbole? A test? I doubt it, those these are the classical Christian answers. If Jesus was raised in a strict exclusivist type Jewish household, and knew nothing but that kind of racialism, is His initial reaction to her a sin? Is it sinful to steal if you are taught your whole life that stealing is morally permissible or obligatory? Can one make a moral mistake without sinning?
If Jesus' reaction to the woman's righteous response was one of opening up His ministry, of becoming more worldwide in awareness, if He immediately abandoned that older view once He became truly aware of alternatives, does this flow from His sinlessness? I am inclined to this view: Jesus didn't know better before the Syro-Phoenician Woman, and indeed couldn't have known better. Once He met her, and was given the chance to know better, He did. So the sinlessness of Jesus is maintained. But this answer feels contrived and I'm not very certain of it.
I am convinced this is a historical event in Jesus life. No later editing here, no way out of the theological tension. It is a tough issue.
Perhaps Peter Berger and Marilyn McCord-Adams are right about sinlessness not being necessary for Jesus to be fully divine. Perhaps seeing sin as an objective fact, as metaphysical rather than moral, is the right way to go. I have made a distinction before, and I think it is a good one, between 'sinning' and 'being in sin'. Perhaps Jesus could commit sins without being 'in sin'. Stuff to think about....
If Jesus' reaction to the woman's righteous response was one of opening up His ministry, of becoming more worldwide in awareness, if He immediately abandoned that older view once He became truly aware of alternatives, does this flow from His sinlessness? I am inclined to this view: Jesus didn't know better before the Syro-Phoenician Woman, and indeed couldn't have known better. Once He met her, and was given the chance to know better, He did. So the sinlessness of Jesus is maintained. But this answer feels contrived and I'm not very certain of it.
I am convinced this is a historical event in Jesus life. No later editing here, no way out of the theological tension. It is a tough issue.
Perhaps Peter Berger and Marilyn McCord-Adams are right about sinlessness not being necessary for Jesus to be fully divine. Perhaps seeing sin as an objective fact, as metaphysical rather than moral, is the right way to go. I have made a distinction before, and I think it is a good one, between 'sinning' and 'being in sin'. Perhaps Jesus could commit sins without being 'in sin'. Stuff to think about....
What is sin?
Is sin more like a beast, an infection or an option? Are we afflicted by sin, or are we afflicting the world with it? Do we choose it, or is our choice pushed by it? Is the truth in one of these options, all at the same time, something beyond them? Sin is as great a religious mystery as any other, yet in many ways it is the closest spiritual reality at hand, dark as it is.
Side thought: if sin is something that oppresses or afflicts us, then it is less important that Jesus was in all ways sinless. For God's solidarity with us through the man Jesus would be a solidarity in our helpless state before the darkness. God allowed Himself to be assaulted without being overcome by it.
Side thought: if sin is something that oppresses or afflicts us, then it is less important that Jesus was in all ways sinless. For God's solidarity with us through the man Jesus would be a solidarity in our helpless state before the darkness. God allowed Himself to be assaulted without being overcome by it.
Poetic Unevenness in The Book of Job
In the Book of Job, the writer does some pretty amazing stuff with Hebrew poetry. All of Job's poetry is rather innovative and creative. It is as if Job himself is an extremely skilled minstrel above perhaps even David himself. He borrows from aramaic to create new words that make the whole text sound different and to keep rhymes consistent, and he uses imagery unlike any found elsewhere in the Bible. The interlocutors of Job, who insist on Job's guilt and proclaim all suffering as the result of a just God's righteous anger, all use poetry that is rather pat and ordinary. It isn't much different than that found in the rest of the Psalms. The words used are common ones, and the imagery is familiar to any who are frequent readers of the Psalms and Prophetic Books. So Job comes off as someone more creative and far more intelligent than his interlocutors. It is a subtle but powerful way of indicating that Job is closer to God, and is in the right.
I find this stuff so cool. The subtleties of the Bible are just something else.
I find this stuff so cool. The subtleties of the Bible are just something else.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)