Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Wonderfalls Bible Study Weeks 3 & 4
Episode 3-
Karma Chameleon
1 Samuel
17:12-31
David was the son of an Ephrathite
named Jesse from Bethlehem in Judah who had eight sons. In the days of Saul
Jesse was old and well on in years. 13 The three oldest sons of
Jesse had followed Saul to war; the names of these three sons who had gone off
to war were Eliab the firstborn; Abinadab the second; and Shammah the third. 14 David
was the youngest. While the three oldest had joined Saul, 15 David
would come and go from Saul’s presence to tend his father’s sheep at Bethlehem.
16 Meanwhile the Philistine came forward
and took his stand morning and evening for forty days.
17 Now Jesse said to his son David: “Take
this ephah of roasted grain and these ten loaves for your brothers, and bring
them quickly to your brothers in the camp. 18 Also take these
ten cheeses for the field officer. Greet your brothers and bring home some
token from them. 19 Saul and your brothers, together with all
Israel, are at war with the Philistines in the valley of the Elah.” 20 Early
the next morning, having left the flock with a shepherd, David packed up and
set out, as Jesse had commanded him. He reached the barricade of the camp just
as the army, on their way to the battleground, were shouting their battle cry. 21 The
Israelites and the Philistines drew up opposite each other in battle array. 22 David
entrusted what he had brought to the keeper of the baggage and hastened to the
battle line, where he greeted his brothers. 23 While he was
talking with them, the Philistine champion, by name Goliath of Gath, came up
from the ranks of the Philistines and spoke as before, and David listened. 24 When
the Israelites saw the man, they all retreated before him, terrified. 25 The
Israelites had been saying: “Do you see this man coming up? He comes up to
insult Israel. The king will make whoever kills him a very wealthy man. He will
give his daughter to him and declare his father’s family exempt from taxes in
Israel.” 26 David now said to the men standing near him: “How
will the man who kills this Philistine and frees Israel from disgrace be
rewarded? Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should insult the armies
of the living God?” 27 They repeated the same words to him and
said, “That is how the man who kills him will be rewarded.” 28 When
Eliab, his oldest brother, heard him speaking with the men, he grew angry with
David and said: “Why did you come down? With whom have you left those sheep in
the wilderness? I know your arrogance and dishonest heart. You came down to
enjoy the battle!” 29 David protested, “What have I done now? I
was only talking.” 30 He turned from him to another and asked
the same question; and everyone gave him the same answer as before. 31 The
words that David had spoken were overheard and reported to Saul, who sent for
him.
2 Corinthians
10:7-11
Look
at what confronts you. Whoever is confident of belonging to Christ should
consider that as he belongs to Christ, so do we. 8 And even if
I should boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for
building you up and not for tearing you down, I shall not be put to shame. 9 May
I not seem as one frightening you through letters. 10 For
someone will say, “His letters are severe and forceful, but his bodily presence
is weak, and his speech contemptible.” 11 Such a person must
understand that what we are in word through letters when absent, that we also
are in action when present.
Mark
7:31-36
31 Again he left the district
of Tyre and went by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, into the district of
the Decapolis. 32 And people brought to him a deaf man who had
a speech impediment and begged him to lay his hand on him. 33 He
took him off by himself away from the crowd. He put his finger into the man’s
ears and, spitting, touched his tongue; 34 then he looked up to
heaven and groaned, and said to him, “Ephphatha!” (that is, “Be
opened!”) 35 And [immediately] the man’s ears were opened, his
speech impediment was removed, and he spoke plainly. 36 [He
ordered them not to tell anyone. But the more he ordered them not to, the more
they proclaimed it. 37 They were exceedingly astonished and
they said, “He has done all things well. He makes the deaf hear and [the] mute
speak.”
1
Corinthians 4:15-17
Even
if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many
fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. 16 Therefore,
I urge you, be imitators of me. 17 For this reason I am sending
you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord; he will remind you
of my ways in Christ [Jesus], just as I teach them everywhere in every church.
Reflect on the
Bible passages in light of the episode.
What kind of
family is Jaye a part of?
Why does her
mother’s blurb bother her?
What do you
think of how Jaye’s family treats her?
What is David’s
relationship like with his brothers and why do you think it is like this?
What do you
think of the way they treat David?
What is the
irony in Jaye’s rather unsuccessful life?
What is the
irony in David’s brothers attitude towards their brother?
Reflect on this
quote: “get her words out.”
Reflect on this
quote: “or by then it will say ‘her youngest daughter was confined to a mental
institution.’”
What do you
think it would be like to suffer from a stutter like Bianca?
What problem
did Paul face in regards to the people he is reaching out to, in 2 Corinthians
10?
How did Paul
‘get his words out’?
Reflect on this
quote: “it is like you’ve been at it your whole life and managed not to get
your soul
crushed.”
What do you
think of Jaye taking Bianca in like she does?
What do you
think of Bianca imitating Jaye like she does?
What do you
think of Paul seeking to have people imitate him?
How does Jaye
‘heal’ Bianca’s speech problems?
Reflect on this
quote: “she’s a better you than you are.”
What do you
think it would be like to be the man in the Mark passage, whom Jesus healed?
Compare his
experience to Paul’s and to Bianca’s.
What did Jaye
find in Bianca’s van?
How would you react
to something like this?
What is the
substance of Bianca’s study and paper on Jaye?
Do you agree
that Jaye is a ‘victim’? Why or why not?
Do you agree
that Jaye is not contributing to society in ‘any significant way’?
Reflect on this
quote: “people need to know what it is like to be me.”
How did this
sentiment permeate Paul’s own project?
What does Jaye
say about choosing friends?
Reflect on this
quote: ‘surprisingly, I’m getting tired of talking about myself.’
What ‘saves’
Paul from narcissism?
Why does Bianca
sell out on Jaye? What do you think of this?
What ‘way’ did
Bianca find from Jaye?
What ‘way’ did
Paul want to teach those he wrote to?
How does Jaye
end up getting Bianca’s words out?
Why does Jaye
write the article and what does this prove?
Compare this to
Paul’s solution.
Why doesn’t
Jaye want to take the opportunity this represents and instead chooses her old
life?
What is the
substance of the part of the article that Jaye’s father reads? Reflect on this.
Episode 4:
Wound Up Penguin
Jeremiah 20:7-9
You
seduced me, Lord, and I let myself be seduced;
you were too strong for me, and you prevailed.
All day long I am an object of laughter;
everyone mocks me.
8 Whenever I speak, I must cry out,
violence and outrage I proclaim;
The word of the Lord has brought me
reproach and derision all day long.
9 I say I will not mention him,
I will no longer speak in his name.
But then it is as if fire is burning in my heart,
imprisoned in my bones;
I grow weary holding back,
I cannot!
you were too strong for me, and you prevailed.
All day long I am an object of laughter;
everyone mocks me.
8 Whenever I speak, I must cry out,
violence and outrage I proclaim;
The word of the Lord has brought me
reproach and derision all day long.
9 I say I will not mention him,
I will no longer speak in his name.
But then it is as if fire is burning in my heart,
imprisoned in my bones;
I grow weary holding back,
I cannot!
Psalm
121
A song of ascents.
I
raise my eyes toward the mountains.
From whence shall come my help?
2 My help comes from the Lord,
the maker of heaven and earth.
From whence shall come my help?
2 My help comes from the Lord,
the maker of heaven and earth.
3 He will not allow your
foot to slip;
or your guardian to sleep.
4 Behold, the guardian of Israel
never slumbers nor sleeps.
5 The Lord is your guardian;
the Lord is your shade
at your right hand.
6 By day the sun will not strike you,
nor the moon by night.
7 The Lord will guard you from all evil;
he will guard your soul.
8 The Lord will guard your coming and going
both now and forever.
or your guardian to sleep.
4 Behold, the guardian of Israel
never slumbers nor sleeps.
5 The Lord is your guardian;
the Lord is your shade
at your right hand.
6 By day the sun will not strike you,
nor the moon by night.
7 The Lord will guard you from all evil;
he will guard your soul.
8 The Lord will guard your coming and going
both now and forever.
John 21:15-19
When
they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do
you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love
you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 He then said to him a
second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord,
you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He
said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was
distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said
to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” [Jesus] said to
him, “Feed my sheep. 18 Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were
younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow
old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead
you where you do not want to go.” 19 He said this signifying by
what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to
him, “Follow me.”
Mark 9:38-40
John
said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name, and we
tried to prevent him because he does not follow us.” 39 Jesus
replied, “Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my
name who can at the same time speak ill of me. 40 For whoever
is not against us is for us. 41 Anyone who gives you a cup of
water to drink because you belong to Christ, amen, I say to you, will surely
not lose his reward.
Reflect on the
Bible passages in light of the episode.
What do you
think of the totems keeping Jaye up to get her to do what they want?
Does Jaye have
free will in this situation? Why or why not?
How is Jeremiah
in a similar situation?
Is Jeremiah
free? Why or why not?
Reflect on this
quote: “this is what cults do.”
Reflect on this
quote: “One bad day, and everything changes.”
Reflect on this
quote: “you’re like a saint.”
How do the
totems affect the situation by telling Jaye to ‘bring her back’?
Who does God
want Jeremiah to ‘bring back’?
What does Eric realize
about his situation?
What was Eric’s
wife’s attitude about ‘getting involved’?
What do you
think of this?
Is Jaye
responsible for the good she does if she is tricked and forced into it?
Reflect on
Peter and Jeremiah’s situation. Are they responsible for the good they do if
they are
dragged into it?
What other
figure from the Bible have we encountered who was ‘forced’ into goodness
against his
nature?
How have the
people who have encountered the homeless girl treated her, so far?
Reflect on the janitor
‘looking over’ her in light of the Bible passage.
How have you
experienced God as this kind of ‘guardian’?
Do you agree
with Jaye that what is passing and transitional can’t really trap you? Why or
why not?
How was Peter’s
experience with Jesus ‘passing and transitional’?
Reflect on this
quote: “you’re going to hell.”
What do you
think of the priest trying to push so hard for the return of the nun?
How does Jesus
‘reclaim’ Peter?
What is the
sister’s reflection on ‘cheese’ all about?
What does the sister
want from God?
What is her
doubt all about?
How does Jaye
feel about hearing God’s voice?
How might Peter
and Jeremiah feel about the nun’s request?
Reflect on this
quote: “how am I supposed to commit my life to something I’m not sure is real.”
Reflect on this
quote: “He has to be real to me, He has to show me, or else I’m just praising
some
phantom bully in the sky.”
Reflect on this
quote: “we have to squash that doubt.”
What does Aaron
say about hearing God’s voice?
What do you
think of this?
What does it
mean to hear the Word of God?
What did it
mean for Jeremiah?
Why does Jaye
come clean with the nun?
What is her
reaction and why does she react this way?
Would you
suspect God or the devil behind Jaye’s experience? Explain your answer.
Why were the
disciples suspicious of the other exorcist? How does Jesus identify the work of
God?
Reflect on
this.
What do you
think of the practice of exorcism? What do you think of its application to
Jaye’s
situation?
What is the
priest’s attitude about exorcism? What do you think of this?
What do you
think of the prominence of exorcism in the New Testament?
Why is Eric so
dead set against Jaye’s course of action?
Reflect on this
quote: “maybe it is for God’s sake.”
What do you
think of Jaye’s family deciding to go to church all of a sudden?
What do you
think of their attitude about Catholicism?
What is the
conversation between Eric and the priest in the bathroom all about?
What do you
think of this?
What did ‘bring
her back to him’, end up meaning? Reflect on this.
Love Your Neighbor As Yourself
This is the goal of every human encounter, but it is only rarely achieved. When it is achieved it presents a quandary, since there is literally a part of myself or a reflection of myself that is separate from me. I have not found any way to live this goal of loving my neighbor as myself without the risk of great pain. Love then is really a promise, a promise that can only be fulfilled in heaven. Until then the command to love one's neighbor as oneself will always be mixed with pain and apprehension.
The Best Thing About Heaven
The best thing about heaven is simply going to be living in endless community with God and all the people we love. We were not meant to live apart from those we love. That life dictates that we must live in discreet units is simply a consequence of original sin. Community is man's natural state.
Monday, March 30, 2015
Sermon For Palm Sunday
On Mark 11:1-11
AND Mark 15 (Whole Chapter)
There was perhaps no more overplayed song in all of the 1990s than Alanis Morisette's ISN'T IT IRONIC. That song was everywhere. There were two different music videos for it playing constantly on MTV, and you could flip through four channels on the radio and it would be on all of them.
The song was annoying. It was ostensibly an ode to irony. Basically it just listed various scenarios and followed them with the rhetorical question, "Isn't it ironic? Don't you think?" But in point of fact none of the scenarios listed in the song are actually ironic. They just suck. Take the first verse, which describes a man who was afraid to fly his whole life, finally gets on a plane and the plane crashes. That's not ironic. It just sucks.
Or take the chorus: "it's like rain on your wedding day", "it's like the free ride when you've already paid", "it's the good advice you just didn't take." Those scenarios aren't ironic. They just suck. They're just bad. In fact the only irony in the song is that Alanis apparently has no grasp on the concept whatsoever....
....she would've done well to study Palm Sunday....
Today we wear palm leaves and we have a special liturgy in the Great Hall to commemorate Jesus 'triumphant entry into Jerusalem'. And Palm Sunday is unusual, because it is the only day in Holy Week that has a celebratory feel to it, until the end of Easter Vigil. But that original Palm Sunday was a day steeped in bitter irony.
On the surface, it seems there is a reason to celebrate. People are proclaiming Jesus to be Messiah, calling Him, "the one who comes in the name of the Lord", and are calling out "Hosanna", meaning "save us", which is exactly what Jesus came to do.
But when you look at the details, you realize that those people did not understand what kind of Messiah they were welcoming into the city. They saw Jesus in the mold of a political and military power. They were seeking political and military salvation. It's right there in the text. Jesus comes into the city riding on a donkey, which was a symbol of peace, but the people lay at His feet palm branches, which are symbols of conquest. When those people cried out 'Hosanna' they were really saying 'Conquer us. Rule over us. Rule over a worldwide empire with this city at it's center.'
The spirit that animated those people that day was not the Holy Spirit, but the spirit of the desert, that same satan who had tried to push Jesus into the very mold they wanted. And that sin is particularly insidious, in fact I'd say it is the very kind of sin Jesus came to save us from, because it is a sin that is hidden behind a mask of righteousness...because it appears to be worship of the true God. There is no more terrible idolatry than that which appears to be worship of God, when it is really just worship of our selves.
And to stack irony on top of irony, each year Christians get together and celebrate that day. And they celebrate it by acting like those people. I mean, really, what are we celebrating? That those people didn't get it? That even when we see the face of God, we just twist it into our own face? That even our highest worship is corruptible by sin?
No, if there is any reason to celebrate in Holy Week, it is found not on Palm Sunday, but on Good Friday. It is found not in our first reading from out in the Hall, but from our second reading from here in the church. From Mark's passion narrative. For however terrible the Cross is, there is something good in it, too. However right we are to weep over the cost of our salvation and the depth of our sin, we must remember that they are tears born of the pain of an infection being cut out.
For the Cross reveals to us God as He actually is and not as we imagine Him to be. And it also reveals the sin that was concealed on Palm Sunday. And sin revealed as the cross reveals it, has the power to break down our ego and open the doorway to true remorse and repentance, and that remorse and repentance are the very beginning of hope, salvation and happiness.
If there is any hope and happiness, it is in our willingness to let the cross have that power to reveal and breakdown our sin. If there is any hope and happiness, it is in our willingness to say, "Hosanna...save us!" Save us not from some particular from of oppression, but from the alloy of sin that infects all human endeavors and so is the cause of all oppression. Save us not from obscurity, discomfort, and insecurity, but from our unwillingness to share in the vulnerability that God IS. Save us from our sin. Save us from the spirit of the desert. Save us....from ourselves.
If there is any hope and happiness, it is in our willingness to take the palm branches of conquest and twist them into the shape of a cross....well would you look at that. I guess there is a reason to celebrate today, after all. But you know I think we only get that for moments. We at best get minutes or hours where we bask in the glory of the One True God. We just as often replace Him with a god of our own making, in our own image. Even with the Cross ever before us, we just as often pick up those palm branches, and seek to be conquered. We trade the God we need, for the god we think we want...and isn't that ironic? Don't you think?
AND Mark 15 (Whole Chapter)
There was perhaps no more overplayed song in all of the 1990s than Alanis Morisette's ISN'T IT IRONIC. That song was everywhere. There were two different music videos for it playing constantly on MTV, and you could flip through four channels on the radio and it would be on all of them.
The song was annoying. It was ostensibly an ode to irony. Basically it just listed various scenarios and followed them with the rhetorical question, "Isn't it ironic? Don't you think?" But in point of fact none of the scenarios listed in the song are actually ironic. They just suck. Take the first verse, which describes a man who was afraid to fly his whole life, finally gets on a plane and the plane crashes. That's not ironic. It just sucks.
Or take the chorus: "it's like rain on your wedding day", "it's like the free ride when you've already paid", "it's the good advice you just didn't take." Those scenarios aren't ironic. They just suck. They're just bad. In fact the only irony in the song is that Alanis apparently has no grasp on the concept whatsoever....
....she would've done well to study Palm Sunday....
Today we wear palm leaves and we have a special liturgy in the Great Hall to commemorate Jesus 'triumphant entry into Jerusalem'. And Palm Sunday is unusual, because it is the only day in Holy Week that has a celebratory feel to it, until the end of Easter Vigil. But that original Palm Sunday was a day steeped in bitter irony.
On the surface, it seems there is a reason to celebrate. People are proclaiming Jesus to be Messiah, calling Him, "the one who comes in the name of the Lord", and are calling out "Hosanna", meaning "save us", which is exactly what Jesus came to do.
But when you look at the details, you realize that those people did not understand what kind of Messiah they were welcoming into the city. They saw Jesus in the mold of a political and military power. They were seeking political and military salvation. It's right there in the text. Jesus comes into the city riding on a donkey, which was a symbol of peace, but the people lay at His feet palm branches, which are symbols of conquest. When those people cried out 'Hosanna' they were really saying 'Conquer us. Rule over us. Rule over a worldwide empire with this city at it's center.'
The spirit that animated those people that day was not the Holy Spirit, but the spirit of the desert, that same satan who had tried to push Jesus into the very mold they wanted. And that sin is particularly insidious, in fact I'd say it is the very kind of sin Jesus came to save us from, because it is a sin that is hidden behind a mask of righteousness...because it appears to be worship of the true God. There is no more terrible idolatry than that which appears to be worship of God, when it is really just worship of our selves.
And to stack irony on top of irony, each year Christians get together and celebrate that day. And they celebrate it by acting like those people. I mean, really, what are we celebrating? That those people didn't get it? That even when we see the face of God, we just twist it into our own face? That even our highest worship is corruptible by sin?
No, if there is any reason to celebrate in Holy Week, it is found not on Palm Sunday, but on Good Friday. It is found not in our first reading from out in the Hall, but from our second reading from here in the church. From Mark's passion narrative. For however terrible the Cross is, there is something good in it, too. However right we are to weep over the cost of our salvation and the depth of our sin, we must remember that they are tears born of the pain of an infection being cut out.
For the Cross reveals to us God as He actually is and not as we imagine Him to be. And it also reveals the sin that was concealed on Palm Sunday. And sin revealed as the cross reveals it, has the power to break down our ego and open the doorway to true remorse and repentance, and that remorse and repentance are the very beginning of hope, salvation and happiness.
If there is any hope and happiness, it is in our willingness to let the cross have that power to reveal and breakdown our sin. If there is any hope and happiness, it is in our willingness to say, "Hosanna...save us!" Save us not from some particular from of oppression, but from the alloy of sin that infects all human endeavors and so is the cause of all oppression. Save us not from obscurity, discomfort, and insecurity, but from our unwillingness to share in the vulnerability that God IS. Save us from our sin. Save us from the spirit of the desert. Save us....from ourselves.
If there is any hope and happiness, it is in our willingness to take the palm branches of conquest and twist them into the shape of a cross....well would you look at that. I guess there is a reason to celebrate today, after all. But you know I think we only get that for moments. We at best get minutes or hours where we bask in the glory of the One True God. We just as often replace Him with a god of our own making, in our own image. Even with the Cross ever before us, we just as often pick up those palm branches, and seek to be conquered. We trade the God we need, for the god we think we want...and isn't that ironic? Don't you think?
Saturday, March 28, 2015
Roller Coaster
My life is a roller coaster right now. Universes high and low, wide and deep. It is all so beautiful it feels like I'm going to be crushed down. It is all so sad I want to fight to keep it forever.
Friday, March 27, 2015
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Monday, March 16, 2015
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Saturday, March 14, 2015
Thursday, March 12, 2015
Presentation On Our England Mission Trip
You have to 'pause' on each slide or they'll move too fast for you read.
Re-Post: RED DWARF or DOCTOR WHO
Is This A "Red Dwarf" World Or "Dr Who" World?
Is life more like the TV show RED DWARF or DR WHO? Are we are trapped on a hulking object hurling through space with nothing but rocks all about us with no purpose and only other people slightly less annoying than ourselves to keep us company? Or are we on an incredible machine with a mind of its own, on an incredible adventure as a companion to an ancient intelligence of great mystery and human form who deeply cares about us and wants our help saving the world?
Now I know these aren't the only two possibilities, but they are the ones that SEEM real to me. I find it funny that some seem to choose option A because it seems the more depressing. They think that truth can only frustrate and disappoint. "The saddest answer is always the most likely one." I know this because I find this tendency in myself. But it seems to me that this is just another manifestation of the masochism, the self-mutilation my depression used to cause when I was a teenager.
Truths can bring happiness. It is true that my wife loves me, and that makes me happy. It is true you are reading this right now, whoever you are, and that makes me happy. There are some scientific truths that have brought satisfaction to human expectations, hopes, and dreams just as some scientific truths have frustrated the same.
No, it is no more epistemically useful, it helps our quest for truth no more, to prejudice the depressing than it is to believe according to wish-fulfillment. Yet it seems to me, and hey I can be pretty dense some time so maybe I'm wrong about this, that once the full breadth and depth of life is accounted for, we must indeed CHOOSE which TV show we think we are on: DR WHO or RED DWARF? Choice sucks, especially epistemic choice, but sometimes you are confronted with equal evidence and the issue is important and you gotta lay your chips down somewhere. But there may be other criteria for decision-making than masochism and wish fulfillment. Exploring those criteria is a big part of the apologetics blog-project I'm working on right now. Still, I know which way I'll bet: I like RED DWARF, I can live with RED DWARF, but I'm a much bigger fan of DR WHO.
Now I know these aren't the only two possibilities, but they are the ones that SEEM real to me. I find it funny that some seem to choose option A because it seems the more depressing. They think that truth can only frustrate and disappoint. "The saddest answer is always the most likely one." I know this because I find this tendency in myself. But it seems to me that this is just another manifestation of the masochism, the self-mutilation my depression used to cause when I was a teenager.
Truths can bring happiness. It is true that my wife loves me, and that makes me happy. It is true you are reading this right now, whoever you are, and that makes me happy. There are some scientific truths that have brought satisfaction to human expectations, hopes, and dreams just as some scientific truths have frustrated the same.
No, it is no more epistemically useful, it helps our quest for truth no more, to prejudice the depressing than it is to believe according to wish-fulfillment. Yet it seems to me, and hey I can be pretty dense some time so maybe I'm wrong about this, that once the full breadth and depth of life is accounted for, we must indeed CHOOSE which TV show we think we are on: DR WHO or RED DWARF? Choice sucks, especially epistemic choice, but sometimes you are confronted with equal evidence and the issue is important and you gotta lay your chips down somewhere. But there may be other criteria for decision-making than masochism and wish fulfillment. Exploring those criteria is a big part of the apologetics blog-project I'm working on right now. Still, I know which way I'll bet: I like RED DWARF, I can live with RED DWARF, but I'm a much bigger fan of DR WHO.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Re-Post: Posts On THE AGONY OF CHRISTIANITY
I am a little more than halfway through Miguel De Unamuno's
theological work on the nature of Christianity, and so far I am loving it. It
is a theological application of the Christian Philosophy laid down in his most
famous work, THE TRAGIC SENSE OF LIFE, which has been one of my favorite books
for a long time.
One thing you must know about Unamuno's work is that his writing is broadly linear, but can be hard to follow. He kind of writes down a bundle of ideas, and from that bundle a genuine picture emerges. Then he uses that picture to work out a new bundle of ideas. In this way, there is an overall logical progression, even if particular chapters are a little more scattered. I find this way of writing amenable to my way of thinking, so I find him readable, but many others may not.
Unamuno begins his book by working out the philosophical concept of AGONY. For him, agony is a very rich concept, much like angst is for Camus or despair was for Kierkegaard. Agony, for Unamuno, comes from facing a need to rationalize what cannot be rationalized, and the pain that flows from this cognitive dissonance. Not any internal contradiction will do, it must be a paradox that pains the one who perceives it. One feels God's presence and comes to love God, but to love something is to desire to know it. But to know God, to truly know God is impossible. One cannot get one's reason around it. Indeed, the very idea may be anathema to reason. The desire for a love relationship and the inability to truly know what one loves is the source of immeasurable pain, at least at first. This is the AGONY that Unamuno speaks of.
But one should not think of Unamuno's work as one of despair of depression. Indeed, Unamuno thinks that despair and depression can be good things, and are indeed necessary stages on the road to genuine faith, but the ultimate end of Unamuno's work is love and hope. Unamuno says that the greatest hope is the hope born of hopelessness, and the greatest joy the joy of the depressed. No, for Unamuno this AGONY is not something to be avoided. Rather, one must enter fully into it if one is to discover God. For the AGONY we experience by our need to know and our inability to know is roughly the same AGONY God feels when He is forced to love that which seems all but incapable of loving Him. In that sense, the AGONY we feel is the very pain of God (Kazon Kitamori would've liked Unamuno's reasoning here, I think), and by embracing that pain we share in God's life, and that is the only way we can truly love God in this world.
Unamuno then goes on to argue that all true Christianity is mysticism. That to be Christian is to embrace a mystical attitude towards life. This is roughly connected to his perspective on AGONY, for indeed AGONY is a pathway to find unity or oneness with God. Indeed all true AGONY can be a pathway to God. Unamuno thinks that the honest atheist has more faith than the dishonest Christian, for the honest atheist has opened himself up to the possibility of feeling genuine AGONY. Unamuno makes a distinction between knowing God and knowing about God, and between the Word of God the letter of God. For Unamuno, Christianity has erred by putting to much faith in the letter and lacking the living Word of God. Mysticism is left behind for understanding, but any understanding Christians pretend to can be nothing but pretense. What is understood is not really God, and so one never faces genuine AGONY, and never finds the genuine, mystic union with God that brings real life. So you wind up with a false Christianity, and a false church.
Unamuno goes on to illustrate what he is talking about with the image of David's last wife, who remained a virgin to the day he died. She cared for him as a mother, David was unable to 'lie with her' at this point, but her love for him was intense. Unamuno sees in this a foreshadowing of Christ. We desire to 'know' God in the way the woman desired to 'be with' her husband. But being unable to know God, we instead seek to love God as a mother, and thereby we come to experience God directly. For Unamuno God is the sufferer we pick up off the ground and comfort, and by this act we know God's genuine love for us, we become One with God, and find the peace and happiness we seek. Faith that seeks to 'see God' in the world or seeks to get something from God is bound to be frustrated, in the same way David's last wife was frustrated. Only by becoming mother to God do we find God and fin our place in the universe. This vision of Unamuno's appeals to me greatly. It is roughly my own view, better stated. He made this particular Bible story come alive, I now share his view that within it is a cosmic significance. Christ is God made the suffering David, and faith is born not of being subject to Christ's power but of wanting to use our own power to comfort and console Christ. This is an unabashedly Christocentric vision of God, and one that I fully embrace. Unamuno has given form and function to what I have felt for quite a while. Wow, this stuff is amazing.
Unamuno argues for a kind of political neutrality for Christianity, based on the apocalyptic nature of Jesus' and Paul's teachings. This is the one big flaw for me. I cannot separate morality and religion has he does. I agree with Unamuno that Jesus and Paul's teachings cannot be the foundation for a political philosophy as we receive them in the text, but they can be adapted into political philosophies and grounds for action in this world. We cannot use them as absolute guides, but the can inspire us to think about political issues in a certain way. We cannot responsibly live as people for whom the world is about to end. We can live, and find a way to live responsibly, as people for whom the world might be about to end. There can be such a thing as Christian ethics, despite Unamuno's denial of such a thing. In fact, Unamuno himself, through his focus on the Cross and our relationship with God, has shown us a ground for moral action in the world. A religious idea that is morally neutral is dead. And I do not believe Christ to be dead.
One thing you must know about Unamuno's work is that his writing is broadly linear, but can be hard to follow. He kind of writes down a bundle of ideas, and from that bundle a genuine picture emerges. Then he uses that picture to work out a new bundle of ideas. In this way, there is an overall logical progression, even if particular chapters are a little more scattered. I find this way of writing amenable to my way of thinking, so I find him readable, but many others may not.
Unamuno begins his book by working out the philosophical concept of AGONY. For him, agony is a very rich concept, much like angst is for Camus or despair was for Kierkegaard. Agony, for Unamuno, comes from facing a need to rationalize what cannot be rationalized, and the pain that flows from this cognitive dissonance. Not any internal contradiction will do, it must be a paradox that pains the one who perceives it. One feels God's presence and comes to love God, but to love something is to desire to know it. But to know God, to truly know God is impossible. One cannot get one's reason around it. Indeed, the very idea may be anathema to reason. The desire for a love relationship and the inability to truly know what one loves is the source of immeasurable pain, at least at first. This is the AGONY that Unamuno speaks of.
But one should not think of Unamuno's work as one of despair of depression. Indeed, Unamuno thinks that despair and depression can be good things, and are indeed necessary stages on the road to genuine faith, but the ultimate end of Unamuno's work is love and hope. Unamuno says that the greatest hope is the hope born of hopelessness, and the greatest joy the joy of the depressed. No, for Unamuno this AGONY is not something to be avoided. Rather, one must enter fully into it if one is to discover God. For the AGONY we experience by our need to know and our inability to know is roughly the same AGONY God feels when He is forced to love that which seems all but incapable of loving Him. In that sense, the AGONY we feel is the very pain of God (Kazon Kitamori would've liked Unamuno's reasoning here, I think), and by embracing that pain we share in God's life, and that is the only way we can truly love God in this world.
Unamuno then goes on to argue that all true Christianity is mysticism. That to be Christian is to embrace a mystical attitude towards life. This is roughly connected to his perspective on AGONY, for indeed AGONY is a pathway to find unity or oneness with God. Indeed all true AGONY can be a pathway to God. Unamuno thinks that the honest atheist has more faith than the dishonest Christian, for the honest atheist has opened himself up to the possibility of feeling genuine AGONY. Unamuno makes a distinction between knowing God and knowing about God, and between the Word of God the letter of God. For Unamuno, Christianity has erred by putting to much faith in the letter and lacking the living Word of God. Mysticism is left behind for understanding, but any understanding Christians pretend to can be nothing but pretense. What is understood is not really God, and so one never faces genuine AGONY, and never finds the genuine, mystic union with God that brings real life. So you wind up with a false Christianity, and a false church.
Unamuno goes on to illustrate what he is talking about with the image of David's last wife, who remained a virgin to the day he died. She cared for him as a mother, David was unable to 'lie with her' at this point, but her love for him was intense. Unamuno sees in this a foreshadowing of Christ. We desire to 'know' God in the way the woman desired to 'be with' her husband. But being unable to know God, we instead seek to love God as a mother, and thereby we come to experience God directly. For Unamuno God is the sufferer we pick up off the ground and comfort, and by this act we know God's genuine love for us, we become One with God, and find the peace and happiness we seek. Faith that seeks to 'see God' in the world or seeks to get something from God is bound to be frustrated, in the same way David's last wife was frustrated. Only by becoming mother to God do we find God and fin our place in the universe. This vision of Unamuno's appeals to me greatly. It is roughly my own view, better stated. He made this particular Bible story come alive, I now share his view that within it is a cosmic significance. Christ is God made the suffering David, and faith is born not of being subject to Christ's power but of wanting to use our own power to comfort and console Christ. This is an unabashedly Christocentric vision of God, and one that I fully embrace. Unamuno has given form and function to what I have felt for quite a while. Wow, this stuff is amazing.
Unamuno argues for a kind of political neutrality for Christianity, based on the apocalyptic nature of Jesus' and Paul's teachings. This is the one big flaw for me. I cannot separate morality and religion has he does. I agree with Unamuno that Jesus and Paul's teachings cannot be the foundation for a political philosophy as we receive them in the text, but they can be adapted into political philosophies and grounds for action in this world. We cannot use them as absolute guides, but the can inspire us to think about political issues in a certain way. We cannot responsibly live as people for whom the world is about to end. We can live, and find a way to live responsibly, as people for whom the world might be about to end. There can be such a thing as Christian ethics, despite Unamuno's denial of such a thing. In fact, Unamuno himself, through his focus on the Cross and our relationship with God, has shown us a ground for moral action in the world. A religious idea that is morally neutral is dead. And I do not believe Christ to be dead.
Miguel
De Unamuno's THE AGONY OF CHRISTIANITY Part 2
Miguel De Unamuno goes on to comment
on what he believes a truly Christian life should look like. For him, any
Christian life must in some way 'embody' or 'incarnate' the agony of God and
the true agony that lies at the heart of the Christian life. For this reason,
Unamuno is skeptical of any attempts at apologetics or at a rational
Christianity, for he thinks that such an effort seeks to remove the 'agonic'
aspects of Christian life. Robbing Christianity of it's essential tension, of
the tension that causes rage and pain, is to rob Christianity of it's very
spirit, and it's creativity. For Unamuno, the war between reason and faith, between
an agonic Christianity and the attempt to create a rational culture, is the war
that births true and authentic western civilization.
Unamuno doesn't think a simple roadmap can be given as to how a Christian should live. Rather, we must look for people who seem to be paradigms of Christian agony and try to live like them. We must 'incarnate' these lives in our own, just as they incarnated Christ in their own lives. The truth is, though, that Unamuno does think one particular kind of Christian life is purer...that of the monastic. For him, the monastic's pain at separation from the world, and his total devotion to God is a kind of living testimony to the true cost of discipleship.
But even in a monastery, politics and human relationships play a role. The world seeps into the monastic community, and this causes tension and discord. Everyone has to make SOME compromise with the world, and this compromise is the source of proper agony, as Unamuno sees it. Involvement with the world is inevitable, and everyone must accept this. But to accept this is not to like it. One has to feel a fear, a kind of dread, a dread that one's very soul may be at risk as a result of this compromise with the world. From this dread comes the agony that is the very heart of Christianity.
The two men that Unamuno thinks most exemplify the agony of our faith are: Blaise Pascal and Father Hyacinth Loyson. Unamuno thinks that Pascal felt more acutely than most the conflict between faith and reason. Pascal was both scientist and theologian, and he couldn't see any way out of life besides suicide: either of the self (by rejecting faith) or of the mind (by accepting it). Pascal's marriage to this kind of suicidal pact is, on Unamuno's view, proof of his agony and thus of his union with God. But Unamuno leaves out the 'night of fire' that Pascal speaks of. Unamuno paints Pascal as a man who never found a firm ground for his faith. But this isn't entirely true....Pascal's mystical experience ended up being the resolution of his inner contradiction. Thus Pascal is not as much a tragic figure as Unamuno makes him out to be. The agony of Christianity ended in unity for Pascal, and so agony turned to joy.
Father Hyacinth, who I was unfamiliar with but now really want to know more about, apparently was a monk who fell in love with a woman, and so left the cloister to join with the world, where he became a theologian and political speaker. Hyacinth was keenly aware of the compromise he was making by joining the world, and this filled him with the kind of dread that Unamuno thinks is the mark of the true 'agonic' Christian.
In the end Unamuno remains an essentially tragic thinker. But to me his tragic premises do not need to lead to tragic conclusions. He has, unwittingly, opened a way out of tragedy and agony, by coming to understand it's divine roots. For if sharing in God's agony leads to union with God, then it is also a pathway to joy and peace. Not a joy and peace found by leaving the storm, which Unamuno rightly sees as cowardice and weakness, but a peace within the storm, a peace born of its very essence. The Cross is proof that such a peace and such a union with God can be found. Unamuno's method and premises are spot on, and this book is one I thoroughly enjoyed and learned from immensely. But his final conclusions are off. In the end, I highly recommend this book, but only for those who can think critically and who are not too easily influenced. For it is dangerous in its persuasiveness. Embrace agony...but seek in the end to transcend it.
Unamuno doesn't think a simple roadmap can be given as to how a Christian should live. Rather, we must look for people who seem to be paradigms of Christian agony and try to live like them. We must 'incarnate' these lives in our own, just as they incarnated Christ in their own lives. The truth is, though, that Unamuno does think one particular kind of Christian life is purer...that of the monastic. For him, the monastic's pain at separation from the world, and his total devotion to God is a kind of living testimony to the true cost of discipleship.
But even in a monastery, politics and human relationships play a role. The world seeps into the monastic community, and this causes tension and discord. Everyone has to make SOME compromise with the world, and this compromise is the source of proper agony, as Unamuno sees it. Involvement with the world is inevitable, and everyone must accept this. But to accept this is not to like it. One has to feel a fear, a kind of dread, a dread that one's very soul may be at risk as a result of this compromise with the world. From this dread comes the agony that is the very heart of Christianity.
The two men that Unamuno thinks most exemplify the agony of our faith are: Blaise Pascal and Father Hyacinth Loyson. Unamuno thinks that Pascal felt more acutely than most the conflict between faith and reason. Pascal was both scientist and theologian, and he couldn't see any way out of life besides suicide: either of the self (by rejecting faith) or of the mind (by accepting it). Pascal's marriage to this kind of suicidal pact is, on Unamuno's view, proof of his agony and thus of his union with God. But Unamuno leaves out the 'night of fire' that Pascal speaks of. Unamuno paints Pascal as a man who never found a firm ground for his faith. But this isn't entirely true....Pascal's mystical experience ended up being the resolution of his inner contradiction. Thus Pascal is not as much a tragic figure as Unamuno makes him out to be. The agony of Christianity ended in unity for Pascal, and so agony turned to joy.
Father Hyacinth, who I was unfamiliar with but now really want to know more about, apparently was a monk who fell in love with a woman, and so left the cloister to join with the world, where he became a theologian and political speaker. Hyacinth was keenly aware of the compromise he was making by joining the world, and this filled him with the kind of dread that Unamuno thinks is the mark of the true 'agonic' Christian.
In the end Unamuno remains an essentially tragic thinker. But to me his tragic premises do not need to lead to tragic conclusions. He has, unwittingly, opened a way out of tragedy and agony, by coming to understand it's divine roots. For if sharing in God's agony leads to union with God, then it is also a pathway to joy and peace. Not a joy and peace found by leaving the storm, which Unamuno rightly sees as cowardice and weakness, but a peace within the storm, a peace born of its very essence. The Cross is proof that such a peace and such a union with God can be found. Unamuno's method and premises are spot on, and this book is one I thoroughly enjoyed and learned from immensely. But his final conclusions are off. In the end, I highly recommend this book, but only for those who can think critically and who are not too easily influenced. For it is dangerous in its persuasiveness. Embrace agony...but seek in the end to transcend it.
It's
A Question of Agony
Related Post: http://ljtsg.blogspot.com/2013/07/miguel-de-unamunos-agony-of.html
To love something is, in part, to want to know it. It is the desire to truly know the other. To love is also to desire to be known. It is knowing and being known that true spiritual union takes place, and it is for that reason that 'know' has to meanings in the Bible- one intellectual and one sexual/physical. Any created being God creates will be finite, and so will be unable to fully understand Him. Thus God, loving His creation, knows the pain of loving that which cannot really understand you. Those created that love God know the pain of loving that which you cannot really understand.
In the Cross God tells us that we are fully understood, and so our love has one side complete. In that same Cross God fully understands, and so part of His love is made complete. Yet our desire to understand is not fulfilled, and God's desire to be understood is similarly not fulfilled, except in a very limited way. So the Cross stands as a complete fulfillment for one half of the equation for both sides, and only a partial (and a painfully partial) fulfillment of the other side of the equation, for both sides.
Which is the greater pain? This is Miguel De Unamuno's question. Is it worse to not be understood, or to not understand? Probably it is a moot question, as both kinds of incompleteness give birth to agony, according to Unamuno (and I would agree with him). But perhaps what is happening here is the creation of a need. God makes the world so that He needs something and so that something needs Him. We have in ourselves the need for God and the need to be needed by God. This fits well with my own theological axiom, oft-stated here and on Facebook: "sometimes we need God, sometimes God needs us, sometimes we need God to need us, sometimes God needs us to need Him." Wholeness is found when we join together with God. I can't say I am completely okay with this thought, but it is beautiful and worth pondering. Some thoughts are too beautiful not to be true. Is this an example? Something to think about.
To love something is, in part, to want to know it. It is the desire to truly know the other. To love is also to desire to be known. It is knowing and being known that true spiritual union takes place, and it is for that reason that 'know' has to meanings in the Bible- one intellectual and one sexual/physical. Any created being God creates will be finite, and so will be unable to fully understand Him. Thus God, loving His creation, knows the pain of loving that which cannot really understand you. Those created that love God know the pain of loving that which you cannot really understand.
In the Cross God tells us that we are fully understood, and so our love has one side complete. In that same Cross God fully understands, and so part of His love is made complete. Yet our desire to understand is not fulfilled, and God's desire to be understood is similarly not fulfilled, except in a very limited way. So the Cross stands as a complete fulfillment for one half of the equation for both sides, and only a partial (and a painfully partial) fulfillment of the other side of the equation, for both sides.
Which is the greater pain? This is Miguel De Unamuno's question. Is it worse to not be understood, or to not understand? Probably it is a moot question, as both kinds of incompleteness give birth to agony, according to Unamuno (and I would agree with him). But perhaps what is happening here is the creation of a need. God makes the world so that He needs something and so that something needs Him. We have in ourselves the need for God and the need to be needed by God. This fits well with my own theological axiom, oft-stated here and on Facebook: "sometimes we need God, sometimes God needs us, sometimes we need God to need us, sometimes God needs us to need Him." Wholeness is found when we join together with God. I can't say I am completely okay with this thought, but it is beautiful and worth pondering. Some thoughts are too beautiful not to be true. Is this an example? Something to think about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)