Besides Jesus, what other Biblical figure brought someone back from death to life?
Monday, September 30, 2013
No Forgiveness Without Penance?
Is repentance necessary for either forgiveness or salvation? I watched a fantastic film about one child's struggle to find a consistent and life-giving spirituality amidst conflicting influences of traditional native american beliefs and the Roman Catholicism of his family, influences that were (apparently) broadly felt among the hispanic population of 1940s New Mexico. The film was BLESS ME ULTIMA, and I highly recommend it.
There was something Ultima said at one point, however, with which I think I disagree. She said that 'without penance, there can be no forgiveness.' Is this right? It seems to me that it is clearly in line with the Old Testament, but the New Testament abounds with reasons to believe that forgiveness can be given without being petitioned for. After all, Jesus forgave the paralytic of his sins without such forgiveness even being sought out, nor without any sign of repentance (Mark 2:1-11). He forgives the adulteress with the admonition to 'sin no more' but without her showing any clear signs of remorse (John 8). The prodigal son is also received with love by his father without his pre-planned confession and request for absolution. It seems to me that the entire New Testament is about forgiveness without penance.
And while we're on the subject of forgiveness, I wonder at how little most protestants pay attention to those passages, like Mark 2, that indicate that believers in Jesus Christ have the power to forgive sins as they see fit...that this is part of the spiritual authority Apostles have. That power is explicit in the promise that what we bind on earth is bound in heaven, and what is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven (Matthew 18). It is explicit in John 20:23. It is amazing how seriously evangelicals take the spiritual power bequeathed to those who believe, but reject what is to me the most significant power of all...the power to forgive the sins of others.
This power, bought by Jesus, is given to us in the Holy Spirit. The ultimate power has been given to those who believe, and indeed this is a gift of faith... the power to bring salvation to the world. We cleanse the world of its sins by our decision to forgive. And indeed, isn't that exactly what we should do: forgive the world? For, after all, it is we who have been given forgiveness by the blood of Jesus, by a cost almost too great to think about. Aren't we supposed to measure as we have been measured, and forgive as we have been forgiven? I, for one, forgive the world. Not because it deserves it, but because I didn't deserve what I have received.
Perhaps the real gift of faith is not an exclusive claim to salvation that we own, but an opportunity to bring salvation to the world. Maybe it is indeed true that OUR salvation could be bought only be faith, and that our forgiveness must be accepted to be received. But having so undeservedly received, we have the power, the fantastic incredible power, bequeathed by the Grace of God, to CHOOSE to give that gift to the world. And what else could we do? How could we claim to be followers of Christ if we did not so forgive?
There was something Ultima said at one point, however, with which I think I disagree. She said that 'without penance, there can be no forgiveness.' Is this right? It seems to me that it is clearly in line with the Old Testament, but the New Testament abounds with reasons to believe that forgiveness can be given without being petitioned for. After all, Jesus forgave the paralytic of his sins without such forgiveness even being sought out, nor without any sign of repentance (Mark 2:1-11). He forgives the adulteress with the admonition to 'sin no more' but without her showing any clear signs of remorse (John 8). The prodigal son is also received with love by his father without his pre-planned confession and request for absolution. It seems to me that the entire New Testament is about forgiveness without penance.
And while we're on the subject of forgiveness, I wonder at how little most protestants pay attention to those passages, like Mark 2, that indicate that believers in Jesus Christ have the power to forgive sins as they see fit...that this is part of the spiritual authority Apostles have. That power is explicit in the promise that what we bind on earth is bound in heaven, and what is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven (Matthew 18). It is explicit in John 20:23. It is amazing how seriously evangelicals take the spiritual power bequeathed to those who believe, but reject what is to me the most significant power of all...the power to forgive the sins of others.
This power, bought by Jesus, is given to us in the Holy Spirit. The ultimate power has been given to those who believe, and indeed this is a gift of faith... the power to bring salvation to the world. We cleanse the world of its sins by our decision to forgive. And indeed, isn't that exactly what we should do: forgive the world? For, after all, it is we who have been given forgiveness by the blood of Jesus, by a cost almost too great to think about. Aren't we supposed to measure as we have been measured, and forgive as we have been forgiven? I, for one, forgive the world. Not because it deserves it, but because I didn't deserve what I have received.
Perhaps the real gift of faith is not an exclusive claim to salvation that we own, but an opportunity to bring salvation to the world. Maybe it is indeed true that OUR salvation could be bought only be faith, and that our forgiveness must be accepted to be received. But having so undeservedly received, we have the power, the fantastic incredible power, bequeathed by the Grace of God, to CHOOSE to give that gift to the world. And what else could we do? How could we claim to be followers of Christ if we did not so forgive?
Small Spiritual Victories
I had a small victory in my war against intellectual masochism recently. An article popped up at Facebook that had all the trappings of something I read only to upset myself. I saw almost no chance of it being something that could actually change the way I think, but only my emotional state. I scrolled on despite a HUGE temptation to engage in my regular pattern of mental self-hurt. A small victory, but one worth celebrating. Celebrate the small spiritual victories, for the large-scale changes are few and far between, and are made up by more incremental progress.
Bible Trivia Answer
What Biblical character comes from a place whose name was used as the name of a planet in the STAR WARS universe?
Answer: The Witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28)
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Off-Topic: Marvel's AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.
I missed the premiere of one of the biggest new television shows of the season, an event much-anticipated by the nerd community, of which I am proudly a part. But luckily, my trusty ITunes account came to the rescue. Though I missed the actual premiere on Tuesday, on Friday I got to see it in all of its glory. An event like this, where a comic book is FAITHFULLY translated to the small screen, cannot go uncommented on. And so, here are my thoughts:
These people really knew how to get the ball rolling. The first few minutes were just a powerhouse of images and words that completely blew me away. I was clapping by the end of that opening scene. The ending, too, was absolutely excellent. I was left just STARVING for more. In fact, I'd say these were the highlights of the show.
I liked some of the thematic elements. I liked the way the show tries to really struggle with the aftermath of the AVENGERS film. What would the world be like when it awoke to a universe of godlike beings? What would happen if we knew, for certain, that the Greek gods were real, for instance? The attempt to show that there is no way a world could neatly be split between 'good guys' and 'bad guys' is equally interesting. The mystery surrounding Coulson and his 'death' is also handled very well.
One problem with the middle 1/2 of the film is that it seemed to me that it was too rushed. Some of the most interesting moments visually are pushed straight on through to make way for character development. We don't get the savor some of the better moments. Yet the character development, because of the rush, is not all that effective. I think the show shouldn't have tried to introduce all the characters in the first episode. Just having a couple of active agents at first would've worked. Then you could've really gotten us to care about those particular people, and introduced others slowly through the next few episodes.
In other words, the first episode tried to do too much, and this made it too busy and so hard to really fully get 'into', except for moments. Still, those moments were AMAZING, and I for one and overall saying this was a positive television experience. I hope they are able to slow down a bit the next few episodes and focus a little more. If they can do that, this show takes off. If the frenetic nature of the first episode continues, it has no legs.
All in all, I give it four out of five stars. And that is a very big deal indeed, for a pilot.
These people really knew how to get the ball rolling. The first few minutes were just a powerhouse of images and words that completely blew me away. I was clapping by the end of that opening scene. The ending, too, was absolutely excellent. I was left just STARVING for more. In fact, I'd say these were the highlights of the show.
I liked some of the thematic elements. I liked the way the show tries to really struggle with the aftermath of the AVENGERS film. What would the world be like when it awoke to a universe of godlike beings? What would happen if we knew, for certain, that the Greek gods were real, for instance? The attempt to show that there is no way a world could neatly be split between 'good guys' and 'bad guys' is equally interesting. The mystery surrounding Coulson and his 'death' is also handled very well.
One problem with the middle 1/2 of the film is that it seemed to me that it was too rushed. Some of the most interesting moments visually are pushed straight on through to make way for character development. We don't get the savor some of the better moments. Yet the character development, because of the rush, is not all that effective. I think the show shouldn't have tried to introduce all the characters in the first episode. Just having a couple of active agents at first would've worked. Then you could've really gotten us to care about those particular people, and introduced others slowly through the next few episodes.
In other words, the first episode tried to do too much, and this made it too busy and so hard to really fully get 'into', except for moments. Still, those moments were AMAZING, and I for one and overall saying this was a positive television experience. I hope they are able to slow down a bit the next few episodes and focus a little more. If they can do that, this show takes off. If the frenetic nature of the first episode continues, it has no legs.
All in all, I give it four out of five stars. And that is a very big deal indeed, for a pilot.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
The Pain of Demons
If a demon is brought to apparent pain by some holy word or prayer, does it warrant our pity? I think not. I doubt demonic forces are actually conscious. The are empty of real substance, but make pretense to reality and consciousness. Their existence is a lie, as is their feigning of conscious experience. Their apparent pain is nothing more than another form of manipulation.
Previews
Because of a big service project undertaken earlier today, posting will be light. Come back tomorrow for a review of the new television project MARVEL'S AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.LD.
Bible Trivia
What Biblical character comes from a place whose name was used as the name of a planet in the STAR WARS universe?
Friday, September 27, 2013
Good Stuff From MavPhil
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/09/the-original-christian-revelation-the-bible-or-the-teaching-of-jesus.html
I will be getting that Swinburne book, also.
Bible Trivia Answer
Most Christians know that Jesus' blood and the wine that mediates it is the blood of the so-called "New Covenant"? What is the blood of the "Old Covenant"?
Answer: The blood of the bollucks Moses sprinkled on the Israelite people at Sinai
What God Does For Us
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUp4hi5gfsQ
If you have never seen WHAT DREAMS MAY COME, I recommend it. The ending is a perfect illustration of what God does for us. He steps into our brokenness and pain, to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves: respond to the evil in the world so as to truly redeem it.
If you have never seen WHAT DREAMS MAY COME, I recommend it. The ending is a perfect illustration of what God does for us. He steps into our brokenness and pain, to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves: respond to the evil in the world so as to truly redeem it.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Bible Trivia of the Day
Most Christians know that Jesus' blood and the wine that mediates it is the blood of the so-called "New Covenant"? What is the blood of the "Old Covenant"?
Quotables X 2
"Every beginning has an end, make your peace with this and all will be well."- The Buddha
"Don't go quietly into that good night...rage, rage against the dying of the light."- Dylan Thomas
I've always been more a Thomas guy, myself.
"Don't go quietly into that good night...rage, rage against the dying of the light."- Dylan Thomas
I've always been more a Thomas guy, myself.
What Did Whitehead Mean By That?
See First:
http://ljtsg.blogspot.com/2013/07/new-segment-what-did-whitehead-mean-by.html
http://ljtsg.blogspot.com/2013/07/what-did-whitehead-mean-by-that.html
http://ljtsg.blogspot.com/2013/07/what-did-whitehead-mean-by-that-co.html
"It is as true to say that God is permanent and the World fluent, as that the World is permanent and God is fluent."- From PROCESS AND REALITY
Remember the way in which Whitehead thought God and the world interacted. Each epochal occasion, each experience (act, thing, event- all of these are equivalent to 'experience' for Whitehead), is given by God an 'ideal image' of what it should be, in relation to everything else. Things 'lurch towards' that image, that ideal, and what they do is evaluated relative to it. Thus something is judged by God 'good' or 'bad' depending on how close or far it is off that mark of the 'ideal' that God apprehends for it. Whatever value is actually produced, whatever 'good' is in fact actualized, is remembered by God and becomes immortal in His memory. He doesn't only remember it from the outside, as we remember things 'from the outside'. It isn't like some fact God knows. God remembers what it was like to BE that epochal occasion, in that moment, to the degree that occasion actualized any value at all. God remembers the joy of the good for each epochal occasion, He remembers the endurance of suffering, and the pure experience of just learning something new.
These moments are not lost the world, either, however. God, in countless ways, uses the good of the past to move the future along. It is because God IS, that causal relations make any sense at all. In this sense Whitehead was looking forward to Hilary Putnam's contention that all judgments of causal relationship are subtly intentional. For Whitehead there is not mystery in this, his panpsychism and his positing of God means that intentional causal relationships are exactly what we should expect from the world. God confronts the world with a best possible image of what it could be. But this best possible image is not somehow divorced from the past. God cannot call the world to a better place that is impossible for it. Remember, the world limits God's power by limiting what facts God has to work with when making up His 'ideal image' of what the world should be (see the second link in the list above.) This entry of the world 'into God' is both positive negative. It is negative in that it means God's power to influence the world is truly limited by what the world does. It is positive, in that every value that is genuinely created in the world is not only immortalized in the mind of God, but will forever have some influence, however small, in the world as it is continuing to be built, for that value is used by God to expand possibilities for the future.
The immortalized facts of the world are the form of God's power. They limit how God can use His power. In a very real sense, God Himself exists AS, the ideal image that God presents to the world. The fulfilled image that God 'pours into' this world, is the very being or becoming of God. The image is form of the character of the universe, and God is the character of the universe, in a very real sense. Since this image is constantly being created, and sent into the world, it is being destroyed by the world, since the world does not conform perfectly to the image. And even if it did, the image would still be updated, for a world that has fulfilled all positive possibilities in this moment, opens up new possibilities in the next. There is a sense, then, in which God is ever changing. God's character never changes, but how that character is expressed in the ideal image, is always changing.
Yet that ideal image contains within it, every moment that actualizes real value in the world. The world's actualization of God's ideal is never lost, for it exists in some form forever in God's ideal image. Thus, in a real sense what is truly immortalized, what truly never changes, what stands forever as a testament to it's own value, is a memory of a particular moment in the world. That in God which never changes, that part of the ideal image that is forever, is from the physical universe. The only truly changeless part of God's form, is the memory of the world.
And yet the physical world, that ground into which God pours godself, is of course, always changing, since it never fully actualizes the ideal that God is. World is constantly passing into death, even as what is of value in the world is retained forever. And that retention, that in the world which is retained, is retained only because it expresses God's character. That which exists changeless in the form of God is from the world, but it is not of the world. It's immortality is found in it's conformity to the character of God. Since that character is never-changing, and its expression is what is retained, it is also true that God is changeless and the world ever-changing.
http://ljtsg.blogspot.com/2013/07/new-segment-what-did-whitehead-mean-by.html
http://ljtsg.blogspot.com/2013/07/what-did-whitehead-mean-by-that.html
http://ljtsg.blogspot.com/2013/07/what-did-whitehead-mean-by-that-co.html
"It is as true to say that God is permanent and the World fluent, as that the World is permanent and God is fluent."- From PROCESS AND REALITY
Remember the way in which Whitehead thought God and the world interacted. Each epochal occasion, each experience (act, thing, event- all of these are equivalent to 'experience' for Whitehead), is given by God an 'ideal image' of what it should be, in relation to everything else. Things 'lurch towards' that image, that ideal, and what they do is evaluated relative to it. Thus something is judged by God 'good' or 'bad' depending on how close or far it is off that mark of the 'ideal' that God apprehends for it. Whatever value is actually produced, whatever 'good' is in fact actualized, is remembered by God and becomes immortal in His memory. He doesn't only remember it from the outside, as we remember things 'from the outside'. It isn't like some fact God knows. God remembers what it was like to BE that epochal occasion, in that moment, to the degree that occasion actualized any value at all. God remembers the joy of the good for each epochal occasion, He remembers the endurance of suffering, and the pure experience of just learning something new.
These moments are not lost the world, either, however. God, in countless ways, uses the good of the past to move the future along. It is because God IS, that causal relations make any sense at all. In this sense Whitehead was looking forward to Hilary Putnam's contention that all judgments of causal relationship are subtly intentional. For Whitehead there is not mystery in this, his panpsychism and his positing of God means that intentional causal relationships are exactly what we should expect from the world. God confronts the world with a best possible image of what it could be. But this best possible image is not somehow divorced from the past. God cannot call the world to a better place that is impossible for it. Remember, the world limits God's power by limiting what facts God has to work with when making up His 'ideal image' of what the world should be (see the second link in the list above.) This entry of the world 'into God' is both positive negative. It is negative in that it means God's power to influence the world is truly limited by what the world does. It is positive, in that every value that is genuinely created in the world is not only immortalized in the mind of God, but will forever have some influence, however small, in the world as it is continuing to be built, for that value is used by God to expand possibilities for the future.
The immortalized facts of the world are the form of God's power. They limit how God can use His power. In a very real sense, God Himself exists AS, the ideal image that God presents to the world. The fulfilled image that God 'pours into' this world, is the very being or becoming of God. The image is form of the character of the universe, and God is the character of the universe, in a very real sense. Since this image is constantly being created, and sent into the world, it is being destroyed by the world, since the world does not conform perfectly to the image. And even if it did, the image would still be updated, for a world that has fulfilled all positive possibilities in this moment, opens up new possibilities in the next. There is a sense, then, in which God is ever changing. God's character never changes, but how that character is expressed in the ideal image, is always changing.
Yet that ideal image contains within it, every moment that actualizes real value in the world. The world's actualization of God's ideal is never lost, for it exists in some form forever in God's ideal image. Thus, in a real sense what is truly immortalized, what truly never changes, what stands forever as a testament to it's own value, is a memory of a particular moment in the world. That in God which never changes, that part of the ideal image that is forever, is from the physical universe. The only truly changeless part of God's form, is the memory of the world.
And yet the physical world, that ground into which God pours godself, is of course, always changing, since it never fully actualizes the ideal that God is. World is constantly passing into death, even as what is of value in the world is retained forever. And that retention, that in the world which is retained, is retained only because it expresses God's character. That which exists changeless in the form of God is from the world, but it is not of the world. It's immortality is found in it's conformity to the character of God. Since that character is never-changing, and its expression is what is retained, it is also true that God is changeless and the world ever-changing.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
One-Post Wednesday: Ratatouille, Time & The Presence of Christ In The Eucharist
Begin with this scene from the film RATATOUILLE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YG4h5GbTqU
This scene gave me an idea as to how we can make sense of Eucharist as BOTH memorial feast and the
'real presence of Christ'.
What if we see the Eucharist as a mystical temporal doorway, as a remembrance that is more than just 'remembering'. The food, in the film, does more than helps Ego remember a time when he was a child, and food represented home and comfort in a difficult world. No, it literally 'brings back' that moment for him, and transforms him on a spiritual level, something he attests to when he talks about the cuisine 'rocking him to the core' later on in the film.
The key to Eucharist is in the preparation, and in the presentation. The whole of the service centers around this single moment. Jesus, at the Last Supper, looked forward to the next day, and used that moment to bring the disciples into the crucifixion event. Remember, only one of the disciples would actually be there when Jesus was crucified. How, then, could the other ten bare witness to an event that they didn't, in fact, witness. How could they tell the world the truth of the cross they never shared in?
The Last Supper, brought them into that moment. When they took that bread and that wine, they were somehow standing before the cross,with Jesus suffering on it. I think that the Eucharist somehow brings that moment to us. It is a kind of time machine, making us present at the Last Supper and the very crucifixion of Christ. It is a memory that is more than a memory, it is a memory that brings that past moment near to us.
Christ is really present "in, through, and under" the elements of the Eucharist, because that moment, that time, is really present in the Eucharist. As Jesus was there, and so we are there too in the eating of the bread and the taking of the wine, so then is Jesus with us when we eat and drink. Jesus presence is real, because that moment in time is brought near to us. But there is a real sense in which the eating is a memorial, a remembrance, though a remembrance on a level like no other, a memory that changes our place in time.
I know that I get a timeless feeling when I take the Eucharist, and this model of the eating of the bread and wine really speaks to that feeling. In the eating and the memory, Christ is brought near.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YG4h5GbTqU
This scene gave me an idea as to how we can make sense of Eucharist as BOTH memorial feast and the
'real presence of Christ'.
What if we see the Eucharist as a mystical temporal doorway, as a remembrance that is more than just 'remembering'. The food, in the film, does more than helps Ego remember a time when he was a child, and food represented home and comfort in a difficult world. No, it literally 'brings back' that moment for him, and transforms him on a spiritual level, something he attests to when he talks about the cuisine 'rocking him to the core' later on in the film.
The key to Eucharist is in the preparation, and in the presentation. The whole of the service centers around this single moment. Jesus, at the Last Supper, looked forward to the next day, and used that moment to bring the disciples into the crucifixion event. Remember, only one of the disciples would actually be there when Jesus was crucified. How, then, could the other ten bare witness to an event that they didn't, in fact, witness. How could they tell the world the truth of the cross they never shared in?
The Last Supper, brought them into that moment. When they took that bread and that wine, they were somehow standing before the cross,with Jesus suffering on it. I think that the Eucharist somehow brings that moment to us. It is a kind of time machine, making us present at the Last Supper and the very crucifixion of Christ. It is a memory that is more than a memory, it is a memory that brings that past moment near to us.
Christ is really present "in, through, and under" the elements of the Eucharist, because that moment, that time, is really present in the Eucharist. As Jesus was there, and so we are there too in the eating of the bread and the taking of the wine, so then is Jesus with us when we eat and drink. Jesus presence is real, because that moment in time is brought near to us. But there is a real sense in which the eating is a memorial, a remembrance, though a remembrance on a level like no other, a memory that changes our place in time.
I know that I get a timeless feeling when I take the Eucharist, and this model of the eating of the bread and wine really speaks to that feeling. In the eating and the memory, Christ is brought near.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Quotable
"Every rose has its thorn. Just like every night has its dawn. Just like every cowboy sings a sad, sad song. Every rose has its thorn."- Brent Michaels
The Right Christian Responses To Suffering
"I'm here for you in whatever capacity you need me"
"God is on your side"
"God didn't want this to happen to you, and neither did I"
"The devil is a monstrous evil, and with God's help we're going to find some way to get out of this mess he caused"
"I cannot feel exactly what you are feeling, but I have some idea, and I'm here to do my best to feel your pain with you"
"Nobody else can truly know how you feel, but God does. God is here, now feeling it with you. You may feel alone, but you are not, not even in this terrible pain."
(Silence)
"Why did this happen? Sometimes there is no why. Sometimes bad things happen and God doesn't have anything to do with it, at all. But God, and I, will do all we can to help you face this evil and make it into something good."
"God is on your side"
"God didn't want this to happen to you, and neither did I"
"The devil is a monstrous evil, and with God's help we're going to find some way to get out of this mess he caused"
"I cannot feel exactly what you are feeling, but I have some idea, and I'm here to do my best to feel your pain with you"
"Nobody else can truly know how you feel, but God does. God is here, now feeling it with you. You may feel alone, but you are not, not even in this terrible pain."
(Silence)
"Why did this happen? Sometimes there is no why. Sometimes bad things happen and God doesn't have anything to do with it, at all. But God, and I, will do all we can to help you face this evil and make it into something good."
Things Christians Should Never Say Again, Ever (In Specific Contexts)
#1 "God never sends you more than you can handle." (As per the last post)
#2 (Whenever someone is suffering) "God has a plan"
#3 (Soon after someone has passed on) "They are in a better place now"
#4 (Same context as #3) "This should be a time of rejoicing, not grieving"
#5 (Ever) "Just trust in God and EVERYTHING will work out"
#6 (During grieving or suffering) "God is a mystery. Sometimes we cannot understand why He does what He does."
#2 (Whenever someone is suffering) "God has a plan"
#3 (Soon after someone has passed on) "They are in a better place now"
#4 (Same context as #3) "This should be a time of rejoicing, not grieving"
#5 (Ever) "Just trust in God and EVERYTHING will work out"
#6 (During grieving or suffering) "God is a mystery. Sometimes we cannot understand why He does what He does."
A Must-Read Article
http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/yes-god-will-give-you-more-you-can-handle
I simply could not say it better myself.
I simply could not say it better myself.
Monday, September 23, 2013
On Shrewdness
I was watching the new NETFLIX Original television program HOUSE OF CARDS and there was a truth in the show that struck me. In the show, the good people are not very effectual, and the bad people are quite effectual. Effectiveness is something that is often missing in the godly heart. This got me thinking about Jesus injunction for us to be as 'innocent as doves, but shrewd as vipers (Matthew 10:16)'. Then, in a droplet of providence raining down from heaven, our reading this week was the Parable of the Shrewd Manager from Luke 16:1-13. And in that Jesus says rightly, "for the children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light."
Ah, yes, shrewdness. It is a skill that is lacking in the heart of the believer, more often than not. And yet we are advised to cultivate it. But what is shrewdness? It is understanding human nature and dealing with it, for one. Jesus was able to be shrewd, when necessary. He knew how to manipulate the crowds such that the Pharisees were unable to actually arrest Him until He had deemed it the proper time. When asked whether or not to stone the adulteress in John 8, His request that the one 'without sin must throw the first stone' is a prime example of shrewdness. The crowd was not being manipulated by Jesus, but herd mentality was being used to its prime advantage. When the Pharisees try to manipulate Jesus into committing a crime under Roman Law, by asking him about the legality of paying taxes, and Jesus enjoins the people to "pay unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's", this too is surely shrewd. For it is a beautiful and powerful non-answer. It has the power to strike the heart, but what is said is unclear. For what is owed to Caesar may be precisely nothing. The crowds heard what they wanted to hear, whatever that might be, strengthening Jesus' place with them but without Jesus actually committing treason against the Romans.
Jesus' philosophy of human nature is not that far off from the cynic's. And yet Jesus is not cynical, for He sees infinite possibilities for the world and the people in it, grounded solely in God's Love, Will and Goodness. Jesus plays the game of the martyr, which indeed is a game the Romans loved to let people play, but that game was turned around on the Romans. In the end, the political structures did not manipulate the martyr into doing what the martyr wants to do, the martyr manipulated the political structure into doing what HE wanted it to do.
Paul, too was uniquely gifted with both shrewdness and holiness. He had not distorted view of human nature, he knew people to be the sinners they were and he knew how to use their sinfulness to God's advantage. Could there be a more shrewd approach to life than that put forth in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23? I doubt it. Paul admits putting on a front, a mask really, to lead people in the direction he wants them to God: to lead them to Christ.
The problem with shrewdness is that it invites one to sin. It is a skill that is not cultivated without a powerful temptation. Christians have unfortunately often chosen the safe route when it comes to sin. Flee from anything that might tempt you, and run as far away as you can. But this is not the model of Jesus, who became sin to free us from sin. What Christianity needs today is a Paul: a man with all the manipulative skill of Frank Underwood from HOUSE OF CARDS, but who chooses not to manipulate, but direct, and direct towards one goal: the brotherhood of all people under Yahweh and His Son Jesus Christ.
Ah, yes, shrewdness. It is a skill that is lacking in the heart of the believer, more often than not. And yet we are advised to cultivate it. But what is shrewdness? It is understanding human nature and dealing with it, for one. Jesus was able to be shrewd, when necessary. He knew how to manipulate the crowds such that the Pharisees were unable to actually arrest Him until He had deemed it the proper time. When asked whether or not to stone the adulteress in John 8, His request that the one 'without sin must throw the first stone' is a prime example of shrewdness. The crowd was not being manipulated by Jesus, but herd mentality was being used to its prime advantage. When the Pharisees try to manipulate Jesus into committing a crime under Roman Law, by asking him about the legality of paying taxes, and Jesus enjoins the people to "pay unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's", this too is surely shrewd. For it is a beautiful and powerful non-answer. It has the power to strike the heart, but what is said is unclear. For what is owed to Caesar may be precisely nothing. The crowds heard what they wanted to hear, whatever that might be, strengthening Jesus' place with them but without Jesus actually committing treason against the Romans.
Jesus' philosophy of human nature is not that far off from the cynic's. And yet Jesus is not cynical, for He sees infinite possibilities for the world and the people in it, grounded solely in God's Love, Will and Goodness. Jesus plays the game of the martyr, which indeed is a game the Romans loved to let people play, but that game was turned around on the Romans. In the end, the political structures did not manipulate the martyr into doing what the martyr wants to do, the martyr manipulated the political structure into doing what HE wanted it to do.
Paul, too was uniquely gifted with both shrewdness and holiness. He had not distorted view of human nature, he knew people to be the sinners they were and he knew how to use their sinfulness to God's advantage. Could there be a more shrewd approach to life than that put forth in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23? I doubt it. Paul admits putting on a front, a mask really, to lead people in the direction he wants them to God: to lead them to Christ.
The problem with shrewdness is that it invites one to sin. It is a skill that is not cultivated without a powerful temptation. Christians have unfortunately often chosen the safe route when it comes to sin. Flee from anything that might tempt you, and run as far away as you can. But this is not the model of Jesus, who became sin to free us from sin. What Christianity needs today is a Paul: a man with all the manipulative skill of Frank Underwood from HOUSE OF CARDS, but who chooses not to manipulate, but direct, and direct towards one goal: the brotherhood of all people under Yahweh and His Son Jesus Christ.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Antiques & Eternity
I love the show THE ANTIQUE'S ROAD SHOW. Old things captivate us. Why? We instinctive equate age with meaningfulness. Yet abstraction and reason quickly relativizes such judgment. Our sense of age pointing to meaning only makes sense as a "gesturing" towards the eternal. Only what really lasts could possibly matter.
Off-Topic: Comic Book Reviews
Marvel's INFINITY #3 of 6
This amazing story line continues, and many of the pacing issues that have been present in the earlier issues are all but nonexistent in this one. The focus is on the Avengers' cosmic struggle against the godlike Builders, with the Thanos story line given less attention. This focus allows for a better paced book. The ending is particularly spectacular, and I strongly recommend this book and this series.
Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 4.5 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 4.5 Stars
This amazing story line continues, and many of the pacing issues that have been present in the earlier issues are all but nonexistent in this one. The focus is on the Avengers' cosmic struggle against the godlike Builders, with the Thanos story line given less attention. This focus allows for a better paced book. The ending is particularly spectacular, and I strongly recommend this book and this series.
Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 4.5 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 4.5 Stars
DC's BATMAN 1966 #3
This book is just so much fun, and it shows how versatile these DC characters can really be. Not only do we get to revisit the classic 1966 television show in this issue, but a modern Batman character is reinvented in that campy style. Here the story of the Red Hood, which was rather Dark in modern times, is completely re-imagined. A funny, and fun book that does not disappoint. The classic art is also very captivating.
Storyline: 3.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4.5 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Art: 4.5 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
DC's WONDER WOMAN #23.1/CHEETAH #1
This is one of the best VILLAINS MONTH stories I've read so far. I liked the interplay of a modern story that was really relevant to the character with the origin story. I'd like to have known some more details about that origin, and this book also suffers from some of the pacing problems of the other VILLAINS MONTH offerings. But still, this book had far more good than bad.
Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 4.5 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Art: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
The story of the clash between Spider-Man 2099 and Doc Ock's Spidey continues in this top notch offering from Marvel. Spidey's 'internal villainy', his internal monologue which is all Doctor Octopus, is annoying. And I still don't like the SUPERIOR Spider-Man as I did Peter Parker. Really, the irony is Miguel O'Hara, the 2099 Spidey, should've been Peter's replacement, and the versatility of the character in this book proves it. It was like what should've been vs what is. Anyways, I'm enjoying the cross-over, though I'm enjoying 2099 Spidey more.
Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 4 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
Saturday, September 21, 2013
A Passing Thought
What if souls are the one thing God cannot create on His own? What if evolution is necessary, and this whole universe needed, to tease out the tiniest of substrates...us.
Thought Experiment
Imagine a person who volunteers to go on a dangerous mission, undercover for some greater good. But there is a twist, the person must undergo a procedure that will cause total amnesia. If this person undergoes this procedure and faces great hardship, in their confusion are they still responsible for what happens to them. Are we responsible for choices we don't remember making?
Friday, September 20, 2013
Quotable
"Thank you God, and I'm sorry I didn't believe in you when I was rich."- Mel Brooks in LIFE STINKS
New TV Show On FOX & The Book of Revelation
This new show SLEEPY HOLLOW on FOX includes an interesting exploration of the role the Book of Revelation played in the American Revolution. The show is built on the mythos of John The Revelator, and I for one am enjoying it. The influence of the Book on this country's history is not as well known as it should be. I recommend the show, as it might open you up to this aspect of our history.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
A Prayer For International Talk Like A Pirate Day
Prayer of Sir Francis Drake
Disturb us, Lord, when We are too well pleased with ourselves,
When our dreams have come true
Because we have dreamed too little,
When we arrived safely
Because we sailed too close to the shore.
When our dreams have come true
Because we have dreamed too little,
When we arrived safely
Because we sailed too close to the shore.
Disturb us, Lord, when
With the abundance of things we possess
We have lost our thirst
For the waters of life;
Having fallen in love with life,
We have ceased to dream of eternity
And in our efforts to build a new earth,
We have allowed our vision
Of the new Heaven to dim.
With the abundance of things we possess
We have lost our thirst
For the waters of life;
Having fallen in love with life,
We have ceased to dream of eternity
And in our efforts to build a new earth,
We have allowed our vision
Of the new Heaven to dim.
Disturb us, Lord, to dare more boldly,
To venture on wider seas
Where storms will show your mastery;
Where losing sight of land,
We shall find the stars.
We ask You to push back
The horizons of our hopes;
And to push into the future
In strength, courage, hope, and love.
To venture on wider seas
Where storms will show your mastery;
Where losing sight of land,
We shall find the stars.
We ask You to push back
The horizons of our hopes;
And to push into the future
In strength, courage, hope, and love.
Off-Topic: Good Entertainment For International Talk Like A Pirate Day
10) CAPTAIN RON
While not a pirate movie in the strictest sense, modern-day pirates play a major role in the film. And
Kurt Russell's character is a bit of a pirate himself. This movie is one of the most under-rated comedies
of all time. Hilarious and well-acted, this movie would be a great one for a ITLAPD.
9) The Entire FIREFLY Collection
I know, it isn't what you normally think of when you think of talking like a pirate. But, the entire show
is about space pirates, when you really think about it. I think a FIREFLY marathon for the day would
be very apropos.
8) A PIPPI LONGSTOCKING Marathon
I loved this show when I was a kid. This would be a good one to share with the kiddies, unlike my
other suggestions. PIPPI's oft-missing dad is a pirate, and she is well versed in the pirate language.
Getting a good collection together would be perfect for the occasion.
7) THE SWISS FAMILY ROBINSON
Here's another one that is fun for the whole family! I loved this movie when I was a kid, and lets face it,
its a family classic. ITLAPD is a great occasion to pull out this 'oldy but goody'.
6) THE PIRATES OF DARK WATER
This is an under-rated animated film from the 90s, I absolutely loved. It would be more than worth it to
buy the DVD collection and revisit the series. Magic mixed with classic pirate tropes. There is plenty of
pirate talk in this one. A good option for the occasion.
5) HOOK
This film is rather polarizing. Some love it, others hate it. Me, I'm in-between. But I can't think of a
better movie for September 19th, for the film is chock full of pirate TALK. People often forget
it is International TALK Like A Pirate Day
4) TREASURE ISLAND
The classic 50s film has it all: plenty of pirate talk, a good story, decent acting. It is all-around great
fun. The classic tale of Long John Silver is brought fully to life. Cliche, but a must for the top 5.
3) PETER PAN
A Disney animated classic, this film captures the whimsy of the occasion better than perhaps any other
suggestion on this list. The association with pirates is instantaneous. If you think pirate films, you
think of this animated feature. Great for the whole family, and with plenty of pirate talk to boot(y).
2) GOONIES
Not much pirate TALK in this one, but there is some. And it's Goonies. I mean, it captures all the
reasons why we are fascinated with pirates in the first place. Who doesn't love this movie?
1) PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL
Most of the movies in this series suck, except for the first and the fourth one. And while this #1 may
cliche and predictable, it is a good choice for #1. It really does hold up. There is a reason Johnny
Depp was nominated for an Oscar for this film. There really is no better choice.
While not a pirate movie in the strictest sense, modern-day pirates play a major role in the film. And
Kurt Russell's character is a bit of a pirate himself. This movie is one of the most under-rated comedies
of all time. Hilarious and well-acted, this movie would be a great one for a ITLAPD.
9) The Entire FIREFLY Collection
I know, it isn't what you normally think of when you think of talking like a pirate. But, the entire show
is about space pirates, when you really think about it. I think a FIREFLY marathon for the day would
be very apropos.
8) A PIPPI LONGSTOCKING Marathon
I loved this show when I was a kid. This would be a good one to share with the kiddies, unlike my
other suggestions. PIPPI's oft-missing dad is a pirate, and she is well versed in the pirate language.
Getting a good collection together would be perfect for the occasion.
7) THE SWISS FAMILY ROBINSON
Here's another one that is fun for the whole family! I loved this movie when I was a kid, and lets face it,
its a family classic. ITLAPD is a great occasion to pull out this 'oldy but goody'.
6) THE PIRATES OF DARK WATER
This is an under-rated animated film from the 90s, I absolutely loved. It would be more than worth it to
buy the DVD collection and revisit the series. Magic mixed with classic pirate tropes. There is plenty of
pirate talk in this one. A good option for the occasion.
5) HOOK
This film is rather polarizing. Some love it, others hate it. Me, I'm in-between. But I can't think of a
better movie for September 19th, for the film is chock full of pirate TALK. People often forget
it is International TALK Like A Pirate Day
4) TREASURE ISLAND
The classic 50s film has it all: plenty of pirate talk, a good story, decent acting. It is all-around great
fun. The classic tale of Long John Silver is brought fully to life. Cliche, but a must for the top 5.
3) PETER PAN
A Disney animated classic, this film captures the whimsy of the occasion better than perhaps any other
suggestion on this list. The association with pirates is instantaneous. If you think pirate films, you
think of this animated feature. Great for the whole family, and with plenty of pirate talk to boot(y).
2) GOONIES
Not much pirate TALK in this one, but there is some. And it's Goonies. I mean, it captures all the
reasons why we are fascinated with pirates in the first place. Who doesn't love this movie?
1) PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL
Most of the movies in this series suck, except for the first and the fourth one. And while this #1 may
cliche and predictable, it is a good choice for #1. It really does hold up. There is a reason Johnny
Depp was nominated for an Oscar for this film. There really is no better choice.
I Take My Silly Seriously
Today is INTERNATIONAL TALK LIKE A PIRATE DAY. I will be taking what opportunities I can all day to talk like a pirate. I love stuff like this. It is silly, and that makes it very serious business for me. A life without silliness is hardly any kind of life at all. We need the silly, for various reasons. The silly is an escape from the humdrum of every day life. It breaks us out of our patterns that make us so comfortable. People are often made UNcomfortable by silly behavior. That discomfort is very important indeed. Discomfort is sometimes how we should feel. The in-breaking of the new, of the unusual, can truly be a divine experience.
The silly, like the humorous (of which it is properly a species), helps us bracket off the normal way we valuate the world. The silly transvaluates. When we are being silly, that silliness is taken, paradoxically, with the utmost import. I cannot understand HOW someone cannot see how awesome INTERNATIONAL TALK LIKE A PIRATE DAY is. Everything we normally think of as 'important' and 'serious' is suddenly bracketed off. The momentarily ridiculous is made the supreme value. What is interesting is how we directly experience this kind of paradox or tension. There is something transcendent in the encounter with the silly. Silliness is one of the ways we touch the face of the God that Jesus Christ incarnates. For the idea that God was incarnated in this man is the silliest idea of all. God turns the way we value the world upside down. God doesn't stick out, doesn't overpower, and yet remains fully God, the foundation of all that is. The topsy-turvy world of the silly is the very presence of God in the world.
To experience this yourself, just visit your local comic book store on the day some big movie comes out. The conversations about the costume, or the turns in the story, are from the point of view of 'the world' the silliest kinds of conversation. Yet in the context of those people at that time, the conversation is of utmost import. Indeed shouting matches have taken place over whether Batman is better than Superman, even while wars are waged on the other side of the world. Even in the center of a war zone, no doubt people have found the time to argue over the silliest of matters.
This transvaluation, in a sense, also reveals the silliness of our everyday lives. It shows that what we normally take to be important, isn't really that important in the grand scheme of things. If matters of economics and politics were worth the passions they normally raise, then how is it possible that those passions are sublimated so quickly by so-called 'sillier concerns'. Might it be that the silly, which we take seriously only for moments, might in reality be the more important or at least reveals something more important? Could it be that it is everyday life that constitutes the 'play acting' and the nod to the silliness constitutes 'real life'?
Yet as I said before, without a little bit of silliness, life is hardly life at all. Silliness not only breaks us out of our patterns, and turns the world upside down, but it relieves us of the world's pains. Silliness can bracket off not only the seriousness of the world, but the pain of our own lives. Children in cancer wards have been cheered up by silly clowns, and I've been able to find escape in fantasy, even in the midst of great hardship. Could it be in the end that it is those moments that reveal life as it really is? Perhaps, in the end, it is the serious that is silly, and the silly that is serious.
The silly, like the humorous (of which it is properly a species), helps us bracket off the normal way we valuate the world. The silly transvaluates. When we are being silly, that silliness is taken, paradoxically, with the utmost import. I cannot understand HOW someone cannot see how awesome INTERNATIONAL TALK LIKE A PIRATE DAY is. Everything we normally think of as 'important' and 'serious' is suddenly bracketed off. The momentarily ridiculous is made the supreme value. What is interesting is how we directly experience this kind of paradox or tension. There is something transcendent in the encounter with the silly. Silliness is one of the ways we touch the face of the God that Jesus Christ incarnates. For the idea that God was incarnated in this man is the silliest idea of all. God turns the way we value the world upside down. God doesn't stick out, doesn't overpower, and yet remains fully God, the foundation of all that is. The topsy-turvy world of the silly is the very presence of God in the world.
To experience this yourself, just visit your local comic book store on the day some big movie comes out. The conversations about the costume, or the turns in the story, are from the point of view of 'the world' the silliest kinds of conversation. Yet in the context of those people at that time, the conversation is of utmost import. Indeed shouting matches have taken place over whether Batman is better than Superman, even while wars are waged on the other side of the world. Even in the center of a war zone, no doubt people have found the time to argue over the silliest of matters.
This transvaluation, in a sense, also reveals the silliness of our everyday lives. It shows that what we normally take to be important, isn't really that important in the grand scheme of things. If matters of economics and politics were worth the passions they normally raise, then how is it possible that those passions are sublimated so quickly by so-called 'sillier concerns'. Might it be that the silly, which we take seriously only for moments, might in reality be the more important or at least reveals something more important? Could it be that it is everyday life that constitutes the 'play acting' and the nod to the silliness constitutes 'real life'?
Yet as I said before, without a little bit of silliness, life is hardly life at all. Silliness not only breaks us out of our patterns, and turns the world upside down, but it relieves us of the world's pains. Silliness can bracket off not only the seriousness of the world, but the pain of our own lives. Children in cancer wards have been cheered up by silly clowns, and I've been able to find escape in fantasy, even in the midst of great hardship. Could it be in the end that it is those moments that reveal life as it really is? Perhaps, in the end, it is the serious that is silly, and the silly that is serious.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
One-Post Wednesday: My Daily Prayer Regimen
The Lord's Prayer
Our Father, who art in Heaven
Hallowed by Thy Name
Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done
One Earth as it is in Heaven
Give us this day our daily bread
And forgive us our trespasses
As we forgive those who trespass against us
And lead us not into temptation
But deliver us from evil
For Thine is the Kingdom, and the Power and the Glory
Forever and Ever. Amen.
A Prayer For Guidance
Oh my dear God
I know that you are in this universe, but I know you are more than this universe
Open me up to you, Source of all power and being
Let the light of your Grace and Truth fill me up, animate me
Lead me away from sin and iniquity, and towards a greater understanding of Thee
May the inspiration of Thy Holy Spirit guide me to be a better servant, a better minister, and a better human being. Amen.
A Confessional Prayer
Most merciful God,
I know that I have sinned against you
In thought, word and deed.
By what I've done, and by what I've left undone.
I have not loved you with my whole heart, I have not loved my neighbor as myself.
I've grieved your Holy Spirit, and doubted your very existence.
I've given myself over to the worst kind of lust, pride and anger,
But I am truly sorry God, and I humbly repent.
For the sake of the blood of Your Son our savior Jesus Christ,
Cleanse me of my sins today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life.
Meditations 1
Glory to to God on high and on earth peace and good will towards me.
I've just touched the hem of His garment.
God I'm a worm, but through you I become a man, may Christ guide me.
Lord Jesus Christ let everyone who stands before you this day know your love rooted in your pain, and your pain rooted in your love.
God I believe, I believe God, I believe...help my unbelief.
God you may deny me peace if you grant me glory...but if you could God, could I have both?
Come Holy Spirit, Come.
God I have uttered things too wonderful for myself, that I understood not. And wherefore I abhor myself and repent in dust, and ashes.
Petitionary Prayers
God bless this country and its war on terror. Bless the victims of hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, and anyone in any need, sickness or any other adversity.
Bless especially: my wife's family, my family particularly my father and brother.
Bless the people of St. Thomas especially those who are sick, those who are dying, and their families.
Bless the political situation in this country, the victims of the economic downturns, and the people of the middle east: especially Syria, Israel and Egypt.
Bless the youth group, and the work I do this day.
Bless Angelic and our relationship.
Finally bless me God, be with me, be in me, be over me. Grant me thy strength, thy faith and thy righteousness...come into the deepest part of my heart and dwell there God, and let me see only your face.
And God bless all those for whom I should wish to pray.
Thanksgivings
God thank you for this moment.
Thank you for your love and all that it produces: the wonders of existence, the beauty of nature.
Thank you for life and for love, for every breath that I take, for every beat of my heart. For the opportunity to serve you this day. For knowledge and for wisdom, for faith and for feeling, for imagination. For the overcoming of evil with good, for the overcoming of lies with the truth, and the overcoming of darkness with light.
Thank you for my wife and our relationship, for the communities of which I am a part: my friends and my family.
Thank you for my material wealth: which I know is fleeting, and I know I don't deserve.
Thank you for your presence, especially in the form of your Son our Savior Jesus Christ, and in the form of your Holy Spirit.
And for all that I have, and all that I am, thank you.
The Serenity Prayer
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the strength and courage to change the things that I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Living one day at a time, enjoying one moment at a time, accepting hardship as a pathway to peace. Taking as Jesus did, this sinful world as it is, and not as I would have it. Trusting that you will make all things right if I surrender to your will. So that I may be reasonably happy in this life, and supremely happy with you forever in the next. Amen.
Meditations 2
The quest is to be liberated from the negative. Which is really just our own will to nothingness. And once the moment is affirmed, it becomes contagious. It breaks out into a chain of affirmations that knows no end. To say 'yes' to a single moment, is to say 'yes' to the sum of existence.
I learned later, and I am still learning up to this moment, that it is only by living completely in this world that one learns to have faith. By this worldliness, I mean living unreservedly in life's duties, problems, successes and failures. Taking seriously, not our own sufferings, but the sufferings of God in the world. In so doing we throw ourselves completely into the arms of God, standing with Christ at Gethsemane. That, I think, is faith. That is metanoia, and that is what it means to be a Christian, and a man.
This man on the Cross who cries "weep not for me" can also save us from our tears of self-pity. What he reveals about life and God transmutes tears of self-pity into tears of remorse and repentance. Repentance doesn't accuse life, or God, but accuses self. In that self-accusation lies the very beginning of hope and salvation. If the defect lies in us and not in the character of life, then life is not hopeless. If we can only learn to weep for ourselves as (persons) we need not weep for ourselves as (people).
God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son to the end that those who believe in Him will not perish, but have life ever-lasting.
Our Father, who art in Heaven
Hallowed by Thy Name
Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done
One Earth as it is in Heaven
Give us this day our daily bread
And forgive us our trespasses
As we forgive those who trespass against us
And lead us not into temptation
But deliver us from evil
For Thine is the Kingdom, and the Power and the Glory
Forever and Ever. Amen.
A Prayer For Guidance
Oh my dear God
I know that you are in this universe, but I know you are more than this universe
Open me up to you, Source of all power and being
Let the light of your Grace and Truth fill me up, animate me
Lead me away from sin and iniquity, and towards a greater understanding of Thee
May the inspiration of Thy Holy Spirit guide me to be a better servant, a better minister, and a better human being. Amen.
A Confessional Prayer
Most merciful God,
I know that I have sinned against you
In thought, word and deed.
By what I've done, and by what I've left undone.
I have not loved you with my whole heart, I have not loved my neighbor as myself.
I've grieved your Holy Spirit, and doubted your very existence.
I've given myself over to the worst kind of lust, pride and anger,
But I am truly sorry God, and I humbly repent.
For the sake of the blood of Your Son our savior Jesus Christ,
Cleanse me of my sins today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life.
Meditations 1
Glory to to God on high and on earth peace and good will towards me.
I've just touched the hem of His garment.
God I'm a worm, but through you I become a man, may Christ guide me.
Lord Jesus Christ let everyone who stands before you this day know your love rooted in your pain, and your pain rooted in your love.
God I believe, I believe God, I believe...help my unbelief.
God you may deny me peace if you grant me glory...but if you could God, could I have both?
Come Holy Spirit, Come.
God I have uttered things too wonderful for myself, that I understood not. And wherefore I abhor myself and repent in dust, and ashes.
Petitionary Prayers
God bless this country and its war on terror. Bless the victims of hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, and anyone in any need, sickness or any other adversity.
Bless especially: my wife's family, my family particularly my father and brother.
Bless the people of St. Thomas especially those who are sick, those who are dying, and their families.
Bless the political situation in this country, the victims of the economic downturns, and the people of the middle east: especially Syria, Israel and Egypt.
Bless the youth group, and the work I do this day.
Bless Angelic and our relationship.
Finally bless me God, be with me, be in me, be over me. Grant me thy strength, thy faith and thy righteousness...come into the deepest part of my heart and dwell there God, and let me see only your face.
And God bless all those for whom I should wish to pray.
Thanksgivings
God thank you for this moment.
Thank you for your love and all that it produces: the wonders of existence, the beauty of nature.
Thank you for life and for love, for every breath that I take, for every beat of my heart. For the opportunity to serve you this day. For knowledge and for wisdom, for faith and for feeling, for imagination. For the overcoming of evil with good, for the overcoming of lies with the truth, and the overcoming of darkness with light.
Thank you for my wife and our relationship, for the communities of which I am a part: my friends and my family.
Thank you for my material wealth: which I know is fleeting, and I know I don't deserve.
Thank you for your presence, especially in the form of your Son our Savior Jesus Christ, and in the form of your Holy Spirit.
And for all that I have, and all that I am, thank you.
The Serenity Prayer
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the strength and courage to change the things that I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Living one day at a time, enjoying one moment at a time, accepting hardship as a pathway to peace. Taking as Jesus did, this sinful world as it is, and not as I would have it. Trusting that you will make all things right if I surrender to your will. So that I may be reasonably happy in this life, and supremely happy with you forever in the next. Amen.
Meditations 2
The quest is to be liberated from the negative. Which is really just our own will to nothingness. And once the moment is affirmed, it becomes contagious. It breaks out into a chain of affirmations that knows no end. To say 'yes' to a single moment, is to say 'yes' to the sum of existence.
I learned later, and I am still learning up to this moment, that it is only by living completely in this world that one learns to have faith. By this worldliness, I mean living unreservedly in life's duties, problems, successes and failures. Taking seriously, not our own sufferings, but the sufferings of God in the world. In so doing we throw ourselves completely into the arms of God, standing with Christ at Gethsemane. That, I think, is faith. That is metanoia, and that is what it means to be a Christian, and a man.
This man on the Cross who cries "weep not for me" can also save us from our tears of self-pity. What he reveals about life and God transmutes tears of self-pity into tears of remorse and repentance. Repentance doesn't accuse life, or God, but accuses self. In that self-accusation lies the very beginning of hope and salvation. If the defect lies in us and not in the character of life, then life is not hopeless. If we can only learn to weep for ourselves as (persons) we need not weep for ourselves as (people).
God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son to the end that those who believe in Him will not perish, but have life ever-lasting.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Oh Wretched Man That I Am
If you find wisdom on this blog, do not think that it is because I am wise.
If you find something of God, do not believe that I am a godly person.
I am a sinner: lustful, prideful, and prone to fits of rage.
By God's grace I think I have moments of insight.
Insight that I choose to share.
God's Grace is my only salvation.
There is no good in me.
There is this film THE USUAL SUSPECTS...great flick. At the end Verbal Kint asks his interrogator why this criminal mastermind, who has killed all of his friends, let him live. "After all", Verbal says, "I am just stupid and broken." "Ah", says the interrogator, "it is BECAUSE you're a loser, BECAUSE you're stupid."
Why did God choose me? It must only be because I am stupid, because I am a loser, because I am the worst kind of sinner. Yes, this is God's good pleasure. To "plunge his hand into the filth" (Dark Knight Rises) and pull me up, clean. Perhaps it is to show His glory, perhaps to help keep me from becoming something even worse, perhaps it is some profound statement about God's inner being and love, or perhaps it was just dumb luck. But for whatever, reason, I have been chosen for glory beyond that which my moral stature deserves.
God please make me a better person, and thank you for raising me up beyond what I deserve.
If you find something of God, do not believe that I am a godly person.
I am a sinner: lustful, prideful, and prone to fits of rage.
By God's grace I think I have moments of insight.
Insight that I choose to share.
God's Grace is my only salvation.
There is no good in me.
There is this film THE USUAL SUSPECTS...great flick. At the end Verbal Kint asks his interrogator why this criminal mastermind, who has killed all of his friends, let him live. "After all", Verbal says, "I am just stupid and broken." "Ah", says the interrogator, "it is BECAUSE you're a loser, BECAUSE you're stupid."
Why did God choose me? It must only be because I am stupid, because I am a loser, because I am the worst kind of sinner. Yes, this is God's good pleasure. To "plunge his hand into the filth" (Dark Knight Rises) and pull me up, clean. Perhaps it is to show His glory, perhaps to help keep me from becoming something even worse, perhaps it is some profound statement about God's inner being and love, or perhaps it was just dumb luck. But for whatever, reason, I have been chosen for glory beyond that which my moral stature deserves.
God please make me a better person, and thank you for raising me up beyond what I deserve.
Monday, September 16, 2013
The Abstract & The Concrete
There is this push in Christianity to make the faith as 'practical' as possible. The idea is to get religion down to the concrete, to make it accessible and 'useful' in the sense of having practical value. I think the fundamentalist movement in some way is an extension of the desire to make religion practical. Get the message simple and straightforward, understandable and usable, and people will follow you. I understand the impulse. One of the great fears of youth ministers is to hear that their youth are...gasp...bored. Boredom is the death knell of a youth ministry, or so we are told. Really, that is the great existential threat of our times: boredom. Everyone fears it. And since the abstract can be hard to understand, it can also leave people bored. Thus the abstract is equated with something almost evil.
You see this trend throughout culture. The humanities are being cut from college departments left and right, and people challenge philosophy departments in particular on the grounds that the subject is not 'useful'. I was recently challenged as to my support for Mars exploration as to what value such exploration has, based on practical benefits for people here on earth. BS, I call, BS. Instrumental value is not the only value. One of the insights of Christianity is that the 'use-less' is not 'value-less'. Knowledge is a value in and of itself. The act of exploration needs no practical justification...exploration is a value unto itself.
In the same way, the abstractness of Christianity, or its practical 'uselessness', is not something to run away from. Now, I don't think Christianity lacks any practical value. But its value is not solely practical. God is an end not a means. He is THE end, the point of everything. There is a sense in which I do not need to know everything about my wife. Certainly there are bits of information that don't make me a better husband, and more assuredly not better at anything else I do as a human being. But knowing my wife, and knowing about my wife, is an end and not a means. It has inherent value, not instrumental value. In the same way, knowing about God is an end in itself. It is not some means to an end. It is the pure value of having a deeper relationship with God.
There are parts of religion, large swaths really, that don't have any clear instrumental value. That does not make them valueless. There are aspects of Christianity that are inherently abstract, this does not mean that we should not explore them, and in detail at that. For such exploration is an end in itself. Time and eternity, freedom and predestination, imminence and transcendence....it is not clear what use any of this has in daily life. That does not make it important stuff. Indeed, I think it is supremely important stuff, and perhaps more important than much of the 'concrete' work that goes on. The most abstract, and the least useful, can perhaps even be the most important.
You see this trend throughout culture. The humanities are being cut from college departments left and right, and people challenge philosophy departments in particular on the grounds that the subject is not 'useful'. I was recently challenged as to my support for Mars exploration as to what value such exploration has, based on practical benefits for people here on earth. BS, I call, BS. Instrumental value is not the only value. One of the insights of Christianity is that the 'use-less' is not 'value-less'. Knowledge is a value in and of itself. The act of exploration needs no practical justification...exploration is a value unto itself.
In the same way, the abstractness of Christianity, or its practical 'uselessness', is not something to run away from. Now, I don't think Christianity lacks any practical value. But its value is not solely practical. God is an end not a means. He is THE end, the point of everything. There is a sense in which I do not need to know everything about my wife. Certainly there are bits of information that don't make me a better husband, and more assuredly not better at anything else I do as a human being. But knowing my wife, and knowing about my wife, is an end and not a means. It has inherent value, not instrumental value. In the same way, knowing about God is an end in itself. It is not some means to an end. It is the pure value of having a deeper relationship with God.
There are parts of religion, large swaths really, that don't have any clear instrumental value. That does not make them valueless. There are aspects of Christianity that are inherently abstract, this does not mean that we should not explore them, and in detail at that. For such exploration is an end in itself. Time and eternity, freedom and predestination, imminence and transcendence....it is not clear what use any of this has in daily life. That does not make it important stuff. Indeed, I think it is supremely important stuff, and perhaps more important than much of the 'concrete' work that goes on. The most abstract, and the least useful, can perhaps even be the most important.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Unexpected Opportunities
It is wild, sometimes God just speaks through me. I say something that brings someone to their knees, without seeking or expecting it. God has put me in contact with so many who need His help. The Word of God has power. Speak it enough, and you will see it. And what is that power: Jesus Christ Himself. That man, on the cross, resurrected, and living as one of us, revealing the very essence of God. Bring Jesus Christ into the totality of your life. Live Him, speak Him, and you will see the power of the Spirit reach out and do amazing things. In the end, that is the only thing we are called to do: speak Christ into the world.
"Divination"
I saw this film recently from a Christian studio. The acting was okay, but I liked the story and the dialogue. It was like a Christian version of the film INK. Good stuff: common human struggles in the context of the cosmic battle between good and evil, angels and demons. The demon fear was one of the main characters, speaking words of self-doubt into the ears of his victims. This is my own experience. All is at peace, at one with the Lord when some nagging doubt rears its ugly head. "What are you a fool?" it says. Or "you don't really believe, quit fooling yourself." Or "you only live once, and you are missing out on so much." But the very voice betrays itself. I experience it as a devil. And if there is a devil, then there has to be a God...there has to be. Where is God's voice? Everywhere, all the time. I hear it clearly too. But it is strangely still easy to hear the voice of doubt. Sometimes I think that we are just too masochistic: any sign of the wonder and glory of life, that it is really as fun as it seems to be, is rejected because we have to hurt ourselves. Only depressing truths are easily believed, even when evidence of the good life abounds.
Health Concerns & The Value of A Life
I have had some health concerns recently, as my blood pressure has been consistently above normal and this is a new development in my life. The anxiety it causes, which isn't as great as you might expect, and certainly not as great as it once was, makes me wonder about how deep my concern for my own life goes. I have a sense that my life is very important to me, but not the most important. I truly believe God is first in my life. But the tests of that theory so far have been small. May I always come through any testing with my faith intact. Amen.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Not So Off-Topic: FLASHPONT PARADOX *Spoiler Alert*
I just watched the new DC ANIMATED film FLASHPOINT PARADOX. Some passing thoughts on the film, which had some real theological significance, as all good DC products should, if done right:
This film was awesome. The art wasn't the best, but wasn't horrible. The voice acting wasn't as good as most DC ANIMATED productions. But the story and dialogue was so good, it made up for the minor detriments.
Why the heck can't the DC live action films be this good? Even the best DC live action product isn't as good as their animated stuff. Example: MAN OF STEEL was good, PARADOX is way better.
Flash and Reverse Flash are cast in a Hermes mold. This reaching to the Greek mythological foundations is done subtly and done well.
The general dealing with the issue of providence is also subtle and well done. There is a good Judeo-Christian message here.
The film is partly an exploration of the meaning of the Serenity Prayer...how awesome!
They visit the idea that these godlike beings known as the Justice League, with just a little prodding, would be terribly destructive. Imagine that power unbridled...this film explores that idea.
This theme predominates: "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
The theme of selfishness is pervasive. Selfishness is corrossive, even when directed to moral ends.
There is something Donnie Darko about the whole thing.
The power of words is explored. Lex Luthor, in RED SON, defeated Superman with a single sentence. Reverse Flash destroys the world in a similar way.
This is a great film...everyone should check it out.
This film was awesome. The art wasn't the best, but wasn't horrible. The voice acting wasn't as good as most DC ANIMATED productions. But the story and dialogue was so good, it made up for the minor detriments.
Why the heck can't the DC live action films be this good? Even the best DC live action product isn't as good as their animated stuff. Example: MAN OF STEEL was good, PARADOX is way better.
Flash and Reverse Flash are cast in a Hermes mold. This reaching to the Greek mythological foundations is done subtly and done well.
The general dealing with the issue of providence is also subtle and well done. There is a good Judeo-Christian message here.
The film is partly an exploration of the meaning of the Serenity Prayer...how awesome!
They visit the idea that these godlike beings known as the Justice League, with just a little prodding, would be terribly destructive. Imagine that power unbridled...this film explores that idea.
This theme predominates: "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
The theme of selfishness is pervasive. Selfishness is corrossive, even when directed to moral ends.
There is something Donnie Darko about the whole thing.
The power of words is explored. Lex Luthor, in RED SON, defeated Superman with a single sentence. Reverse Flash destroys the world in a similar way.
This is a great film...everyone should check it out.
Friday, September 13, 2013
Off-Topic: Comic Book Reviews
Marvel's SUPERIOR SPIDER-MAN #18
I've made no secret of my general dislike of the new Doc Ock Spider-Man, but this issue features the 2099 Spider-Man of which I have been a longtime fan. I had hoped that Miguel O'Hara would replace Peter Parker, but alas, they went a different direction. This issue is far better than most of the SUPERIORs I've read. I highly recommend it.
Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 4.5 Stars
Pacing: 4 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
DC's ACTION COMICS #23.1/CYBORG SUPERMAN #1
DC's "Villains Month" continues with this reinvention of the origins of the Cyborg Superman. This is a pretty dark comic book, y'all. I was disturbed by some of the images/ideas. That doesn't happen much with DC. Cyborg Superman has, here, taken on a very satanic status, embodying everything I think satan is all about. Good writing, though the dialogue leaves something to be desired.
Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 3 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
Dynamite's GRIMM #5
We finish up the first story line of this television spinoff. The art in this book is pretty weak, but everything else is spot on. The dialogue usually captures the characters perfectly, without just carbon copying stuff from the TV show. I liked this story, and I liked how it ended. I did not like Nick's relationship with the female lead all that much, but besides that, a good issue of a good book.
Stroryline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 4 Stars
Art: 2.5 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
Zenescope's WONDERLAND: ONGOING #14
This Wonderland book is really going in the right direction, in contrast to some of the limited series that are going on. There are things that come up in this comic that will be hard to get if you don't read those other series, though. That is a big minus for the book. I shouldn't be forced to read second-level stuff to keep up with a first-level comic. The art in this issue is not as strong as some of the others, but overall this is a very good comic.
Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Art: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
DC's SUPERMAN #23.2/BRAINIAC #1
What a great reinvention of the Brainiac mythos. I am really impressed by this comic, though like so many of these VILLAINS series books, it seems a little rushed. The art is very impressive, and especially the coloring. Overall, this is just a top notch book.
Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Art: 4.5 Stars
Overall: 4.5 Stars
DC's EARTH 2 #15.2/ SOLOMON GRUNDY #1
This was the worst book I've gotten in the last few weeks. I was really looking forward to this one, as I am a big EARTH 2 fan (it is the best thing DC has going on, IMHO), and I am a fan of the character SOLOMON GRUNDY. But this book was not very good. The pacing was even worse in this one than in some of the other VILLAINS books. The story was confusing and explained nothing. The art was great, but that is the book's only saving grace. Do not spend money on this one.
Storyling: 1.5 Stars
Dialogue: 3 Stars
Pacing: 1.5 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 2.5 Stars
I've made no secret of my general dislike of the new Doc Ock Spider-Man, but this issue features the 2099 Spider-Man of which I have been a longtime fan. I had hoped that Miguel O'Hara would replace Peter Parker, but alas, they went a different direction. This issue is far better than most of the SUPERIORs I've read. I highly recommend it.
Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 4.5 Stars
Pacing: 4 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
DC's ACTION COMICS #23.1/CYBORG SUPERMAN #1
DC's "Villains Month" continues with this reinvention of the origins of the Cyborg Superman. This is a pretty dark comic book, y'all. I was disturbed by some of the images/ideas. That doesn't happen much with DC. Cyborg Superman has, here, taken on a very satanic status, embodying everything I think satan is all about. Good writing, though the dialogue leaves something to be desired.
Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 3 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
Dynamite's GRIMM #5
We finish up the first story line of this television spinoff. The art in this book is pretty weak, but everything else is spot on. The dialogue usually captures the characters perfectly, without just carbon copying stuff from the TV show. I liked this story, and I liked how it ended. I did not like Nick's relationship with the female lead all that much, but besides that, a good issue of a good book.
Stroryline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 4 Stars
Art: 2.5 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
Zenescope's WONDERLAND: ONGOING #14
This Wonderland book is really going in the right direction, in contrast to some of the limited series that are going on. There are things that come up in this comic that will be hard to get if you don't read those other series, though. That is a big minus for the book. I shouldn't be forced to read second-level stuff to keep up with a first-level comic. The art in this issue is not as strong as some of the others, but overall this is a very good comic.
Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Art: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
DC's SUPERMAN #23.2/BRAINIAC #1
What a great reinvention of the Brainiac mythos. I am really impressed by this comic, though like so many of these VILLAINS series books, it seems a little rushed. The art is very impressive, and especially the coloring. Overall, this is just a top notch book.
Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Art: 4.5 Stars
Overall: 4.5 Stars
DC's EARTH 2 #15.2/ SOLOMON GRUNDY #1
This was the worst book I've gotten in the last few weeks. I was really looking forward to this one, as I am a big EARTH 2 fan (it is the best thing DC has going on, IMHO), and I am a fan of the character SOLOMON GRUNDY. But this book was not very good. The pacing was even worse in this one than in some of the other VILLAINS books. The story was confusing and explained nothing. The art was great, but that is the book's only saving grace. Do not spend money on this one.
Storyling: 1.5 Stars
Dialogue: 3 Stars
Pacing: 1.5 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 2.5 Stars
Thursday, September 12, 2013
My Philosophy of Confirmation
Early Christian life is like a marriage. At baptism God says "I do" to you. At confirmation you say "I do" to God.
A Quandary Of Youth Ministry
I've never understood why parents are so intent on getting both children confirmed at the same time. People will push kids too young to enter the confirmation class before they are ready, or prevent youth from entering the process at the right moment, so they can get both children confirmed at the same time. Now I've had siblings enter who really were both ready, and that is fine. But making co-confirmation a priority seems strange to me. It's like 'lets get this out of the way as quickly as possible.' Yea, like THAT is the right attitude.
A Reflection On The Ontological Argument
One need not argue from the concept of a 'most perfect BEING' to the existence of such a being. Rather, the very concept of perfection, of 'the perfect' holds the key to the argument. Can one conceive of perfection? If so, is 'the perfect' really possible, i.e., is there some possible world where it 'exists'. If personhood and necessary existence both are part of the very concept of perfection then an argument for God's existence flows naturally.
An Ontological Argument For Free Will
I've long suspected, and I am not smart enough to flesh this out, that there is some argument to the end that the very ability to conceive of free will is proof that we have it. If I can imagine chaos, I have introduced it into my system. If I've conceived of openness, then I have introduced it into the system of my mind. If freedom doesn't exist, it is not only nonexistent but impossible. St. Anselm thought that the very ability to conceptualize God led one to a proof of his existence. I'm not sure that Anselm was right about this. But my thinking about freedom runs along similar lines.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
One-Post Wednesday: On Other Gods
I teach part time at a private school as the chapel teacher. Today we studied a passage from Deuteronomy that warned the Jews against turning away to 'other gods'. One girl, who is not Christian or Jewish (but rather some non-Hindu Indian sect of which I know nothing), was upset by this pronouncement. I proceeded to make the following points:
1) In this passage, at least, God was not deriding other 'gods' but rather warning the Jews against TURNING TO other gods. Often missed by many people is the simple fact that through much of the Bible the existence of other gods is assumed. Psalm 82 is a prime example. The existence of other gods is not questioned until deep into the prophetic period and even then, not universally (Micah doesn't seem to doubt their existence). Yahweh was believed to be of a higher order of being than other gods, and the Hebrews were His special possession. They are warned to worship no other god, not to doubt their existence. The message was specific to the Hebrews, and about their relationship with Yahweh. It is not about humanity in general nor about the validity of other religions.
2) The kinds of religions that existed in Canaan at the time were far different than the great rational religions of our day. At the time, the general ethical dimension of religion had not been universally applied. Religion was not primarily about right or wrong but about appeasing a particular god which manifested a particular impulse or need. Child sacrifice was commonplace among Canaanites. God's view of the world softens, and God seeks a relationship with all of humanity, in part because humanity's view of God changed. The idea of a single unified God, with primarily moral concerns, became widespread. The idolatry of the past is different than the religions of today.
3) I personally believe that all religions point to the same God, or are trying to reach the same God. Yet their vision of God, their model of what God is, does differ, and those differences can be vitally important. Obviously, I think my own vision of God is the right one...I believe Christianity is the truest of all religions, and gives the most accurate picture of God. If I did not believe this, I would not be a Christian. But in the end I don't think all other religions are simply idolatries.
4) It is as important to emphasizes the differences among religions as it is to emphasize the similarities. We do no one any good by glossing over the actual content of what they are saying. Differences matter.
...so, how'd I do?
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Death & Meaning
Only death brings the problem of meaning into proper focus. Meditation on the reality of death is necessary to truly understand meaning. Only those who have been close to death, or lost someone close to them, can grasp this fully. For it is the contribution we make to a person's subjective lifeworld that constitutes our sense of meaningfulness. The loss of that contribution in a wisp of smoke challenges that sense at every level. All that 'meaning' ground into nothingness....doesn't seem to mean much of anything at all.
A Commentary On A Good Article
I highly recommend this blog post from a PATHEOS site:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidhenson/2013/03/the-lost-shepherd-and-the-amoral-love-of-god/
Hat tip: Kevin Tones
My commentary on this:
The writer is correct about the extravagant, and what I have called 'stupid' love of God. God's love, strictly speaking, doesn't make sense. It violates all our categories of reasonable behavior. I do not think it could speak to the full range of human experience if it did not do this. I recently wrote about the Apollonian, rationalistic approach to life and my own distaste for it (http://ljtsg.blogspot.com/2013/09/decadence-and-pride.html). Evil is inviting in part because it breaks us out of the boxes others impose upon it. Sin, then, is a distorted, wrongly-directed affirmation of life. Similarly, St. Augustine said that all sin is misdirected love.
Christ's message, if it is to speak to the same depth of life that Niebuhr talked about when evaluating the Greek tragedies (http://ljtsg.blogspot.com/2013/09/from-reinhold-niebuhrs-beyond-tragedy.html ), must reinforce our sense that we are being freed from something. It must reach beyond the simple rational consistency of the ethical. Kierkegaard, when writing about Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac, spoke of the 'teleological suspension of the ethical', the meaning of life transcends the moral law. Christ's love, and the love of the God Christ taught us about, must reach beyond what is simply rationally consistent and in some way offend our reason. It must be a love beyond words if it is truly to appeal to the human spirit.
But there is something vital that the writer lacks. He is a Christian, but he writes more like a Jew than a Christian. Why? Because his analysis lacks a vital element: the cross. Kazoh Kitamori would say that this is the love of God without the pain of God. Kitamori cried out, "God let me never know your love without knowing your love rooted in your pain." The pain of God is beyond mercy and justice. It is the unspeakable reality that can only be spoken of in terms of the lesser 'forms' of mercy and justice. God's love and God's pain are not simple rational truths that can be formulated in precise terms. They reach beyond words, and can only be experienced or symbolized. The Cross is love, but it is also pain.
The threat to the meaningfulness of our actions, implicit in this blog post, is missing from the Gospels. The Gospels take right and wrong with the utmost seriousness, a seriousness that the writer at best gives lip service to in this post. What is never made clear, and perhaps can never really be 'made clear' is how this moral seriousness can coexist with the extravagant, senseless love that both confuses us and draws us in. The best way to understand this is through the image of the cross itself. The pain of God is expressed by us in terms of both mercy and justice. Those are the limited, imperfect human attempts at talking about the cross. What we do, right or wrong, may not ever rob us of God's love. God's love is amoral, this is true enough. But morality is not thereby robbed of it's meaning. In fact, it is given a deeper meaning. For whatever we do is visited upon the one who loves us. God's being, not His mind, is the source of our judgment.
What we do matters, it matters because God in His majesty has made Himself vulnerable to us. We hurt or help God with our actions. As I have said before: the pain of God is infinitely more important than my own personal destiny. If my sins hurt God, then that means my sins matter more than if they condemned me to eternal damnation. The fact of the matter is that the extravagant, 'amoral' love of God leads to a deepening of moral 'weight', for God's love leads Him to expose Himself to suffering. That suffering is the real substance of sin, and the only reasonable motivation for my running from sin. Alternatively virtue, the helping of God, has infinitely more value because God's loving vulnerability than it would if it were a 'stairway to heaven'. God's love is extravagant, and just as extravagant is the suffering of God. To know God's love without God's pain is to live not in mystery but confusion. To know both the love and pain of God is to stand before that mystery.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidhenson/2013/03/the-lost-shepherd-and-the-amoral-love-of-god/
Hat tip: Kevin Tones
My commentary on this:
The writer is correct about the extravagant, and what I have called 'stupid' love of God. God's love, strictly speaking, doesn't make sense. It violates all our categories of reasonable behavior. I do not think it could speak to the full range of human experience if it did not do this. I recently wrote about the Apollonian, rationalistic approach to life and my own distaste for it (http://ljtsg.blogspot.com/2013/09/decadence-and-pride.html). Evil is inviting in part because it breaks us out of the boxes others impose upon it. Sin, then, is a distorted, wrongly-directed affirmation of life. Similarly, St. Augustine said that all sin is misdirected love.
Christ's message, if it is to speak to the same depth of life that Niebuhr talked about when evaluating the Greek tragedies (http://ljtsg.blogspot.com/2013/09/from-reinhold-niebuhrs-beyond-tragedy.html ), must reinforce our sense that we are being freed from something. It must reach beyond the simple rational consistency of the ethical. Kierkegaard, when writing about Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac, spoke of the 'teleological suspension of the ethical', the meaning of life transcends the moral law. Christ's love, and the love of the God Christ taught us about, must reach beyond what is simply rationally consistent and in some way offend our reason. It must be a love beyond words if it is truly to appeal to the human spirit.
But there is something vital that the writer lacks. He is a Christian, but he writes more like a Jew than a Christian. Why? Because his analysis lacks a vital element: the cross. Kazoh Kitamori would say that this is the love of God without the pain of God. Kitamori cried out, "God let me never know your love without knowing your love rooted in your pain." The pain of God is beyond mercy and justice. It is the unspeakable reality that can only be spoken of in terms of the lesser 'forms' of mercy and justice. God's love and God's pain are not simple rational truths that can be formulated in precise terms. They reach beyond words, and can only be experienced or symbolized. The Cross is love, but it is also pain.
The threat to the meaningfulness of our actions, implicit in this blog post, is missing from the Gospels. The Gospels take right and wrong with the utmost seriousness, a seriousness that the writer at best gives lip service to in this post. What is never made clear, and perhaps can never really be 'made clear' is how this moral seriousness can coexist with the extravagant, senseless love that both confuses us and draws us in. The best way to understand this is through the image of the cross itself. The pain of God is expressed by us in terms of both mercy and justice. Those are the limited, imperfect human attempts at talking about the cross. What we do, right or wrong, may not ever rob us of God's love. God's love is amoral, this is true enough. But morality is not thereby robbed of it's meaning. In fact, it is given a deeper meaning. For whatever we do is visited upon the one who loves us. God's being, not His mind, is the source of our judgment.
What we do matters, it matters because God in His majesty has made Himself vulnerable to us. We hurt or help God with our actions. As I have said before: the pain of God is infinitely more important than my own personal destiny. If my sins hurt God, then that means my sins matter more than if they condemned me to eternal damnation. The fact of the matter is that the extravagant, 'amoral' love of God leads to a deepening of moral 'weight', for God's love leads Him to expose Himself to suffering. That suffering is the real substance of sin, and the only reasonable motivation for my running from sin. Alternatively virtue, the helping of God, has infinitely more value because God's loving vulnerability than it would if it were a 'stairway to heaven'. God's love is extravagant, and just as extravagant is the suffering of God. To know God's love without God's pain is to live not in mystery but confusion. To know both the love and pain of God is to stand before that mystery.
Monday, September 9, 2013
Putnam's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism
Alvin Plantinga has a famous argument whereby he argues that strict darwinian evolution robs us of our ability to trust our own reason. He says, in essence, that all claims of knowledge conform to some idea about 'properly functioning rational faculties.' Using Bayesian logic, he tries to demonstrate that evolution's survival-based picture of human nature and proper function robs us of our ability to trust any of our rational faculties. It is an interesting and powerful argument, but I've never found it convincing. It think Plantinga aims too high, trying to use evolutionary theory to undermine our trust in ALL of our rational faculties.
Hilary Putnam has a similar argument that I think is much stronger, and should be persuasive. He argues that strict darwinism undercuts our ability to trust science. The intelligence we evolved, was developed under certain selection pressures, none of which were likely to produce a being that could think about the big questions of life and come up with right answers. Putnam thinks it is highly unlikely that the same selection pressure that makes us good at making fires or hunting would simultaneously make us very good at understanding things like gravity or the nature of light. As such all of our theories are suspect, including the theory of evolution itself. The point is not that evolutionary theory is false, Putnam certainly believes in natural selection. It is simply that there must be something extra added to our picture of human nature, that makes truth something central to our being. Without this, much of what we think we know comes into question.
Hilary Putnam has a similar argument that I think is much stronger, and should be persuasive. He argues that strict darwinism undercuts our ability to trust science. The intelligence we evolved, was developed under certain selection pressures, none of which were likely to produce a being that could think about the big questions of life and come up with right answers. Putnam thinks it is highly unlikely that the same selection pressure that makes us good at making fires or hunting would simultaneously make us very good at understanding things like gravity or the nature of light. As such all of our theories are suspect, including the theory of evolution itself. The point is not that evolutionary theory is false, Putnam certainly believes in natural selection. It is simply that there must be something extra added to our picture of human nature, that makes truth something central to our being. Without this, much of what we think we know comes into question.
Quotable
'No one who has the temerity to speak about the broad themes to which this series of lectures is devoted, the themes of “science, religion and human experience”, can hope to hide behind an academic façade of “professional expertise”. To be sure there are matters which inevitably come up in any such lecture which can benefit from being treated with scientific or philosophical sophistication, I believe – otherwise, what am I doing here? But the big issues: to believe in God or not to believe in God; to engage in such religious practices as prayer, attending services, studying religious texts or not to do so (I am notequating this with the issue of believing or not believing in God, by the way); to look for “proof” of God’s existence, if one is religious (or thinking of being religious) or to regard such a quest as misguided; to be “pluralistic” in one’s approach to religion, or to regard one religion as “truer” than all the rest – these are deeply personal choices, choices of who to be, not just what to do or what to believe. I do not believe that philosophical or scientific discussion can provide compelling reasons for making them one way rather than another, although it can help us make whichever choices we make more reflectively. (Avi Sagi once told me that, in a still unpublished fragment of - I think it was a diary – of Kierkegaard’s, he found the words “Leap of faith – yes, but only after reflection.”)'- Hilary Putnam
A Philosopher's Tale
Hilary Putnam once asked Alvin Plantinga, 'do you think that God is a person'. To which Plantinga replied, 'well, he's not less than a person.'
The Spiritual Experience
When reading about the strange experiences of Ezekiel and Isaiah, with creatures that are also chariots and beings of multiple wings and animal faces, it may seem to most that all of this is so alien that it speaks to nothing in their personal experience. But this is not so for me. When I read about the wheel within the wheel with eyes all around, or animals with multiple heads and human bodies...all of this seems rather familiar to me.
There is an inescapable randomness to the spiritual experience. When one touches the face of God, one encounters something so radically different, that everything feels rather filtered. You get a jumble of images, some strange, some wonderful, some frightening. There can be a consistent theme or message, but it has to be discerned. My own encounter includes droplets of art, movies and television I watch come alive, comic books brought into direct experience, images from the Bible, and a general feeling of encounter with something great. God pulls from my experience in order to try to reach me. But there can be no doubt that however familiar the individual imagery, the overall experience is something quite alien. It is like an ant contemplating the universe.
Of course my experiences are sometimes hellish rather than heavenly. Those experiences are as terrifying as the others are profound. Thanks be to God, hell experiences are relatively rare. I see the divine more than I see the diabolical. One cannot deny, however, that within the hear of every person save Christ, both reside. It seems to me that Isaiah, Ezekiel and others were having a similar kind of encounter, but the imagery accessed is more amenable to their place and time. Mystical experience remains culturally conditioned, even as the messages contained there in point beyond that conditioning. The spiritual is the non-physical expressed in physical terms. It is the inexpressible symbolized.
There is an inescapable randomness to the spiritual experience. When one touches the face of God, one encounters something so radically different, that everything feels rather filtered. You get a jumble of images, some strange, some wonderful, some frightening. There can be a consistent theme or message, but it has to be discerned. My own encounter includes droplets of art, movies and television I watch come alive, comic books brought into direct experience, images from the Bible, and a general feeling of encounter with something great. God pulls from my experience in order to try to reach me. But there can be no doubt that however familiar the individual imagery, the overall experience is something quite alien. It is like an ant contemplating the universe.
Of course my experiences are sometimes hellish rather than heavenly. Those experiences are as terrifying as the others are profound. Thanks be to God, hell experiences are relatively rare. I see the divine more than I see the diabolical. One cannot deny, however, that within the hear of every person save Christ, both reside. It seems to me that Isaiah, Ezekiel and others were having a similar kind of encounter, but the imagery accessed is more amenable to their place and time. Mystical experience remains culturally conditioned, even as the messages contained there in point beyond that conditioning. The spiritual is the non-physical expressed in physical terms. It is the inexpressible symbolized.
Sunday, September 8, 2013
Meet Alvin Plantinga
I am rather appalled by the general lack of unfamiliarity among theologians with Alvin Plantinga. The man is almost undoubtedly the most important name in Christian philosophy of the last 30 years, and he was the main force behind the return of Christian philosophy to the mainstream. His work in epistemology, the study of the nature of knowing, is second to none and influences almost every corner of modern anglo-american philosophy. His work on apologetics revolutionized the way philosophers think about the subject, though in theology he apparently holds little weight.
To understand why Plantinga is so important, you have to understand a little about the last fifty or so years of philosophy. For along time Anglo-American philosophy was seen as a tradition that eschewed metaphysics. From the time of Bertrand Russell on, most American philosophers focused on philosophy as linguistic and conceptual analysis, and really nothing more. It's goal was to make language clear and precise so that science could do it's work with a proper underpinning. But then this guy Saul Kripke came along and challenged the notion that philosophy could be done without a metaphysical focus. He showed how Russell's theory of names was problematic. Russell thought that names were tight descriptions. So the name Aristotle simply meant "the man who taught Alexander the Great in ancient Macedonia". Kripke said that this couldn't be right because there was some 'possible world' where Aristotle had NOT taught Alexander the great. He went on to give a causal account of naming. This was huge because it showed that language brought with it metaphysical baggage. And thus began the turn toward modal logic: logic that included metaphysical statements through the construction of 'possible world semantics.' So it is common place to talk about counterfactuals and possible worlds in modern philosophy, and to include in a logical picture the metaphysical baggage that goes with it.
Plantinga was vastly important in providing an epistemological underpinning to this enterprise. Simply put he showed that imagination and reason makes it possible for us to know about the metaphysical baggage our language entails, and that we could actually know about modal logic. Then, in a stunning move, he showed how this epistemological turn makes it possible to resurrect an old argument for the existence of God: the ontological argument.
The important part of Plantinga's ontological argument is the way in which it expanded the field of modal epistemology generally. He did something similar in his book GOD AND OTHER MINDS. He showed that there was parity between arguments for other minds and the teleological argument for God's existence. In this way he expanded not only our understanding of the teleological argument, but of the problem of other minds generally. What Plantinga did was demonstrated for all philosophers to see, how philosophy of religion, indeed Christian philosophy, dealt with issues relevant to all philosophy in general. This catapulted the field back into the mainstream.
Plantinga went on to discuss general epistemology in his WARRANT series. He argued that philosophical anthropology, a vision of human nature, underlies an theory of knowing, and so philosophical anthropology or metaphysics is more basic than epistemology, challenging the view that had been ascendant since Descartes. And again, he showed how, this being the case, Christian belief is normative and rational, at least for some people. And also again, his work is relevant to philosophy in general even if you don't grant his religious conclusions. I'd say it is also very hard to find problems with his reasoning, and that he succeeds in giving a rational grounding for Christian faith, and for that reason it seems to me he should be front and center in modern theological discussions as well.
Nothing that I've read from Plantinga is super accessible to the general public, but most anyone with a college degree and a little background in philosophy should be able to grasp what he says. Further, it should be the job of theology departments to bring men like him to the forefront of Christian discourse. It is for that reason I commend him to you, if nothing else just so you can be familiar with one of the great Christian minds of our time.
To understand why Plantinga is so important, you have to understand a little about the last fifty or so years of philosophy. For along time Anglo-American philosophy was seen as a tradition that eschewed metaphysics. From the time of Bertrand Russell on, most American philosophers focused on philosophy as linguistic and conceptual analysis, and really nothing more. It's goal was to make language clear and precise so that science could do it's work with a proper underpinning. But then this guy Saul Kripke came along and challenged the notion that philosophy could be done without a metaphysical focus. He showed how Russell's theory of names was problematic. Russell thought that names were tight descriptions. So the name Aristotle simply meant "the man who taught Alexander the Great in ancient Macedonia". Kripke said that this couldn't be right because there was some 'possible world' where Aristotle had NOT taught Alexander the great. He went on to give a causal account of naming. This was huge because it showed that language brought with it metaphysical baggage. And thus began the turn toward modal logic: logic that included metaphysical statements through the construction of 'possible world semantics.' So it is common place to talk about counterfactuals and possible worlds in modern philosophy, and to include in a logical picture the metaphysical baggage that goes with it.
Plantinga was vastly important in providing an epistemological underpinning to this enterprise. Simply put he showed that imagination and reason makes it possible for us to know about the metaphysical baggage our language entails, and that we could actually know about modal logic. Then, in a stunning move, he showed how this epistemological turn makes it possible to resurrect an old argument for the existence of God: the ontological argument.
The important part of Plantinga's ontological argument is the way in which it expanded the field of modal epistemology generally. He did something similar in his book GOD AND OTHER MINDS. He showed that there was parity between arguments for other minds and the teleological argument for God's existence. In this way he expanded not only our understanding of the teleological argument, but of the problem of other minds generally. What Plantinga did was demonstrated for all philosophers to see, how philosophy of religion, indeed Christian philosophy, dealt with issues relevant to all philosophy in general. This catapulted the field back into the mainstream.
Plantinga went on to discuss general epistemology in his WARRANT series. He argued that philosophical anthropology, a vision of human nature, underlies an theory of knowing, and so philosophical anthropology or metaphysics is more basic than epistemology, challenging the view that had been ascendant since Descartes. And again, he showed how, this being the case, Christian belief is normative and rational, at least for some people. And also again, his work is relevant to philosophy in general even if you don't grant his religious conclusions. I'd say it is also very hard to find problems with his reasoning, and that he succeeds in giving a rational grounding for Christian faith, and for that reason it seems to me he should be front and center in modern theological discussions as well.
Nothing that I've read from Plantinga is super accessible to the general public, but most anyone with a college degree and a little background in philosophy should be able to grasp what he says. Further, it should be the job of theology departments to bring men like him to the forefront of Christian discourse. It is for that reason I commend him to you, if nothing else just so you can be familiar with one of the great Christian minds of our time.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Passion
All powerful desire points to God. We want and cannot be satisfied. For only God will fully satisfy. More, more and more we seek. None of these earthly things give fully. But the partial points to the complete...found only in God.
Walking On Water
I have been walking on water a lot in my dreams. These are beautiful dreams with deep significance. The more faith I find, the better I am at the walking. Good stuff.
Sin Is Spiritual
What is impulse in animals is sin in humanity. We elevate the positive in nature, and we degrade the negative. Thus our sin is paradoxically evidence of our spirit.
Friday, September 6, 2013
Off-Topic: Comic Book Reviews
Zenescope's WONDERLAND: DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE #4
The repetitive storytelling is getting old here. It feels like the best ideas are being used up on the ongoing series. BUT the dialogue in this book is strong, and the art in this issue is incredible. The dialogue keeps me interested and the art keeps me coming back for more.
Storyline: 2 Stars
Dialogue: 3.5 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Art: 4.5 Stars
Overall: 3 Stars
Marvel's INFINITY #2
Not as great as the first issue, this is still a great comic book. The book jumps around too much, which messes up the pacing. The individual 'scenes' are more than compelling. There is a grand mythos here, but it is hard to fully latch onto. The ending is incredible. Check this series out.
Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 4.5 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
DC's FOREVER EVIL #5
This kicks off one of the biggest events in the DC universe since the NEW 52 began. A continuation of the events found in TRINITY OF SIN, this story was a bit upsetting to me. Don't get me wrong, it is riveting, but upsetting. Some of the dialogue is incredible as well. I love the development of Lex Luthor's character. Check this book out today!
Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4.5 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Art: 4.5 Stars
Overall: 4.5 Stars
DC's JUSTICE LEAGUE #23.1/DARKSEID #1
A part of DC's "Villain's Month", this book tells the NEW 52 origin of Darkseid. The story is incredible. Though it feels a bit rushed. Some of these origin stories need more than one issue, DC. Darkseid being a prime example.
Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Art: 4.5 Stars
Overall: 4.5 Stars
DC's DC VS MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE #1
I love the idea behind this book. One of the DC Universe's clashes with the world of He-Man...whattup? But the execution is far from perfect. The story is hard to follow, and the bouncing between worlds throws the pacing off. Some of the dialogue is awesome, and this book has potential. I will. Be giving it a chance.
Storyline: 3 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 2.5 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 3 Stars
Dynamite's ARMY OF DARKNESS VS HACK/SLASH #2
This is the best single ARMY OF DARKNESS comic book issue I've ever read. I love this book. The dialogue is fun, exciting, and engaging. This book really brings the character of Ash to life. I highly recommend it.
Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 5 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 4.5 Stars
Thursday, September 5, 2013
From Reinhold Niebuhr's BEYOND TRAGEDY
In line with my last post:
"The tragic motif in Greek drama is thus either Promethean or Dionysian (Freudian). In the one case the human imagination breaks the forms of prudent morality because it strives toward the infinite; in the other because it expresses passions and impulses which lie below the level of consciousness in ordinary men and which result in consequences outside the bounds of decent morality. The Greek drama thus surveys the heights and depths of the human spirit and uncovers a total dimension which prudence can neither fully comprehend nor restrain. But the tragic hero is not a mere victim of these passions and ambitions. He wilfully affirms in his own act what may be an unconscious impulse or an inscrutable necessity in lesser men. In that sense Greek tragedy is both romantic and aristocratic: romantic because it affirms the whole of life, whatever the consequences, in its dimension of nature and infinity, of Dionysian impulse and Promethean will; aristocratic because only a few titans and heroes dare to break the bounds which check ordinary men. Greek tragedy declares that the vitality of life is in conflict with the laws of life. It does not draw pessimistic or negative conclusions from this fact. The tragic hero simply undertakes to break the laws in order to express the full dimension of human existence. The tragic hero is an aristocrat for precisely the opposite reason of Aristotle's and Plato's aristocrat, who expresses his superiority over lesser men by the restraint which reason has placed upon emotion."...
"However wide and deep the differences which separate the Christian view of life from that of Greek tragedy, it must be apparent that there are greater similarities between the two than between either and the utilitarian rationalism which has dominated contemporary culture. Both measure life in the same depth; and neither gives itself to the simple delusion that the titanic forces of human existence, whether they spring from below the level of consciousness or rise above the level of human limitations, can easily be brought under the control of some little scheme of prudent rationality.
"The tragic motif in Greek drama is thus either Promethean or Dionysian (Freudian). In the one case the human imagination breaks the forms of prudent morality because it strives toward the infinite; in the other because it expresses passions and impulses which lie below the level of consciousness in ordinary men and which result in consequences outside the bounds of decent morality. The Greek drama thus surveys the heights and depths of the human spirit and uncovers a total dimension which prudence can neither fully comprehend nor restrain. But the tragic hero is not a mere victim of these passions and ambitions. He wilfully affirms in his own act what may be an unconscious impulse or an inscrutable necessity in lesser men. In that sense Greek tragedy is both romantic and aristocratic: romantic because it affirms the whole of life, whatever the consequences, in its dimension of nature and infinity, of Dionysian impulse and Promethean will; aristocratic because only a few titans and heroes dare to break the bounds which check ordinary men. Greek tragedy declares that the vitality of life is in conflict with the laws of life. It does not draw pessimistic or negative conclusions from this fact. The tragic hero simply undertakes to break the laws in order to express the full dimension of human existence. The tragic hero is an aristocrat for precisely the opposite reason of Aristotle's and Plato's aristocrat, who expresses his superiority over lesser men by the restraint which reason has placed upon emotion."...
"However wide and deep the differences which separate the Christian view of life from that of Greek tragedy, it must be apparent that there are greater similarities between the two than between either and the utilitarian rationalism which has dominated contemporary culture. Both measure life in the same depth; and neither gives itself to the simple delusion that the titanic forces of human existence, whether they spring from below the level of consciousness or rise above the level of human limitations, can easily be brought under the control of some little scheme of prudent rationality.
Christianity and Greek tragedy agree that guilt and creativity are inextricably interwoven. But Christianity does not regard the inevitability of guilt in all human creativity as inherent in the nature of human life. Sin emerges, indeed, out of freedom and is possible only because man is free; but it is done in freedom, and therefore man and not life bears responsibility for it. It does indeed accompany every creative act; but the evil is not part of the creativity. It is the consequence of man's self-centredness and egotism by which he destroys the harmony of existence. The fact that he does this is not an occasion for admiration but for pity: "Weep for yourselves" remains Christianity's admonition to all who involve themselves in sin and guilt, whether by unconscious submission to forces greater than their will or by consciously affirming these forces.
A survey of the modern titans and heroes, whether nations or the oligarchs of nations, whether political or economic and industrial oligarchs, must certainly justify this Christian estimate of their true character. These nations and these leaders overreach themselves so pitifully. Their strength is so obviously bogus. It is weakness which poses as strength; it is the pride of an inferiority complex. It may create but it destroys more than it creates. It involves Europe in carnage for the sake of a brief hour of glory. Like Agamemnon, it sacrifices its Iphigenia under the illusion that the father who sacrifices a daughter, the nation which sacrifices its sons, for the sake of victory, is proving its unselfishness. It forgets, like Agamemnon, that the pride of the man and not the unselfishness of the father is the dominant motif in the sacrifice.
It must be admitted, of course, that there are genuinely tragic elements in the human enterprise, simply because nobility and strength, dignity and creative ambition are mixed with this sin, and frequently make it more destructive. Thus Japan lives in greater ultimate insecurity than China because Japanese patriotism has created a nation of greater unity and force than China, a nation playing for higher stakes, at greater risks and with the certainty of ultimate disaster. In the same way the British Empire could not have been built without the solid achievements of British statecraft, a statecraft which made moral qualities serve political purposes. But the British aristocrats who built the Empire are also sealing its doom by policies which are prompted by some of the same class characteristics which were responsible for their original success. However we may qualify the judgment to allow for authentic tragic elements in human life, Christianity is right in its general indictment, "Weep for yourselves." Sin is pitiful.
The Saviour who utters these words dies upon the cross. He dies not because he has sinned but because he has not sinned. He proves thereby that sin is so much a part of existence that sinlessness cannot maintain itself in it. But he also proves that sin is not a necessary and inherent characteristic of life. Evil is not a part of God, nor yet a part of essential man. This Saviour is a revelation of the goodness of God and the essential goodness of man, i.e., the second Adam. He is indeed defeated in history but in that very defeat proves that he cannot be ultimately defeated. That is, he reveals that it is God's nature to swallow up evil in Himself and destroy it. Life in its deepest essence is not only good but capable of destroying the evil which has been produced in it. Life is thus not at war with itself. Its energy is not in conflict with its order. Hence the Saviour truly says: "Weep not for me." Christianity stands beyond tragedy. If there are tears for this man on the cross they cannot be tears of "pity and terror." The cross does not reveal life at cross purposes with itself. On the contrary, it declares that what seems to be an inherent defect in life itself is really a contingent defect in the soul of each man, the defect of the sin which he commits in his freedom. If he can realise that fact, if he can weep for himself, if he can repent, he can also be saved. He can be saved by hope and faith. His hope and faith will separate the character of life in its essential reality from life as it is revealed in sinful history.
This man on the cross who can say "Weep not for me" is also able to save us from our tears of self-pity. What he reveals about life transmutes tears of self-pity into tears of remorse and repentance. Repentance does not accuse life or God but accuses self. In that self-accusation lies the beginning of hope and salvation. If the defect lies in us and not in the character of life, life is not hopeless. If we can only weep for ourselves as men we need not weep for ourselves as man."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)