ahub: Important Topics

Review: The Red Letters Project

2010-09-12T19:50:00.003-06:00

The Red Letters Project is a 3-disk, 40-track album that puts the words of Jesus from the New Living Translation of Mathew to music. The package includes a booklet of The Gospel According to Matthew (NLT) so that you can read Jesus’ words as you listen to them.
The Red Letters Project must be taken on its own terms: rhythmic reading set to rock music. To expect something different than this is to reject the project. So, if you like rock music and lyrics that are sometimes disjointed and not always poetic, yet are word-for-word and line-by-line renderings (often sung, sometimes read) of Jesus’ words in the Gospel of Matthew, then you will enjoy this album.
I recommend listening to some songs from the album many times before deciding to purchase the album. Personally, I think I will enjoy listening to some of the songs from the album from time to time, especially when it comes time to meditate on some of the words of Jesus.

Here are some other review that you might find helpful:

Found at http://www.theredlettersproject.com/
The creators' sincere desire is apparently to see Scripture made famous—or at least better known for those who might otherwise ignore its life-changing inspiration. The project uses every influence of rock imaginable to dynamically impress the Bible's truths in the hearts of listeners.
Red Letters is certainly done professionally, but the recitative nature of cramming historic, and sometimes-antiquated, language into songs is hard to leisurely digest. Will the intended audience of teens, young adults, and music fans find it relevant? Hard to say. But whether the project reaches one or one million, good things will happen. According to some black letters of the Bible—those spoken by the Father, not the Son—putting God's Word out there "always produces fruit. It will accomplish all I want it to, and it will prosper everywhere I send it" (Isa. 55:11). – Christianity Today
“I think you could easily slip this CD on for behind music and see if anyone notices” – Amy
“This music is not your typical church hymns…The singers are fantastic. I also loved the way they mixed the songs on the cds. You have a few up beat songs and then a ballad. It really gave the cds a nice pace.” – Natalie
“This 3-CD set is, honestly, like nothing I've ever heard before. Mario Canido has put the words of the book of Matthew from the New Living Translation to music. Yeah, I hear you - usually these kinds of things don't turn out too well. And, in all honesty, that's what I was expecting here! But, after listening for several days now, I actually like it. No, I really like it! It isn't cheesy. It isn't poorly performed. It's rock music done well, the perfect sound for me to rock out to while I'm driving down the road. And now, I'm getting to the words of Jesus stuck in my head. I find myself singing it in the shower, and thinking of it during the day. Tyndale, I think you have a potential big seller on your hands with the right marketing. Something to remember when you listen: Yes, the lyrics sometimes can be a bit awkward when they don't rhyme. But, Canido has done a wonderful job putting this together in a way where it really isn't bothersome at all. Like I've said already, I've never seen the Bible put to song as well as this. In closing, just let me once again reiterate my approval of and excitement for this project. It has the potential to not only be a big hit and big seller, but also to impact quite a few people's faith who are fading because either they don't understand God's Word, or they've become bored with it. Much thanks to Tyndale for believing in this, and Mario Canido for putting the time and energy into making it happen. Let the kingdom advance!” – Kevin Walker

You can also go here for more reviews.

Evangelism for the Common Man: A Review of NUDGE by Leonard Sweet

2010-09-06T07:55:00.003-06:00

I was given a copy of Leonard Sweet’s new book, Nudge: Awakening Each Other to the God Who’s Already There, for review, by The Ooze Viral Bloggers (http://viralbloggers.com/).

Synopsis
Nudge is a book about evangelism. The type of evangelism that Sweet proposes 1) acknowledges that God is active in the world and is involved in one way or another in everyone’s life. Nudge-evangelism 2) necessitates that “followers of Jesus “know” Jesus well enough to recognize where he is alive and moving in our day” (p. 34); and, so can read the signs of a friend’s life to see how God is at work. 3) Nudging is, then, sharing with that friend in a non-confrontational manner (notice the title of the book: Nudge, not Push) how God is working in their lives. “Evangelists nudge the world to wake up to the alive and acting Jesus and nudge others in the ways God is alive and moving” (p. 34). That is the essence of nudge evangelism. Thus ends the first part of the book.
That being said, there is more work that has to be done in order to do this well, so argues Sweet. Even before we begin nudge evangelizing, we must be able to read what God is doing in another’s life, and to be able to do that we, the potential evangelizer, must be paying attention to God. To pay attention to God we need to use our five senses (he means these in both physical and spiritual ways) to comprehend and notice what God is doing. We also need to be sensitive to the senses of those we are evangelizing to.
The first part of the book is very interesting and the second less so (perhaps I simply need more time to digest the thoughts there). However, there are some gems in the second part.
Length: The book is 279 pages excluding notes; 329 with notes.

Here are some quotes that summarize nudge evangelism well:
“Evangelism is awakening each other to the God who is already there. Evangelism is nudging people to pay attention to the mission of God in their lives and to the necessity of responding to that initiative in ways that birth new realities and the new birth” (p.28).
“For God to do something through us, God must be doing something in us. If we are not always evangelizing ourselves, we have no business evangelizing others” (p. 28).
“Nudging is more about dialogue than monologue…Acts of evangelism intentionally scooch and shimmy people in the direction of truth without the need for knee-bending, beat-my-back alter calls” (p. 31).

Review
The Good:
- Nudge evangelism is doable for all people, whether timid or bold.
- Emphasizes evangelizing to people who we already have a relationship with.
- Comes at evangelism from a perspective of love.
- We have our part in evangelism, but allows for God to do his work as well, which evangelists sometimes don’t make room for.
- Emphasizes that we need to be evangelizing to ourselves as well, and that we ourselves will be changed in the “nudging” process.
- Respects the process and journey of peoples’ lives.
- Presupposes God’s providence and his acting in all creation at all times.
- Integrates the spiritual and bodily senses, which is, at times, very insightful.
- Readable and understandable.
- Semiotics – or the study of understanding signs and the meanings of things in regular life is very interesting and must be a part of evangelism.
The Bad:
- The book makes friendship a precondition of evangelism, but this is not the only kind of evangelism.
- Way too many metaphors and similes. Sweet writes very poetically, which often makes books pleasant to read; in this case, however, the book is burdened and cluttered, and the reader is wearied by Sweet’s poetic metric and long for straightforward prose. However, some of the analogies are quite good.
- A tendency with this type of evangelism might be to read “signs from God” under every leaf and in every nook. Interpreting God’s actions in another person’s life (let alone our own) can be extremely difficult.
- Reading between the lines, it seems that Sweet buys into postmodernism and there are some lines that would suggest that he is a “constructivist” (truth is not there until people see/make it) rather than a “realist” (truth is there whether we see it or not and whether we understand it correctly or not).

My Thoughts
Nudge contains many interesting and good ideas, especially in the first half of the book. It might also spark more people to evangelize, as Sweet has done a good job of making evangelism accessible to all. I was interested in the second section, as spiritual sensation is very interesting, but the chapters are simply too long and burdensome. If you were to purchase or borrow this book, read the first half, and skim the second half. The underlying ethos of the book seems to be a little too “nice.” However, this will make it easier for people today to evangelize. The book is good in many ways, but it is bad in some major ways.

Recommendation and Rating
I recommend this book to all Christians.
Rating: 3/5

#vb-nudge

Calling Evil Good and Good Evil

2010-08-12T20:28:00.006-06:00

I purchased a book called The Lamb's Supper (by Scott Hahn) the other day. I bought it because the premise was intriguing: The Eucharist (the Lord's Supper) helps us to understand the book of Revelation (The Apocalypse of St. John). As Revelation is extremely weird, I thought it would be great to read this book by a Roman Catholic scholar. The book has been very good and interesting. I am nearly through its 163 pages. Also, it is interesting to think that, if the Roman Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) Mass is the major interpretational key to Revelation...then perhaps us Protestants have gotten something very wrong.

I thought it good to share a lengthy quote from the book that will be interesting and informative to all. The passage is about the natural punishment that sin is in and of itself:

"We read on in Romans: "therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves" (Rom 1:24). Wait a minute: God gives them up to their vices? He lets them continue sinning?
"Well, yes, and that is a dreadful manifestation of the wrath of God. We might think that the pleasures of sin are preferable to suffering calamity, but they're not.
"We have to recognize sin as the action that destroys our family bond with God and keeps us from life and freedom. How does that happen?
"We have an obligation, first, to resist temptation. If we fail then and we sin, we have an obligation to repent immediately. If we do not repent, then God lets us have our way: He allows us to experience the natural consequences of our sins, the illicit pleasures. If we still fail to repent - through self-denial and acts of penance - God allows us to continue in sin, thereby forming a habit, a vice, which darkens our intellect and weakens our will.
"Once we are hooked on a sin, our values are turned upside down. Evil becomes our most urgent 'good,' our deepest longing; good stands as an 'evil' because it threatens to keep us from satisfying our illicit desires. At that point, repentance becomes almost impossible, because repentance is, by definition, a turning away from evil and toward the good; but, by now, the sinner has thoroughly redefined both good and evil. Isaiah said of such sinner: 'Woe to those who call evil good and good evil' (Is. 5:20).
"Once we have embraced sin in this way and rejected our covenant with God, only a calamity can save us. Sometimes, the most merciful thing that God can do to a drunk, for example, may be to allow him to wreck his car or be abandoned by his wife - whatever will force him to accept responsibility for his actions.
"What happens, though, when an entire nation has fallen into serious and habitual sin? The same principle is at work. ..."

There are a few things to meditate on here:
1) God's wrath (as all proper wrath) is an expression of love: it is the energy summoned up to rid self or other of evil.
2) Habits
a) Notice how important habits are in this passage. Vice - the habit of doing evil - starts small and then continues on until we are no longer able to control ourselves, but still want to do good (see Romans 7; Aristotle and St. Thomas call this "incontinence"; see next thought). From there, many people who are no longer sure why they should feel bad about their evil deed will be proud of the evil they do...and at that point they have a vice, that is, a genuine bad habit.
b) To help explain the thought above, hare is an explanation of the Vice-Virtue scale:
i)Virtue is having a permanent, fixed habit towards doing what is good. If you are really virtuous, you find doing good easy and are generally not even tempted by evil.
ii) Continence is having a generally fixed will towards what is good...and doing that good most of the time, but not all of the time. Doing good is mostly easy, but temptation is often present.
iii) Incontinence is the partial willing of what is good, but the inability to do it for the most part. In Roman Catholic thought, there are two types of sin: venial and mortal. Venial sin is forgivable in that the person has a will to do what is good, but have not done it (this happens in cases of continence and incontinence). Mortal sin is done from pure vice.
iv) Vice is the habit of doing evil, without care of doing good. Somewhere (whether knowingly or not), a choice has been made to call evil good and good evil. Sins done from vice are not forgivable (they are, thus, "mortal" sins), simply because the person who persists in vice will not ask forgiveness. If something happens in the life of that person where they are "shook up" and turn towards God, then God will, of course, forgive them.
c) Notice also, that as people move from continence to vice, they become less and less wise (Paul says that their minds are darkened).
3) It seems very true that people who act in incontinence or vice need a rude awakening - a cold shower - in order to see things correctly. This has been true in my life (through an act of divine wisdom miraculously breaching my thick skull), in the life of my grandfather (through the fear of dying), and in the life of the Prodigal Son (who suddenly realized that the life of pleasure wasn't nearly as pleasurable as life with his Father).

Review: The Naked Gospel

2010-07-12T20:42:00.000-06:00

I have just finished reading “The Naked Gospel” by Andrew Farley. The book is essentially a teaching of the gospel based on what I call a “grace-centric” interpretation of the Bible. Grace-centric” teaching revolves around the idea that Christians are covered by grace, so God does not even really care if they sin. I have encountered teaching like this before, bought into that teaching, and reaped some major negative consequences. So I went into this book knowing that I would not agree. And I don’t.

If you want to read a book revolving around a grace-centric teaching, then this book is for you. It’s all there: Christians have no need to ask for forgiveness anymore; Old Testament law (meaning the moral laws, not the cultic or purity laws) is not a good source of morality for Christians (in fact, it seems as though morality is not so important anymore); We are not on a spiritual journey, but have arrived; etc.

It is interesting to note that I would probably not be able to go toe-to-toe with the author to disprove his exegesis (though this book has inspired my to start looking more seriously at my Bible…not just for personal devotion). But I know from past experience and from present intuition that this teaching is off the rails.

I appreciate people who provide me with different angles to look at the same thing, for they help to sharpen me. In that sense, I am appreciative of this book.

Not much more to say at this point.

On Spanking

2010-06-20T20:47:00.002-06:00

One of the best lessons that children need to learn is that there is good and bad and right and wrong…and that what they want or what they think is not always right. When the Bible (especially Proverbs) talks of the Fear of the Lord leading us to wisdom, perhaps we can also think that the fear of parents (i.e. the fear of children for their parents) leads to wisdom. One major issue for parents of young children is whether or not to spank or physically punish (not abuse!) their children. Many people I know are not in favor of spanking their children. There are a variety of reasons for this: 1) I don’t want to physically hurt my child, because it is bad to hurt others. 2) I just can’t do it because it hurts me to hit my kids. 3) My child will not learn anything for the better; it is far better to reason with our children. 4) My child is good and does not need so serious a punishment.

The first reason is terrible, for it does not spell out a good reason for not spanking. The second reason is also unthinking, but more selfish. The third reason appears to be good, but is actually not. The fourth reason is valid. It is good to state here that many people are against spanking because many parents spank out of anger and do it in a wrong way, so it is best to avoid spanking all together. This argument does not hold in regards to other topics, i.e. marriage (I believe that most people in North America do not understand marriage and often go about it in the wrong way, but I will not say that no one should ever get married, for I know that it can be done in the right way) and it does not hold in the case of spanking either. There are many bad people and we will not put an end the human race simply because no body is perfect. Often the bad apple does not spoil the whole bunch, but makes the whole bunch less appealing, though they have not spoilt.

If spanking does not help our children then I agree that we should not spank. But I believe that spanking is a tool in the school of wisdom. When parents spank their children for the right reasons (to teach the child that he is wrong or has gone astray and done something wrong, and when this is done not in a fit of rage, but in the right frame of mind) their child will (eventually) learn that their parents wish that they (the child) do what is best, not simply what they want, for they do not always want what is best, and, often, what is best does not feel good. For instance, an eighteen-month old does not want to get his shots. It is not fun to be stuck with a needle, for the process is painful and makes the child question the parent’s love. But the shot is for the child’s good, and the parent believes that the child will get over the trauma of the experience, and learn that their parents usually try to do what is best for the child. If the child sees that the parent’s habit towards them is love and goodness, then the child will interpret such pain (which was partially inflicted by the parent) as the parent probably still loving the child, although it doesn’t seem like that at the time.

If a child is to grow up in the way of reason, humility, and openness to others, the child must learn to know that he is not always right, and that he should be more open to being good, or else he will suffer punishment/ correction.

But we can still reply to my essay by stating the second part of 3), which is: “It is far better to reason with our children.” True. It is best to reason with children that can understand and implement what they have learned. However, young children are often unable to reason, so what are we to do with them, simply to distract them from the wrong they are doing, or teach them that whenever they do a certain thing (i.e. get too close to the top of the stairs) they get hurt by mommy or daddy? That way they can start to reason for themselves about what to do or not do rather than having the parents do everything for the child. So distraction is not the most helpful, for it doesn’t help the child to reason and think.

Also, sometimes we need to be shocked out of doing something bad, or else we will not get out of the bad habit. Physical punishment can be much more clear and more shocking than verbal reasoning. (especially for those who do not understand words yet, or do not understand them well enough, or who need a ‘bad attitude’ rehabilitated). Perhaps, then, we can call spanking “physical reasoning”, and then it can be said that spanking is a form of reasoning, and, in fact, it helps children to be able to reason better, to be better people, directed not to their own whims, but to what is good and true.

Parents who care for their children must help their children to seek out truth and to do what is good. Enabling selfishness by teaching your kids that they always know what is best is immoral. I hope that the “anti spankers” now understand that, although parents don’t always use corporal (bodily) punishment with the right attitude and for the right reasons, that spanking is not evil in and of itself, but can be a tool in the parent’s toolbox, helping them to properly raise their children to reach their full potential, and to flourish during adulthood and adolescence.

This essay was written after spending some time listening to friends and relatives who take issue with more traditional parental methods such as spanking and making their children eat food that they don’t want or making children follow a strict bedtime. Perhaps the same principles from the above essay can be applied to other questions, such as forcing children to eat foods that they don’t want to eat.

Of course, I have not addressed every angle that this issue of training your child in wisdom through imposing the parent’s will, but I think that I have made it clear that parents should not be imposing their own will just for the sake of getting what they want, but that they do whatever they do from sound reason and love for their children.

As “the fear of the Lord” is the first step to wisdom, a child’s fear of their parents’ wrath (and by wrath I mean that kind of energy that is aroused in us to deal with evil and vice) is also a step in the direction of wisdom. Fear of evil is a good thing, for we should be scared of getting fat if we eat too many candies and fearful of losing our house if we cannot pay the mortgage, and we should be afraid that we can separate ourselves from God. These fears stimulate us to do what is right. However, fear can move us to do what is wrong (cheat on a test because we are fearful of not passing, or not doing the right thing because we fear that others will hate us for doing what is good, or fearing that God wants to be separated from us).

In order to understand this fear, let me turn to a Catholic Thomist named Josef Pieper, who I respect. Here is a summary of his words of Fear of the Lord:

1- Servile Fear: imperfect fear of the Lord. Fears the loss of personal fulfillment in eternal life. Though it is imperfect, it is still good. Decreases as man’s nature is the more deeply penetrated by his love of friendship with God. Prepares the soul for wisdom. Kind of being afraid of God (‘s punishment). Corresponds to concupiscent love of God. Fears the gain of an evil.
2- Filial/Chaste Fear: more truly fear. Love transforms servile fear to a chaste and filial fear. To see sin as sin. Sin is evil to a greater degree than the actual punishment is. More grieved at the actual possible wrong than about being punished for it. Filial fear increases (not in frequency, but in amplitude?) as the intensity with which we love God. This is because the one who truly sees the good/God knows what he can lose. They see more clearly. The first fruit of wisdom itself. Being afraid of actual evil. This kind of fear does not destroy the mental operations, as anxiety (servile fear) does. Corresponds to caritas love of God. Fears the loss of a good.

In writing this, it is not simply my hope to assert my own beliefs, nor do I wish to condemn parents who have chosen not to spank their children because I know that they only wish to do the best for their children. I am, however, questioning those parents who do not spank their children if they are loving their children in the best possible way. On the other hand, those parents who hit their children out of rage and irrationalism must be chastised for raising children that often end up being hateful, distrustful of good authorities, and encouraging their children to live in fear and to not understand love and the difference between good and evil. Let us teach our children to be afraid of the right things and to love the right things, for their good and ours.

In the last analysis, I am not in favor of spanking in and of itself. I am in favor of goodness and truth. And it is for the sake of goodness and truth that I am in favor of spanking.

Parenting takes a love so consistent and pure. None of us can love in this perfect way, but that isn’t to say that we shouldn’t try or that God cannot help us. But as much as possible, let our children learn of God’s character through knowing ours. Help us, Lord.

Afterthought: All issues to do with morality rely on the virtue of prudence, which is the ability to do what is right in varying situations. General guidelines are good, but no person or situation is the same. Give us prudence, Lord.

READ THIS BOOK: Who Really Goes to Hell – The Gospel You’ve Never Heard.

2010-06-08T22:11:00.001-06:00

Read this Book: Who Really Goes to Hell – The Gospel You’ve Never Heard.

I recently read Who Really Goes to Hell – The Gospel You’ve Never Heard, by David I. Rudel. I was initially skeptical about this book for a few reasons: 1) The Publisher is Biblical Heresy Press; 2) I am generally skeptical of supposedly new ways of understanding the Bible, as most have a very Postmodern ring to them (as the next book I will be reviewing, called “The Naked Gospel”.

Don’t let these fool you. As I read on, with fewer and fewer objections along the way, I was brought to a deeper understanding of the gospel than I have ever known. The title of the book seems to be pointed at grabbing the attention of those who might not be interested in a scholarly work on many of the essential doctrines of Christianity; but the book is just that. Now, I do not know my Bible well enough the properly critique the book, but what I read really made sense to me.

The book purports to destroy many of the common Evangelical Protestant doctrines in favour of a much more biblically founded teaching. I would say that the book is successful in this. This book has helped me to understand, or at least know another quality viewpoint on, many major important biblical teachings, including: What is the role of the Holy Spirit?, How are we to be judged after death?, What is justification?, Why does repentance feature so prominently in Jesus’ teachings?, Why do we need to continue to ask for forgiveness?, What is the relationship with faith and good works?, How does Jesus save us?, What is the importance of Jesus’ entire life?, What does the Bible mean by “God’s wrath”?, etc., etc., etc.

This book I so helpful that I recommend it to all who read this review. This is my advice: get this book. Granted, I know that this book will give some people trouble and will dismantle their current faith, but I believe that it will build up something more solid in the reader. Also, at the very least, the book provides an alternative paradigm to Protestant teachings; this is helpful as truth is often best discerned when two or more options are in competition and one shows itself to be more dominant.

I do not wish to give away any of the answers described in this book, but I will warn that it seems to be something much closer to a Catholic teaching, although the author doesn’t seem to like Catholics or Protestants very much for their doctrines.

Give this book a read. I have to read it again to glean more from it and to understand it so that I can put it in competition with other paradigms that I know, but I am already excited to have read this book once. Read this book. I have not said that about any other book that I have reviewed to date. After you’ve read this book, let me know what you think.

How Can We Share What We Do Not Know?

2010-06-03T20:38:00.003-06:00

I help teach an ESL (English as a Second Language) Bible study class at my Alliance church. I have been noticing that it is often difficult to teach books of the Bible in a meaningful manner, as many books of the Bible are not easily understood. Even with a person who understands the specific book being studied, the teachings of the Scriptures are often difficult to categorize in our minds.

So I've been wondering, why doesn't the church have a catechism class, or a class where we go through the main teachings of the church? This would be done in a systematic manner (and therefore more easily understood), and would have many benefits:

1) Our faith would grow and we would begin to think about and understand God and what he is up to through the church.
2) Our Christian living would be informed and therefore we would be better witnesses.
3) We would be able to worship God more effectively and see his blessings more clearly.
4) We would be more unified as a church.
5) We would be able to explain our faith to others with confidence and therefore be better witnesses.

It strikes me that my church (at least the leadership) has been focused on the congregation being witnesses and being more bold about sharing our faith. However, the biggest reason why we are afraid to share our faith is because we do not really know it. If we do not have even a basic understanding of the faith, then how can we share it? How can we share what we cannot put into words, or live out? (Of course, there is a class like this in my church, but, from a far, it strikes me as less helpful than a catechism class, and it must be attended by more of the congregation. Also this class is not easily accessible to the ESL Bible study attendees, so a separate class must be offered for them. Also, ALPHA classes lean in this direction, too, but they also strike me as less helpful than an actual catechism class, though a catechism class might be able to learn much from the friendly, non-boring nature of the ALPHA program.)

Therefore, I submit that all Christians should be catechized. Perhaps your church doesn't have a book that teaches about the things of the faith in an orderly manner, then find a book that does so. I recommend The Catechism of the Catholic Church As well as the Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas. Martin Luther has also written a Catechism. The Orthodox Church also has some documents of this sort, though I don't know what they are called.

If this resonates with you (the need for you and/or you and your church to grow in the knowledge and life of the faith), then talk to your pastor about getting an adult catechism class rolling.

Some Articles

2010-05-29T12:29:00.002-06:00

I read a very interesting article by Catholic thinker George Weigel yesterday called "Defending Religious Freedom In Full". The article can be found here. Here is a snippet of the article:

"Religious freedom in full also means that communities of religious conviction and conscience must be free to conduct the works of charity in ways that are commensurate with their conscientious convictions. This is neither the time nor the place to discuss the problems that have been posed by tying so much of Catholic social-service work and Catholic health care to government funding – save, perhaps, to note that these problems did not exist before the Supreme Court erected a spurious "right to abortion" as the right that trumps all other rights, and before courts and legislatures decided that it was within the state's competence to redefine marriage and to compel others to accept that redefinition through the use of coercive state power. What can be said in this context, and what must be said, is that the conscience rights of Catholic physicians, nurses, and other health-care professionals are not second-class rights that can be trumped by other rights claims; and any state that fails to acknowledge those rights of conscience has done grave damage to religious freedom rightly understood. The same can and must be said about any state that drives the Catholic Church out of certain forms of social service because the Church refuses to concede that the state has the competence to declare as "marriage" relationships that are manifestly not marriages."

Another interesting article that I have read lately is really an interview of a nun who has her Ph.D in philosophy. The interview is interesting on a few different levels. Clear and sophisticated arguments are made for the important of nuns, gender roles, and the recent issues with the Catholic church. The interview can be found here.

Clarity for Religious Pluralists: Do All Roads Lead to Rome?

2010-05-25T22:07:00.003-06:00

My mind has returned to thinking about religious pluralism because of a conversation I had with a coworker the other day, and also because of Lost (where something very similar to the above picture is in a prominent spot in the church where the final scene is held). The basic theory is this: all religions lead to God; therefore, all religions have an equal grasp of truth and goodness. It baffles me that people believe this theory, since it logically does not work. People will not say the same things of different philosophical schools, political traditions, etc., but they feel like they can say this about religions.

So, I’ve finally decided to publish a few short thoughts and questions that must be posed to the religious pluralist:

The fact that we have the debate provides some sort of a clue that not all religions believe the same God.
Religious pluralists can’t answer the question of what happens to people who are not evangelized, because it doesn’t matter whether you know the truth or not.
In fact, a religious pluralist must decide whether or not heaven is for all, since we all pursue goodness in some regard. Bad people pursue their own pleasure, though they do it in a bad way (but how can a pluralist say that anyone’s belief is bad at all?). Therefore, even very bad people believe in God, according to the pluralist. Therefore, religion is completely useless.
Pluralists deny that both goodness and truth are important. Yes, most religions agree on basics of morality (don’t kill, etc.) but the metaphysical truths taught are quite different. In fact, even the ethics (i.e. the goodness that is taught) vary greatly. Therefore, religious pluralist care little for goodness or truth, even though they believe that they care very much about goodness.
There are definite truth claims that are not compatible at all between religions. Many of these claims are significant and cannot be reconciled.
Religion has been around for so many years and the smartest and best advocates of these religions do not advocate that they combine. Why?
No mention of pluralism is mentioned in the Bible, why is this?
If all religions lead to God, would the religious pluralist be willing to die for Jesus or Allah, etc.? Somehow I doubt it. When the questions become this serious, the religious pluralist will not die for a specific figure or religion.

These are basic questions and statements that a religious pluralist must think through in order to be more faithful to themselves as human beings. For human beings are special in that they can use their brains to ponder such intricacies.

It is good to include a long quote from John Polkinghorne’s book that affirms the truth of the Nicene Creed, The Faith of a Physicist. Polkinghorne is more intelligent, eloquent, and helpful than I am, and so his words will be helpful to understand the topic a little more. I will fill out the blog post with a few more comments at the end.

The Nicene Creed was formulated in the course of the same century that had earlier seen Constantine’s conversion, with its consequence that, for a long while after, the theological debate was internal to Christianity. The ‘many “gods” and many “lords”’ (1 Cor. 8.5) of the Mediterranean world disappeared, as would the gods of Northern Europe, while the rift with Judaism was too deep for serious exchange to take place between the two religions for many centuries. For several centuries after the rise of Islam, the principal Christian response to this new religion was by way of resistance to its incursions and attempts at reconquest. How different is the situation today! World-wide communications, and extensive immigrations, have made us only too aware that Christianity is but one among the several great historic traditions present in the world of the faiths. For a bottom-up thinker there is a perplexing contrast with the spread of modern science. Originally the product of Western Europe, it has proved eminently exportable, so that one can expect to receive the same answer to a scientific inquiry, whether it is made in London or Tokyo, New York or Delhi. In contrast, while there is some degree of Christian presence in almost every country, in many it is tiny and the other historic religious traditions have shown great stability in the face of more than two centuries of widespread Christian missionary effort. It is a pressing problem for a credible theology, second only to the problem of suffering, to give some satisfactory account of why the diversity of religious affirmations should not lead us to the conclusion that they are merely the expressions of culturally determined opinions.

Of course, there is unquestionably a degree of cultural determination in our actual religious beliefs. If I had grown up in Saudi Arabia, rather than in England, it would be foolish to deny that the chances are I would be a Muslim. But the chances are also that I would not have spent most of my life as a theoretical physicist, but that does not mean that science is simply a cultural artifact. We must not commit the genetic fallacy of supposing tat origin explains away the content of belief.

To some extent the effect of culture is the inescapable deposit of the separate historical developments of communities. That does not seem to me to be enough. As with the problem of suffering, the difficulty lies not in the existence of the phenomenon, but in its scale. That there should be diversities of religious understanding is not surprising; that the discrepancies in the accounts of ultimate reality are so great, is very troubling. That perplexity is increased when we consider that it is knowledge of God, with all his power to make himself known, which we are considering. An American Indian said to a missionary, ‘If this faith is so true why was it not given to our ancestors?’ (Cragg points out that an Englishman could reply that it wasn’t given originally to his ancestors either. Some propagation of locally given revelation through space and time is not an incoherent possibility for personal divine action.)

There have been three broad avenues of approach to the problem of religious diversity. [The three avenues are 1) religious pluralism, 2) religious exclusivism, and 3) religious inclusivism. I will not include Polkinghorne’s thoughts on 2) and 3), but he settles on 3), which I think is correct.] The approach which is usually called pluralism regards the worlds’ religious traditions as being, in essence, equally valid expressions of the same fundamental religious quest, different pathways up the spiritual mountain. Its driving force is the conviction that God cannot have left himself without a witness at most times and in most places; that most people cannot have been cut off from his saving grace just by the accidents of circumstance. One of its chief proponents is John Hick, who writes, ‘Can we then accept the conclusion that the God of love who seeks to save all mankind has nevertheless ordained that men must be saved in such a way that only a small number can in fact receive salvation?’ I have already made it clear (chapter 9) that I agree with him in answering ‘No’ to that question. But ultimate universal access to salvation does no require the proposition of the essentially equal validity of all current religious points of view. Hick’s pluralist strategy is based on viewing religious tradition as alternative schemes of salvation for ‘the transformation from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness’. The Real itself is inaccessible, and it is only the culturally formed personal or impersonal masks of Reality which the world faiths present to us. Hick’s strongly instrumentalist view of religion means that, for the traditions, ‘their truthfulness is the practical truthfulness which consists in guiding us aright.’ ‘The basic criterion, then, for judging religious phenomena is soteriological.’ No one should deny the importance of religious praxis – ‘the tree is known by its fruit (Matt. 12.33, par.) – nor the presence of compassion in all the traditions, but a purely pragmatic account is as unsatisfactory for religion as it is for science.

When we come later to consider some of the conflicts of understanding between the traditions, we shall see how difficult a pluralist position is if one wishes (as I do) to assign cognitive, rather than merely expressive or dispositional, content to religion. Commenting on Hick’s programme claming to discern a noumenal common denominator, Ward says that ‘The assertion that “only the vague is really true” seems highly dubious; but even if it is made, one is making a selection from a wider range of competing truths in religion.’ It is just not the case that, under the skin, the world’s religions are really all saying the same thing, and one can question whether the attempt to impose pluralism on the traditions does not lead, as Schwobel says, ‘to a personal construction of the history of religions and religious attitudes that very few who participate in them would recognize as their own.’ The driving force of much pluralist thought is the desire to iron out differences in the search for tolerance, but this ‘can all too easily turn into a new guise of Western imperialism where subscribing to the principles of the Enlightenment becomes a precondition for participation in dialogue’ (D’Costa).. The particularities of the traditions must be respected.

Reflecting on all that has gone before, religious pluralism seems to spring from a supposedly intuitive opinion, where we realize that all religions lead to similar goods (i.e. ‘be good’, etc.). However, this opinion is simply that, an opinion that seeks reconciliation between religions, while really destroying them all. That religions are dependent on culture or “different interpretations of the one great light behind all religions” is simply not tenable, as simple logic shows us that their principal statements of faith are incompatible. (p. 176-179)

The goal, then, is to seek for the best and most true of the religions, which I am certain is Christianity. To stop gazing at and looking for the truth is to be anti-human, which is a challenge to those who simply think that we just cannot know very much about God beyond that he wants us to do good and love one another. Those people who claim that we cannot know much about God other than simple ethical truths deny the fact – or are blind to it – that love and goodness fall back on truth. For if something is not true, it cannot be good. And to seek God is the greatest task. We watch shows (I am thinking of BBC’s Planet Earth series) where we humans attempt to learn all there is about our natural planet, just so that we can ‘know.’ It is very human to ‘just want to know’. And yet, on the greatest of topics, theology, we chose to turn our brains off and settle for mere opinion, not founded on solid ground.

However, it is very important to note that other religions have aspects of goodness and truth, and that some religions are closer than others to knowing God. To deny this usually comes from a fear that does not allow for gradations of truth and goodness. To release an arrow and have it hit close to the bull’s-eye is much better than to miss the target completely. However, to hit the bull’s-eye is best by far. The bull’s-eye is to know Jesus Christ.

Towards a Philosophy of Worship

2010-05-18T21:53:00.002-06:00

A while ago one of my cousins said that he was attempting to write a "philosophy of worship", as he really wanted to contemplate on what worship is before leading his church's youth worship band. He commented that he was unable to find much by way of books on the "core" of worship. So, over the last little while I have been doing a little thinking and reading about worship. Below is the essence of my discovery. Just a disclaimer: the below is simply meant to provide a definition of "worship", not to give any practical advice; however, much practical advice can be worked out once a definition has been given, i.e. once the essence of a thing has been discovered.

It is my hope that people would give some feedback on this. Is something missing? Is an aspect poorly stated? What practical advice can be gleaned by reflecting on how to apply this definition to a worship service?

-----------------------

What is worship? It seems to me that worship is intimately connected to 1) knowing”, to 2) goodness of the object of praise, and to 3) bestowing honours. Each moment of worship seems to combine all three of these elements.

1) What is the person doing who is worshipping? Worship comes as a result of knowing. This is easy to prove: What we do not know, we cannot worship. The more we come to know the goodness of a thing, the more we admire and worship it. Therefore, worship is limited to our ability to perceive the object of worship.

2) But what is it about the object that is worshipped that makes us stand in awe before it? We worship what we think is good. The sunset strikes us as exceedingly good, as a sign of our Creator’s care for his creation and the time he spent making certain things beautiful, for pure pleasure. The sunset strikes us as good, not only because we love beauty, but because that beauty points to something higher. The same is true of eating good food, of smelling flowers, etc. This is also true when we worship God and sing his praises. The songs we sing revolve around proclaiming and remembering God’s good character. If something is not good, we will not worship it, but disdain it.

3) Each time I have used the word worship so far, it has been imprecise. So far, I have mostly been talking of “awe” or “wonder”. Worship, it seems to me, is our reaction to seeing/knowing a good. And the better the object is, the more we will praise/honour/worship it. This is connected intimately to joy.

These three aspects are the basics of worship. In one sentence, then, worship can be defined as “the honouring of some perceived good.” Or perhaps this definition also serves us well: "simultaneously beholding and praising Goodness."

Relatives

2010-03-17T11:47:00.000-06:00

My uncle sent my dad this email today:

Have a happy St. Patricks Day and remember to raise your glass of Guiness and give a toast to your 4^th Great grandfather, Richard Guinn, born in Monaghan Ireland in 1794, passed away Dec 1874 in Walkerton Ontario

And by the way – FYI – you are related to the 34^th President of the United States, Dwight D Eisenhower, your 4^th cousin, 4 x removed.

Cheers

The Great Strength of the Family

2010-03-09T19:27:00.002-07:00

I read the below quote in Stanley Hauerwas' book A Community of Character: toward a constructive christian social ethic earlier today. The quote is not Hauerwas', but from Robert Nisbet's Twilight of Authority.

"Even if we assume that in most places at most times a majority of spouses knew something akin to passionate love, however fleetingly, the great strength of the family has everywhere been consanguineal [of the same familial descent/blood] rather than conjugal [i.e. based on emotions]. And here, not affection, but duty, obligation, honor, mutual aid, and protection have been the key elements."

This is difficult to read. Between the lines of the quote, Nisbet whispers an uncomfortable word for people who follow their emotions while forgetting their intellects. We are informed that passion grows cold, that hearts deviate when difficulty knocks, and that love is a verb that often runs away. But there is hope.
Nisbet's whispers more than gloom. When justice and fairness reign, there is hope, there is constancy, and therefore joy and more than a chance for real affections.

We learn so little from society about what things really are.
"What is marriage," I asked Society.
Society did not know, and trying for an answer said, "It is what you want it to be."
"But, Society, aren't you abandoning something reasoned and sturdy for an institution half-made and ready to crumble?" asked I.
"I am simply telling you how it is!"
I walked away, perceiving that Society's angry retort was simply an attempt at masking her stupidity and lack of clarity.
I have had many conversations with Society that run this same way. Yet, sometimes there is a decent answer, or at least half an answer. These, too, are pieces of the puzzle, but often muddied and in need of a good scrub.

"Society!, we long for steak, but you hide a snake under plates! We cry for sunlight and you inject us with B12. We ask for lasting pleasure and you send for a prostitute."

Sometimes we ask God for the same pleasures. Sometimes he gives them, most times he says "in time", other times he withholds entirely for your good. But he does not kill us, give us poor substitutes, or give us twisted goods.

"O taste and see that the LORD is good."
-Psalm 34:8a

Lent and the Liturgical Year.

2010-02-25T21:19:00.001-07:00

I grew up in churches that seemed to barely care about the church’s liturgical year. The more I’ve researched and participated in the liturgical year (so far only Advent and Lent) the more I have enjoyed the deepness of the seasons. By saying that I have enjoyed the seasons more, I really mean that I have found depth to them more than ever before.

I encourage you to learn more about the liturgical calendar of the church and to participate in it. You will be surprised how your spiritual life will grow deeper roots.

Review: Live Sent. you are a letter.

2010-02-21T00:12:00.003-07:00

In his new book, Live Sent, Jason Dukes encourages Christians to live out their relationship with Jesus constantly. There are four ideas that Jason highlights in order to help the reader to “live sent”, that is, to live as a Christian focused on loving God and others, rather than having a self-serving faith like so many do today.

“First, in order to live sent, there may be some things we need to rethink. Foundational stuff. Life. Church. Relationships. Intention.
“Second, living sent is all about trusting your value. The primary hindrance for a follower of Christ who is made to live sent is that he/she does not trust their God-given value. What we need to understand is that our value is not appraised, it is declared. Trusting what God has declared about us and that He has entrusted His message to us for delivery is crucial to being the letter He made us to be.”
Third, “Living sent is all about doing life together. The epic of humanity… should be seen most beautifully within the movement Jesus started that He called His ‘church.’ Unfortunately, this is too often not the case. We tend to just be letters to each other [within the church] and miss the importance of being letters into culture.
“Finally, living sent is all about giving ourselves away intentionally. Jesus gave Himself away with restorative intent. We know what love is in that Jesus gave up His life for us, so we should give up our lives for others (1st John 3:16). It’s one thing to want to serve because of how it makes us feel. It’s another altogether to love and serve completely for the sake of what happens in the life of the ones we love and serve.”

As I read Live Sent I found myself being moved more and more to loving people all the time, to getting out of the shell I sometimes hide within, and getting to know and love others who I have not bothered with because of some sort of spiritual laziness. I was pleasantly surprised to be encouraged in this way.

However, there are two major problems with the book. The first problem is literary. To be frank, it seems that the author published his first draft without taking the time to correct grammatical errors and tighten up his prose. Of course, the book is written with the mood of a friend talking casually with a friend. I understand that. But writing is more than stringing words together. Also, the author could cut the book almost in half if he would have tightened up his sentences and stopped repeating himself, as if his audience would have trouble following:
“Your story matters, too. As do all stories of living sent. So capture them creatively and redundantly.
“Your story matters, too. As do all stories of living sent. So capture them creatively and redundantly.”
The above quotation is from page 139 of Live Sent. Of course Jason is being funny and friendly as he beats us with redundancy, but this makes for poor literature.

The other problem with the book is that it buys into a philosophy that seems weak. I was glad to read that Jason combated the problems of 19th and 20th Century evangelicalism, but I am not so sure that the system he buys into is much better. I think that Jason’s good ideas can find a home in a better philosophical system.

Part of the problem is that Jason often reacts too strongly against the negative trends of 19th and 20th Century North American evangelical Christianity. For instance, many people are tempted to relegate their relationship with Jesus to special times, places, events, and people. Although he takes issue with all of these I would like to highlight his view of the church, expressed early in the book, on page 11. Jason writes, “The suggested statement of how church has been defined implies that we go to church on Sundays to WORSHIP, as if that is the only time during the week that we worship.” Here, Jason is reacting against the idea that many people reduce their relationship with and worship of Jesus to a two-hour time-slot on Sunday morning. Of course, the reaction against such a reduced Christianity is valid, but does this mean that we should reduce the importance of meeting on Sunday mornings? No.

The kingdom of God requires that we worship God in practical and theoretical ways. For instance, it is important to love our neighbours in their practical, day-to-day lives. This is a way that we love God. But it is also important to praise God by having what I call a “philosophical awe” directed towards him. This can be as simple as seeing a beautiful sunrise and being filled with awe at God’s beauty, goodness, and ability to create. But our best and most consistent form of expressing philosophical awe is at special times, such as in quiet prayer, reflecting on the words of the Bible, or through songs of praise and worship. (Josef Pieper, in his book, Leisure, the Basis of Culture, has written very well on this subject.)

The leveling of places, times, and actions is detrimental to the Christian life. I appreciate Jason’s insights into the problems of a form of Christianity, but he need not toss the baby.

Despite the two major criticisms listed above, I am very pleased that Jason Dukes reminded me to live less selfishly, to care for others, and to encourage the “sending out” and not just the “gathering in” of Christians.

I would recommend this book if it was better written. I would highly recommend Live Sent if, in addition to the last stipulation, it was less reactionary and more balanced.

On Painting Nudes

2010-02-10T16:47:00.002-07:00

One tidbit I picked up from reading Chaim Potok’s fantastic novel, My Name Is Asher Lev, is that when an author paints a nude, it is a test of his character. Will the painter be overwhelmed by the beauty of the girl being painted, or will he be controlled enough that his desires won’t hinder him from creating a great painting? If the painter is not temperate enough, his painting will show it; and, if the painter is temperate, than he will be able to see the subject clearly and to paint her effectively.

As the painter during the painting of the nude is tested, I am sure that the author of books about sexuality, marriage, and the like is tested. If the author is temperate, he can gaze at his subject (so to speak) and discern its essence, its inner workings. If the author of such a book is not in control of himself, then the book will be a disaster, without as much depth of insight and generally stuck up on issues that are not of the essence of the subject.

We all know that lust clouds our thinking, making it nearly impossible to think clearly, leaving us mentally blind until the bout of lust either passes, is fought off, or is run away from. This is what struck me as I read the long, scholarly, and insightful apologetic for the Catholic Church’s stance on marriage, Theology of the Body, written by the late Pope John Paul II. That a celibate man can write such a profound book on the topic of marriage is astounding to me.

It is obvious to me that John Paul II was very temperate, that is, very much in control of his thoughts and desires. If he were not temperate, he would have been unable to share so profoundly, as a master painter, his insights into marital life, as his mental vision would have been clouded by other, probably less pure, thoughts. It is easy for the mind to wander, to be clouded, for the power of intellectual sight to be blurred, but this is not the case with John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.

May we all be so temperate, so clear-minded, and so profound. This will be difficult in a sex crazed culture. John Paul II is a testament, a witness, to the possibility of temperance in our time.

More Thoughts on Helping Haiti and Disaster Relief in General

2010-02-07T00:40:00.002-07:00

If you have not read the January 23RD-29TH 2010 edition of the Economist, you should. The reason is this: As I read the two (and a half?) articles on Haiti I felt affirmed/ vindicated in my previous thoughts on helping Haiti.

The first article on Haiti, “A plan for Haiti”, had the same sort of focus as my recent blog entry: authority. The subtitle to this first article in the Economist is: “Haiti’s government cannot rebuild the country. A temporary authority needs to be set up to do it.” However, the article did not seem so worried as I am about the possible looting and mini-tyrants running around. I read something similar about the problem of looting being too prominent in media reports. However, I remain worried – and I think justifiably so – that the power gap will often be filled by cruel people if good people do not step into it. In fact, the article, ‘A plan for Haiti”, seems to finally take the same position: “The longer it lasts, the more likely that desperation turns into violence.”

The second article focused on the problems that foreign aid agencies had in distributing aid and in dealing with the situation. The third article, which was somewhat of a mini article is very interesting and titled “Too much of a good thing?” This article focused on what can be learned from the 2004 tsunami relief effort. This article underlined the need for authority and organization as well. But I bring this article to your attention because it affirmed my thoughts about how effective donated money is. Apparently, only 39% of the money NGOs had promised to spend had actually been spent within 9 months (the article doesn’t say what happened with that promised money after the nine month period). Also, 75 tonnes of out-of-date medicine was destroyed by Indonesia.

Although this last paragraph might lead to skepticism regarding donating to relief funds, it should not. Even if opening up our hearts sometimes comes at the expense of turning off our brains, I am encouraged that so many people are willing to open up their pocket books. Also, the simple solution to this is for relief funds to set a donation cap, where they receive money into the specific relief fund up to a point (say $10 million – just a guess) and make sure to tell people who are donating after that cap has been reached that their donations are now going into their general fund and will come out of their general fund to help the specific cause if it is needed. Doctors Without Borders has done something similar and I think it is quite intelligent and less wasteful.

In fact, I think there are several solutions to the problems that we have seen with Haiti, namely a general disorganization of aid due to certain factors. Instead of all aid coming at once and bottlenecking, it might be good if a small group of people capable of assessing the situation came in with helicopters and surveyed the disaster area. This way, several important plans can be made, such as how much aid is actually needed, and the best ways to get the aid to where it needs to be most. At the same time as the “assessment group” comes in, a small group of aid-deliverers comes in, so as not to bottleneck, but still to deliver aid. (Of course bottlenecking will not always occur, but it will be one of the factors that we need to be aware of.) Then, after the “assessors” have made up a quick plan, the plan should be implemented immediately, taking into consideration such questions as: 1) How much construction equipment needs to be brought in so that the aid can have clear roads to travel on? 2) How much aid is really needed? 3) How can we coordinate with the locals and already established aid organizations? 4) What is the best way to establish order and a proper authority structure?

In fact, I would be surprised if the UN did not already have something like this plan in their books. If not, someone certainly needs to figure out a proper manual for disaster relief. Something like this will happen again and I am sure that faster, more effective aid can be delivered.

On the Essence of Marriage, Writing Well, and Good Popular Academic Writers

2010-02-02T17:46:00.001-07:00

I want to write a book on marriage titled “ On Marriage”. It has been a recurring thought of mine that an intellectual and heartfelt defense of the classical Christian view of marriage (one man, one woman, lifetime commitment, love, kids, under God) would be timely. My goal is to defend the Christian view of marriage against the modern liberal take of marriage, which is, as far as I can tell, summed up in a few phrases: “We love each other. We want the benefits of civil marriage. No more questions.” My hope is that the book will appeal to the average reader (Christian or not) and not go over anyone’s head.

I have begun my research, taken some notes, and just the other day I wrote a preliminary outline. Things are going well (though slowly). Still, there are a few snags that will have to be solved along the way. One of these problems is particularly troubling to me: I don’t know if I can write a book like this for a popular audience.

After reviewing my first outline I realized that no one would read this book but academics and pastors due to the technical language, depth, and possible length of such a book. It is not terrible for a book to be read only by academics and pastors, since scholars and pastors have quite a bit of influence these days, so I might change my target audience. But for now, I want to provide a teaching on classical Christian marriage that will appeal to the average reader.

(I became aware that I tend to write more academically after giving my thesis paper, “Virtue Ethics and Pastoral Ministry”, to some well-intentioned family members. One family member said they had fallen asleep when they first attempted to read my thesis. They have not gotten back to me yet. The other family member said that it was quite technical and also has failed to get back to me on any further impressions.)

These thoughts all lead me to wonder: what makes for good, popular –yet academic – reading? I currently have few answers to this question. The clues I have gathered come from other authors who are very clever and draw audiences both academic and average. The best way for me to think about this is to focus on four authors who I think do a good job of being both popular and academic: Malcolm Gladwell, Gilbert Meilander, Josef Pieper, and Clive Staples Lewis.

I think I was too young when I read my first book by Malcolm Gladwell. I was twenty or so. The book was The Tipping Point. I didn’t quite understand the book, but I believe it is about when things (movements, brands, etc.) go from moderately popular (or worse) to very popular. It was a good book as far as I can remember.

The second of Gladwell’s books I have read is called Blink, which is an interesting book about how important intuitive knowledge is. By intuition I don’t mean the type that we often think of when we hear the word “intuition”. Here I am not talking about unstudied, almost mystical, intuition, but the intuition that comes after long study of a subject or topic, which results in the ability to make correct snap decisions. Now, I’m not sure if that is what the book is really about, but I think it is. I didn’t totally get that book either. I was probably twenty-one or so.

In the past five months or so I’ve become more acquainted with and therefore more comfortable with Gladwell. Over the past year I have started to understand him better. I have listened to some interviews of Gladwell regarding one of his newer books, Outliers, and I have been reading the collection of his best pieces from the New Yorker called What the Dog Saw. I have been impressed with Gladwell in two specific ways: depth of insight and the eloquence (readability). Gladwell has an ability to talk about complex things with patience enough not to overlook important factors that audiences need to know about, and he does this in a very readable and interesting way.

Therefore, I have decided to learn from Gladwell. What have I learned so far? I’ve learned that someone can make me interested in why Heinz Ketchup is so popular and that attempts to make a new ketchup fail. Gladwell knows how to make any topic interesting, whether they are serious topics (the character traits of geniuses, CEOs, etc) or not (Ketchup). Gladwell also strikes me as somewhat quirky, which is endearing.

From Gladwell’s works I have gleaned a few important pieces of advice: 1) It is important to be patient with your audience; don’t assume that people will follow (and therefore want to read) your work if you get lazy by assuming that people can understand your inferences. 2) A certain mastery of style is necessary, or a writing can become quite boring; it is good if your topic is interesting, but it is even better if you can get people excited about your topic through your persuasiveness and ability to write with style.

I have only a few words on Gilbert Meilander and Josef Pieper. First, I must note that these two authors are more academic than they are popular, though they have found admirers among more average readers. I have learned from Meilander that good writing often involves the weaving of story and fact. I have found that this provides a certain beauty to his academic musings. Then again, other times I find that this distracts me and makes it difficult to pull out what he is actually trying to get at. Pieper, on the other hand, writes succinctly and powerfully. Most of Pieper’s books are on topics of major philosophical importance, and yet he rarely spends more than a hundred pages on a volume, which is amazing to me.

Thinking on the works of Meilander and Pieper I realize that little is added to what can be gleaned from Gladwell: Style (whether more poetic or more powerful) and content (providing evidence and making good points based on the evidence) are essential to master.

These same essentials appear in the works of C.S. Lewis. Lewis, for me, is almost the pinnacle of making very deep things extremely understandable. The first book of Lewis’ that I read was his very popular, very influential, and very scholarly (and yet simple) Mere Christianity. I did not understand much of that book during my first read-through. (To be truthful, I now recall that I have had very little understanding of Gladwell, Meilander, Pieper, and Lewis upon first encounters. I attribute this to my young brain. By young brain I mean the brain I had before I actually began to think of things with depth; before I could read well. In fact, I used to read merely for the pleasure of consumption rather than for knowledge, intellectual sparing, or the simple pleasure of reading itself. I was like a glutton who ate food even after he was full; I cared little for true nourishment. But perhaps this is another point to be gleaned from popular academic writers, that not everybody will understand them at first, but more exposure will help.)

I believe that Lewis’ ability to boil down major problems into a few understandable paragraphs must come from his own intellect, which I believe did this almost automatically (though, perhaps is more like the intuitive knowledge that I referred to when speaking of Blink; a great ability to see things quickly, but only after having much previous exposure).

Look at Lewis’ works. They are not very long, and yet they deal with topics of such depth that we could spend a lifetime of study on them. It was only after having studied, in depth, the seven virtues of the Christian life, (four natural: prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance; three supernatural: faith, hope, love) that I looked back at the sections in Lewis’ Mere Christianity that cover these virtues and found, to my amazement, that he boils some of these teachings down to mere pages. Lewis was also great using examples that made sense.

There is one common trait that I see in the authors mentioned, which must be essential to any intellectual writing: Gladwell, Meilander, Pieper, and Lewis have the uncanny ability to see the essence (the core part or parts) of a thing (whatever topic they write on). Therefore, they can boil there topics into their most basic elements, and if you explain these most basic elements, then you have done a good job of boiling a difficult topic into something bite-sized, or at least manageable. I can also divide the four authors into two different stylistic schools (some of these authors fit nicely into either school): 1) Flowy, and; 2) Brisk. The Flowy school is easily identified because it often weaves different ways of saying the same thing together, though almost unnoticeably, or it brings up certain themes over and over again without us noticing until right before it comes up. The Brisk school writes short works powerfully and succinctly.

To sum up the two major lessons I have learned I will use two key phrases and define them. The first issue in writing popular academic works is what I will call the “academic concern”. Academic concern has to do with discovering the essence of a topic, or finding the core element or elements of a topic. Once this is discovered, a writer will be able to explain difficult topics in more easily managed pieces, unless the author gets lazy. The second lesson can be called “poetic concern”. The poetic concern refers to the ability to use a particular style (Flowy, Brisk, etc.) well, or the ability to combine styles well in one’s writing.

How can I apply this gleaned advice to my (hopefully) upcoming book, “On Christian Marriage”? First, I must address the “academic concern” by see the essence of the thing clearly. And being able to explain the essentials of marriage in a understandable and logical way.
Second, I can apply the knowledge gleaned from good popular academic authors by writing “On Christian Marriage” in a specific style (the “poetic concern”), either Flowy, Brisk, some combination of the two, or in a school that I have not thought of.

How to Help Haiti

2010-01-27T15:03:00.004-07:00

If you are like me, you feel genuine sympathy for all the people suffering in Haiti, but your dilemma is that you are so far away and feel both physically distant and powerless to do anything. The generous donating of money is good, but there is must be something more that one can do. So, I will write to help Haiti, although I am not sure that this article will be of much help. As I have already said, I am far from Haiti. I am no expert on Haiti and provide this article as food for thought and action.

As I listen and watch news programs about Haiti I am astonished to find that most people focus on physical help. Of course the people in Haiti desperately need medical attention, food, housing, money, and heavy machinery to move ruble. This we cannot doubt. However, alongside previously listed needs, Haiti needs to have virtuous people with specific skills to rise up.

Good, skilled people. Haiti will not recover unless good, skilled people come into Haiti and train Haitians or find Haitians that are good, skilled people. What I call the physical help (medical attention, food, housing, money, and heavy machinery, etc.) that Haiti needs will only be useful if there are people who have the morals and the skills to organize, lead, and distribute well.

In the radio and television clips that I have seen, there has been little talk of Haitian leadership. I’m not sure why. However, I believe that the main concern for Haiti right now is leadership. Haiti needs a messiah (small ‘m’; meaning a political leader who will help to save Haiti from trouble) to rise up. When there is chaos and trouble evil tends to thrive.

There are stories of groups of Haitians who have just received food from foreign aid agencies and some person running into the crowd and saying ‘a tsunami is coming’ so that everyone will abandon their goods. The “boy who cried wolf” then turns into the wolf and takes all the goods that people have left behind. There are bands of people who – either because of their weapons, the size of their band, or their physicality – force other Haitians to give up whatever goods they have left.

Haiti needs good politicians who will unite people to the good causes of providing organization, civil stability, and some kind of law enforcement. Without political leaders (and this may be no more than a father leading his family, or a woman leading a group of 20-30 people) who are morally good and have political know-how and skill, evil leaders will rise up and torment the country.

Good, trained doctors, nurses, engineers, machine operators, economists, etc. are also needed in Haiti. Professionally qualified Haitians with these skills need to be found or trained. Without trained professionals there is little hope that Haiti will recover quickly or well from this recent disaster; both physical and personnel needs have to be met for Haiti to recover.

Help Haiti by giving money if you want. Giving money is better than nothing. However, my fellow Canadians must consider the needs for good personnel Haiti. If you are a good leader that can help organize and enable people, (and I doubt that you are), or if you are a qualified doctor, nurse, or an engineer, then consider actually going to Haiti. Or perhaps you know someone who fits into one of these categories that you can mention this to. If you cannot help and know of no one to help in Haiti, then we must pray. We must pray for order and leaders and engineers and doctors either to go to Haiti, to be trained up in Haiti, or both.

We must pray for Haiti. We must pray for good leaders to conquer evil gangs. We must pray for a type of Moses. May God hear the cries of the Haitians and our accompanying cries! Not that prayer is our only recourse, but it is an essential part of our love coming to fruition. Love must also come to completion in actions. How are we acting?

When A Civilization Is Ripe For Its Fall

2010-01-20T09:32:00.003-07:00

In the first article of my last entry, Beginnings of Thoughts on American Politics and Religion, I made mention in the last paragraph that North American Christians should be thanking right-wing Christian groups for preserving the voice (and therefore the power) of Christian conscience in North America. Now, I may disagree with the Christian Right or the Moral Majority, but I do thank them for showing some gusto that many Christians have lost.
I was reminded of this as I was reading one of my favorite books today. Joseph Pieper's The Four Cardinal Virtues is an absolute treasure, and it is especially helpful for people who have grown up in a Christianity that is supposed to view sex as moderately good at best and to view anger as an absolute evil.
The quote I am getting to comes from a chapter called "The Power of Wrath" in the section on Temperance. Pieper says that wrath is in fact a Christian virtue if it is exorcised properly. Wrath as a virtue, says Pieper, is the energy necessary to do good and fight injustice. Other forms of anger are evil. "Anger is 'good' if, in accordance with the order of reason, it is brought into service for the true goals of man [i.e. justice, goodness,etc.]" (p. 194). Quoting St. Thomas he writes, "Reason opposes evil the more effectively when anger ministers at her side" (p. 194).
And now comes the quotation that I have been providing such a long preamble for, which itself is something of a preamble for its last paragraph that I want to highlight:

It is particularly in reference to overcoming intemperateness of sensual desore that the power of wrath acquires a special importance.
Aquinas, it is true, also says that an acute temptation to unchastity is most easily conquerable by flight. But he likewise knows that the addiction to degenerate pleasure-seeking can by no means be cured through a merely negative approach, through convulsively "shutting one's mind" to it. Thomas believes that the deterioration of one power of the soul should be healed and supplemented by the still undamaged core of some other power. Thus it should be possible to subdue and, as it were, to quench the limp intemperance of an unchaste lustfulness by attacking a difficult task with the resilient joy generated in the full power of wrath.
Only the combination of the intemperateness of lustfulness with the lazy inertia incapable of generating anger is the sign of complete and virtually hopeless degeneration. It appears whenever a caste, a people, or a whole civilization is ripe for its decline and fall. (p. 196)

Now, I'm not predicting the fall of North America or anything, but it might be helpful to remember that Christians sometimes need to get angry (virtuously), and to speak out to people who are doing injustice and allowing injustice. Although this might take great courage for a people who seem bent to a non-Christian niceness, and although our pluralistic society tends to beat the voice out of us (how ironic, as its voiced intention is to do otherwise), we must commit ourselves to God's ways, and to helping our earthly society by encouraging goodness, justice, temperance, courage, etc. And as salt, we will help to preserve.

American Politics, Tolkien, Monks with Guns, Fenelon, and Ecclesiastes

2010-01-12T21:06:00.005-07:00

Yes, it has been a while since my last post. Please forgive the haste in which this has been written.

1) Beginnings of Thoughts on American Politics and Religion
2) J.R.R Tolkien's The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun
3) Buddhist Monks with Guns
4) Francois Fenelon on Dealing with Our Sins
5) Beginnings of Thoughts on Ecclesiastes

1) Beginnings of Thoughts on American Politics and Religion
I was thinking about the ideal forms of church and state and the ideal relationship between church and state the other day. Amidst my pondering I realized the the American Constitution is not as friendly to Christianity as is commonly thought.
Here are the beginnings of some more serious reflections to be had in the future:
I see the model in the USA to be essentially pluralistic. Freedom of religion is an essential freedom in the US. This pluralistic model seems partially good, especially from a stance within our own age (democracy was considered the worst form of government according to Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas (I presume), etc.). The pluralistic/democratic model frees Christians from much potential persecution, allows for freedom of worship, and does not (usually) hinder the Christian conscience.
However, I think that the pluralistic/democratic form of government bows to a Darwinian or perhaps Nietzschean theory, where the will to power conquers over the search for virtue, goodness, and truth. The theory is that the greatest good for the greatest amount of people is found in individual wills making concessions to each other. Personal concessions for the public good, this is the essence of the social contract (Rousseau). This seems good to the modern individualist, but might strike people from other ages as anti community. I would agree.
The basic assumption here is that people will get their way most of the time, but will have to give up certain freedoms of their will (i.e. the want to steal, etc.) in order for public order to preside, which is not so much for the good of the nation as it is for the good of the individuals.
But this presumes a nation of weak people. This Rousseauian/Lockean theory can easily be torn asunder once people with strong wills and the power/ability/money to get what they want realize that they can take advantage of the system. This has happened in the case of many powerful business owners and politicians.
The average person either has a weak will or does not have the means to get what they want. That is what the social contract theory presupposes. A Nietzschean Super Man with a strong will and the ability to get what his will desires can ruin such a system. I'm not sure how this might work (either than business and political scams, etc.) in real life, but this seems to be a theoretical weakness to the social contract theory.
The democratic theory also turns out to be largely Darwinian: the strongest survive. In the case of politics this means that people group with the most numbers, or the loudest voice can take over the system. In the past, this means that the Christian voice has stood out above the rest. This has lead to a Christian presumptuousness that America is a Christian nation.
I think that the opposite is true. I believe that America is set up to have a national religion that is largely deist. I believe this because the lowest common denominator between religions is that there is a god who created everything who is basically good, who we should follow. A pluralistic nation will most likely eventually ending up combining a number of theories about God into a watered-down version of sorts. Unless, of course, separate religion's voices become louder and therefore the dominant group.
American will never have more than a national religion because it is one people under God...it combines God, nationhood, and democracy into one system. The USA is not a Christian nation; it is a nation that is under whatever god becomes the most popular.
This overarching Darwinian underpinning (strongest survive) seems to lean to the fact that the social contract theory (most good for the most amount of people through conceding of will power for a orderly system that will allow my weak will to get what it can, but not so much that it won't get hurt) can be overcome by a Nieetzchean one (those with the strongest wills and the power to get what they want will rule).
The sketch presented here, rather than seeming basically Christian, appears to be anti-Christian in its presuppositions and leaning...as much as this was not intended by the Founding Fathers.
Although this system can be used for Christian means (when Christianity is at its most popular). Even when the system is used for Christian means, it can be argued that a Darwinian theory is supporting the Christian church (and vice versa) rather than the church providing for a more permanent political/theological/moral system.
The presiding pluralistic/Darwinian frame in the USA has seemed rather comfortable to Christians in the past, but that feeling is changing for many Christians. As more and more people from more and more countries find their homes in the USA, this might change even more. Perhaps the only reason that it has not changed more rapidly is because of groups like the Christian right and the Catholic church have kept their voices strong in the public square. That last one is an interesting thought.
Somewhat related, read this article from the New York Times.

2) J.R.R Tolkien's The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun
I just thought I would mention that I have been enjoying J.R.R. Tolkien's posthumously published The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun, which are two famous Norse poems. Tolkien has added some of his own words to these works, but he follows the old stories fairly well. He gave many lectures and classes on Norse legends.
I like reading sources from heroic ages. I enjoy the bravery, the interaction of mystical with every day live. Perhaps I am a romantic. I have also enjoyed reading this book of Tolkien's because the language is so poetic. It is incredible how much can be conveyed in a stanza with a mere thirty words to it. Beautiful.

3) Buddhist Monks with Guns
I read an interesting article today about violence and Buddhism. I mention it simply because it is interesting. The fact that Buddhist monks can commit violence, especially when faced with death, is not that surprising. Violence can be used for both good and evil.
Check out the article here: Monks with Guns: Discovering Buddhist Violence by Michael Jerryson

4) Francois Fenelon on Dealing with Our Sins

I have found the below quote from Francois Fenelon's Spiritual Progress to be quite helpful. It is from a chapter entitled "On Daily Faults and the Toleration of Ourselves".

"You will there find the weaknesses necessary to deprive you of all confidence in your own strength; but this discovery, far from discouraging, will serve to destroy your self-reliance, and to raze to the ground the edifice of pride. Nothing marks so decidedly the solid progress of a soul, as that it is enabled to view its own depravity without being disturbed or discouraged.
"It is an important precept to abstain from doing a wrong thing whenever we perceive it in time, and when we do not, to bear the humiliation of the fault courageously.
If a fault is perceived before it is committed, we must see to it that we do not resist and quench the Spirit of God, advising us of it inwardly. The Spirit is easily offended, and very jealous; He desires to be listened to and obeyed; He retires if He be displeased; the slightest resistance to Him is a wrong, for everything must yield to Him, the moment He is perceived. Faults of haste and frailty are nothing in comparison with those where we shut our ears to the voice of the Holy Spirit beginning to speak in the depths of the heart.
"Restlessness and an injured self-love will never mend those faults which are not perceived until after they are committed; on the contrary, such feelings are simply the impatience of wounded pride at beholding what confounds it. We must quietly humble ourselves in peace; I say in peace, for it is no humiliation to do it in a vexed and spiteful way. We must condemn our faults, mourn over them, repent of them, without seeking the slightest shadow of consolation in any excuse, and behold ourselves covered with confusion in the presence of God; and all this without being bitter against ourselves or discouraged; but peacefully reaping the profit of our humiliation. Thus from the serpent itself we draw the antidote to his venom."

5) Beginnings of Thoughts on Ecclesiastes
I wrote this some time ago after reflecting on Ecclesiastes. I read Ecclesiastes the other day and I still stand by much of what I wrote. However, I would like some interaction on this one so as to help my thoughts.

The Book of Ecclesiastes as Tragedy

If you have ever read the book in the Bible titled Ecclesiastes I’m sure that you have gone away puzzled and depressed. All throughout the book the author is telling us that there is no point to anything that we do, and that we must learn to enjoy our lives as much as we can, yet not too much so that we do not make God angry.
It seems to me that the author of Ecclesiastes has either missed a few important ideas, or he has become overcome with despair. The author does not believe in God’s vindication of the righteous, that is for sure. Although, he does believe that the moderately just will live above God’s “sin radar” and below the notice of those in power who might kill him or take advantage of him for his righteousness. Also, he believes, contrary to other biblical books, that the world is, at its core, conflicted: the good and the evil suffer similar fates, yet there is an importance to goodness; unjust rulers take advantage of everyone, yet wisdom does bring light to the eyes. He believes both that there is a just creator God, and that it is better to never have been born than to have lived at all.
Quite simply, the author of Ecclesiastes is conflicted and thus filled with despair. It is not a happy book at all.
The book of Ecclesiastes is a tragedy. The core of tragedy is irresolvable conflict. For instance, fairness is good and evil is bad, but there must be evil to have fairness, which is not really fair at all. However, it must be true that there is good and there is evil, or else we would not feel the conflict. One instance of this (and the book is filled with other such examples) is found in Ecclesiastes 5:8-9:
If you see in a province the oppression of the poor and the violation of justice and right, do not be amazed at the matter, for the high official is watched by a higher, and there are yet higher ones over them. But all things considered, this is an advantage for a land: a king for a ploughed field.
As long as there is power, there will be those who use it solely for their own gain, but these structures are necessary, so that there will be peace in the land. One ruling king is better than factions, and the king is powerful enough to protect you from oncoming armies, therefore providing a sense of peace and stability (represented by the ploughed field).
I believe that the author’s tragic outlook springs from his agnosticism. “Just as you do not know how the breath comes to the bones in the mother’s womb, so you do not know the works of God, who makes everything” (11.5); also, “I saw all the work of God, that no one can find out what is happening under the sun. However much they may toil in seeking, they will not find it out; even though those who are wise claim to know, they cannot find it out” (8.17). Although it is claimed that the teacher is wise (12.9), he does not have the same wisdom as that of the authors of the book of Proverbs. Perhaps the “wisdom” of Ecclesiastes even scorns the wisdom of Proverbs, or perhaps it was to be used as a sort of corrective for the extreme positivism found in Proverbs. Either way, Ecclesiastes leaves you feeling cold, unimportant, and in despair.

How do we respond to the author of Ecclesiastes? Is God conflicted in himself, with both good and evil? Or perhaps the traditional Christian understanding of the problem of evil is more satisfactory: evil springs from the free will of creatures, not from the Creator. We all know this, deeply, for we give prominence to fairness and order. All of the problems in Ecclesiastes can be reduced to three answers: 1) The evil in the world comes about from our moral problems, not from God; and, 2) God is “for” humans. This was revealed in Jesus’ coming to earth and his death for all, so that we might be with God. It is not his will for us to be disordered or in despair. 3) Judgment will solve the apparent inconsistencies involving justice in time. (both the judgment of sins in Christ, for the saved, and the judgment of the sins of the world, for those who do not accept Christ’s offer of salvation).

The tragic view affirms evil, while diminishing the role of goodness. This view destroys us, causing us to despair. The proper view is to see that god is good, and that he is being merciful to the evil so that they can repent of evil, and find salvation. He will later make all things new and he will order the universe aright. This brings light to our eyes and life to our bodies. Therefore, those who pursue life must affirm God’s essential goodness, and be patient until it is time for the final judgment.

Why is Ecclesiastes in the Bible? First of all, the Bible is not a children’s book. It takes intelligence and wisdom to be able to understand and interact with what is in the Bible. Ecclesiastes must be a large question mark for those who think that we should believe every word in every book of the Bible. If we affirm the words of Ecclesiastes, we must dismiss the affirmation of the goodness of God that is found in all other parts of the Bible. Therefore, we must be more adult in out interpretation and understanding of the Bible.
Ecclesiastes is perhaps best understood as a teaching instrument. When I taught ESL in China, after teaching good English for a while, I would insert some bad English (i.e. tell them that a picture of a dog is really a cat). I did this to make sure that the students were really learning and paying attention. Perhaps that is the place Ecclesiastes in the biblical canon, to instruct through falsehood. Otherwise, how could it be included among the other “wisdom literature”? Perhaps the same person or group of people put the wisdom literature together, knowing that they would use Ecclesiastes as a corrective and as a “false prophet” to test students. Perhaps this is what is meant in the Epilogue? (Besides being wise, the Teacher also taught the people knowledge, weighing and studying and arranging many proverbs (12.9).)
Perhaps this is when Jews decided that they needed to believe in resurrection to believe in a good God.

Advent

2009-11-29T21:53:00.002-07:00

For an above- decent article on Advent, go here.

Here is an excerpt from the article that struck me in particular:
"I don't remember this opposition of Christmas and the Christmas season when I was young. When I was little—ah, the nostalgia of the childhood memoir—I always felt that the days right before Christmas were a time somehow out of time. Christmas Eve, especially, and the arrival of Christmas itself at midnight: The hours moved in ways different from their passage in ordinary time, and the sense of impending completion was somehow like a flavor even to the air we breathed."

The above quote strikes me because I have been thinking about how religious folk and non-religious folk think about time. Modern history is very linear. However, the Biblical and Christian view of time is that there are times that are "high times" which connect us in a mystical way with things that have happened either in the past or will happen in the future, or both. Modern understandings of time have been stripped of mystery, or their attachment to something or Someone beyond time. The above quote helps me to remember and to celebrate the high times, especially this Advent and Christmas. I encourage you to read the above quote again.

Grace and Peace,
Andrew

Quotes Along The Narrow Way

2009-11-22T22:13:00.004-07:00

"Most want to possess the kingdom without labors and struggles and sweat, but this is impossible."
-Psuedo-Macarius (Homily 5, section 6; circa 380C.E.)

"That in which a man rests as in his last end, is master of his affections, since he takes therefrom his entire rule of life."
-St. Thomas Aquinas

"As we make progress in Him, through our way of life - in faith, in discipline, in virtue, and in community - our hearts will expand with the inexpressible sweetness of love; with hope we shall run together along the path of God's grace and commandments and we shall share in his divine life and his glorious kingdom."
-Adapted from the Prologue to the Rule of Saint Benedict.

"Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord;
seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.
For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.
Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge,
and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness,
and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love.
For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins.
Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble;
for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you."
- 2 Peter 1. 1-11

Thoughts on Hauerwas' Sermon, A Glimpse At The City Of God, "Open Theology" Blown Wide Open, and J. Wesley on Religious Nuts and Libertines

2009-11-07T12:30:00.027-07:00

I have not had much work lately. This is good news for you and partial good news for me, as it has given me reading and pondering time. Therefore, there is an exciting lineup of topics in this entry.
(Possible good news for me: there is a chance that I will be getting a job teaching ESL come January.)
I would suggest reading all articles this week, but not all in one sitting. (I say weekly because I will try to post weekly... on either a Friday, Saturday or Sunday every week).
I apologize for the length. I know that some are busy and some are lazy.

In This Issue:
1) Comments And Thoughts on Hauerwas' Sermon On The Badness Of The Reformation
2) A Glimpse At The City Of God
3) D.A Carson: "Open Theology" Blown Wide Open
4) J. Wesley on Religious Nuts and Libertines

1) Comments And Thoughts on Hauerwas' Sermon On The Badness Of The Reformation
In my last blog entry I drew attention to Stanley Hauerwas' Reformation Sunday (29 Oct, 1995) sermon on the why the Reformation was not so positive. In the sermon, Hauerwas, who is an Protestant, was critical of the Reformation and argued that the effects were more negative than positive. Actually, I'm not even sure if Hauerwas made one positive remark about the Reformation. This does not matter very much to me.
After reading Hauerwas' sermon, a friend of mine drew attention to the fact that Hauerwas was far too critical of the Reformation, because there have been very many good effects (such as the reformation of the Catholic Church, Christianity becoming more enlivened; all in all, a less corrupt Christian society).
I took a stance in between, agreeing with my friend that the Reformation has been very beneficial in many regards, but that we should be critical of it (especially as Protestants, who naturally want to view it in a positive light).
However, it must be asked: would the benefits of the Reformation been achieved without the Reformation, a little more patience, etc.? It must also be asked whether or not the long term results of the Reformation have been that good. My current position is realistic, in that we cannot turn back the clock. But I am also more critical than my previous fence-sitting position.
For instance, consider this important quote from Charles Taylor's monumental book about how the modern secular society came to be, A Secular Age: "True, it [the Reformation] reacts to another period of shocking laxity and corruption in high ecclesiastical places, but the Catholic Church it rejected had itself been the locus of reform efforts for several centuries..." (P. 243ff)
An important point that I take from this both is and is not Taylor's point. From this quote it is shown that, in the history of the Church, that reformation and renewal has always been important. From monks to confronting heresy and more, the Church has always been seeking godliness through types of reform. For the most part, though, these had happened inside the church walls. To be more blunt: If one of the driving forces within the Church is repentance, by which a person seeks unity within themselves (i.e. purity, holiness, etc.), then wasn't a less violent, lowercase 'r', reformation worth hoping for and being patient for? However, I concede that there are times when repentance must, in a way, cause violence within ourselves, which is obvious in the case of a drug addict bravely resisting powerful cravings.
As we know, much blood was spilled over the Reformation, many hard lines were drawn, great, though dwindling unity became discord (what did St. Paul have to say about this, as he feels unity to be so important), and divisions over leaders were made (again, what does St. Paul think about this; see 1 Corinthians 3). Would bearing with one another (Colossians 3:13) have been both more godly and more prudent? "For it is God's will that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish. As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil" (1 Peter 2:15,16). But perhaps the Reformation was a just and prudent, and therefore godly undertaking.
Also, I think that it can be argued that the Reformation was a type of revolution (and those living at the time must have thought of it as both a political revolution and a religious renewal, considering how religion was such an important part of the polis), a protestation against the governing authorities. Like many revolutions, the Reformation saw its goal as divine and just. Through this Reformation both church and state might be reformed!, the Reformers thought. But I would argue that it was the Devil who took hold of this thought; it was the Devil who twisted noble goals into ignoble goals in the heart of man, the results being shown much later. The result was that, ever so gradually, these people (all sides, since religion and nation were affiliated in the minds of all involved) combined religious goals with civic goals. This, in turn, brought people to think of their kingdoms and nations as sort of kingdoms of God on earth.
Whether this account is fully accurate or not, I think that it is true in outline. And this combining of the kingdom(s) of man with the Kingdom of God was further twisted by the Devil so that "this immense effort [of reforming the lives of citizens so that all might be godly, as is the goal of the church] seems itself to have obscured the essentials of the faith, and to have led to a substitution of something secondary for the primary goal of centring everything on God" (Charles Taylor, A Secular Age, p.244). Therefore, man's goals (including those of many Christians) become man-centered (anthropocentric), not God-centered (theocentric).
Perhaps thinking about the Reformation is a waste of time. It is not. It is true that we cannot turn back the clock (even if we want to), but we can learn for the future. One thing I have learned is this: Christians (and everyone really, even communist Atheists) must not look for the City of God to come to earth before Christ's return. To confuse the City of Man for the City of God is one of the biggest mistakes that can be made. To consider any man other than Jesus to be the Messiah, the Saviour (capital initial letters) is a tremendous problem, even when it results from good intentions. The Devil can dress up as an angel of light and incite men - who are ever so willing, and even if we are not, we are often dull enough to follow his plans - to build up the Tower of Babel once again.
I believe that many current problems and possibly many future ones can be explained by something like what is found in the remainder of this paragraph if we do not act on lessons learned: The City of Man, taught by the Devil, was inspired by the City of God to reach for a perfection which it cannot have. It is the problem of Babel all over again. In hoping that heaven could be accomplished on earth ( the wish of those who originally and even today want to build the Tower of Babel), men built a city based on their own abilities, which took divine agape, which is the property and great virtue of the City of God, and replaced it with philadelphia (which is also a godly virtue, if it is rightly ordered). But the love of man can only be understood rightly if there is some kind of love for God. As Aquinas points to, Seeing light is to loving God is as seeing colour is to loving man. It is only through seeing light that colour is illuminated (See the Summa Theologica II, II, Q.25, Art 1, IAT). Because it is no longer found in its proper order, love of man, or philadelphia, will also become a deformed, twisted sort of love. And philadelphia turns into self-love, emotivism and the rule of the will. Thus, God has scattered the people who have made Babel, and each speaks his own language; each has his own separate will and wants it alone to be done. However, men, from the after effects of true philadelphia, wanted to make a good society based on fairness. The truth is though, that most men know that they have weak wills and not enough power to get what they want, so they created societies based on rules and contracts so that the greatest amount of people could get the most of what they wanted. But there are and will be men with the power and the will get what they want. This is Nietzsche's Ubermensch,, the Superman, the strong-willed and powerful one who will take over the world. This is an antichrist. Will the righteous allow this continual twisting of what is good?
These troubling thoughts are almost too much for an article that began with considering the good of the Reformation, but they are not too much. However, I admit that this article has been presumptuous and too far-sweeping or all-engrossing, for which I apologize. I also apologize for what might seem to be a melodramatic end. I have sought to bring you on a journey of the mind that I have been on for a while and I have given you the cheep and fast tour.

2) A Glimpse At The City Of God

Continuing on my theme of the City of God and the City of Man, I want to meditate on a quote from Augustine's The City Of God Against The Pagans (otherwise known simply as The City Of God) Book V, Chapter 16. Read it slowly if you have the time. Here is the quote with my commentary (in blue):

[Augustine is trying to explain to his audience that the reason the Vandals (these were barbarians to the Romans) are able to attack Rome and give it so much trouble is not because they have started worshiping the Christian God and have largely turned from the Roman gods. In the process, he has to explain why God, in His providence, made Rome so glorious, even before it was officially a Christian republic/kingdom. He has just made the point that those virtuous Romans of the past sought only human glory, and that they have, in the words of Jesus, "received their reward in full" (Matt 6.2).]
Very different is the reward of the saints [which is not so small, nor as readily tangible and is not received on earth]. Here below they endure obloquy [reproach] for the City of God, which is hateful to the lovers of this world [the City of God itself and the idea of enduring reproach for something not tangible are both hated by the lovers of this world]. That City is eternal [and is therefore not to be found fully in time]; no one is born there, because no one dies. There is the true felicity, which is no goddess [Felicity was the name of one of the many Roman goddesses], but the gift of God [felicity is the gift of God, it is not to be got through honour from men, nor is it to be found by an earthly city. It is bestowed on us by God, we do not earn it]. From there we have received the pledge of faith, in that we sigh for her beauty while on our pilgrimage [the pledge of faith is the Holy Spirit that gives us a longing for the life that will be with God after death and also makes sense of our groaning for the life to come. We are pilgrims, sojourners, viators. This means that Christians are a people "on the way". We know we have not reached the final happiness, our final destination, but it is certainly real to us, and tangible in many ways. Our final joy is not in an earthly kingdom, but with God in eternal life, in the City of God. Christians must be patient on this journey, knowing that good and evil will often be mixed together during this life. Therefore, Christians must cultivate the godly virtues of faith, hope, patience, gentleness, and love]. In that City the sun does not rise 'on the good and on the evil' (Matt. 5:45) [Augustine had earlier made reference to this quote from Jesus. The point was that God has chosen a wise way of rewarding and punishing people during this life. I really recommend reading City of God, Book I, Chapter 8 for a good teaching on this, which helps us to understand why God allows evil to sometimes flourish during this life, while we have to wait for complete felicity in the life to come]; the 'sun of righteousness' (Mal, 4.2) spreads its light only on the good; there the public treasury needs no great efforts for its enrichment at the cost of private property [Having made earlier reference to giving life through birth, Augustine now makes reference to another resource that human cities need: taxes. Augustine highlights life and taxes as deficiencies in the state that need to be supplied, whereas St. Paul draws his readers attention to how the earthly city needs control over the lives and taxes of its citizens (see Romans 13:4-7) to maintain order]; for there the common stock is the treasury of truth [Happiness, truth, no taxes, and no death sounds nice to me. The goods of the City of God are held in common, which cannot be done on earth].

But more than this [that is, the Roman Empire was destined by God to be glorious in its pre-Christian days (and this lesson can be applied universally) not just so that the men would "receive their reward in full" for their human virtues of courage and valour, but there is a further purpose]; the Roman Empire was not extended and did not attain to glory in men's eyes simply for this, that men of this stamp should be accorded this kind of renewal. It had this further purpose, that the citizens of that Eternal City, in the days of their pilgrimage, should fix their eyes steadily and soberly on those examples and observe what love they should have towards the City on high, in view of life eternal, if the earthly city had received such devotion from her citizens, in their hope of glory in the sight of men [the further purpose was to incite Christians to be jealous of the love and virtues that the pre-Christian Romans had for Rome, so that they might be moved toward love of and virtue toward the City of God].

3) D.A Carson: "Open Theology" Blown Wide Open
Whether you know what "Open Theology" is or not, this seminar talk given by D.A. Carson is fantastic and illuminating. You can find the audio file here under Don Carson-Openness of God Theology.mp3. It is worth listening to all the way through.
"Open theology" is a theological position that attempts to solve the problems of there being evil in the world and the problem of predestination. (see Augustine's City of God Book I, Chapter 8 for some of Augustine's thoughts on the mixing of good and evil in the world and Book V, Chapters 9-11 for a decent discussion of God's providence and human will.) It does this by saying that God has chosen to limit himself by making it so that he cannot know exactly what is going to happen ahead of time. Sure, he can guess, and is a good guesser who is prudent and wise, but he doesn't really "know" the future. It is an interesting theological position that ends up with worse problems than double-predestination (the idea that God predestines people both to heaven and to hell).
I agree with Carson on many points, but I don't think on all.

4) J. Wesley on Religious Nuts and Libertines
I picked up John Wesley's A Plain Account of Christian Perfection about a year ago and I have been reading it on and off. It can serve as a good devotional book. In the book Wesley makes a good, intellectual, well-explained, case for what he means by "Christian perfection" and why it is possible to attain to. It reminds me of Andrew Murray's Absolute Surrender in some respects.
Nearing the end of the book, I was pleasantly surprised to find two sections that really struck my fancy. The first section is on what Wesley calls "enthusiasm", but what I have might call "Christian superstition" or "religious nuttery". The second section that I found interesting is directly after the first and has to do with religious libertines, or "antinomians", which are Christians who believe that the law does not apply to them, that they need not pray, nor read the Bible often. In simple English, an antinomian is anti=against, nomos=law. These sections really struck my fancy because I have fallen into ways of thinking similar to these before.
(To find the sections I am talking about, go to an online version, left click on Edit, at the top of your browser, left click on Find in This Page, and type in (without quotation marks) "what is the Second advice". The section on "enthusiasm" is under Q. 33 and the section on "antinomians" is under Q. 34)
There is much that I could draw attention to in from Wesley's discussions on enthusiasm and Antinomianism, but I am of little energy right now. Read them for yourself. Despite my reluctance, I do want to point out that, though many moderns/postmoderns might think that enthusiasm is for extreme (maybe right-wing) Christians and antinomian thinking is for nominal (liberal) Christians, they both spring from a presumption. Presumption makes you think that you have something (have achieved a goal) without having done the work for it (achieving the end without the means).
For enthusiasts, this means that the have an imagination to think that God is specifically talking to them, often through signs, dreams, visions, etc. These people are often thinking that they can read the inner sins of another and they let the other person know. Now, I know people who have been like this, both truly godly and not. Sometimes it is genuine. Wesley tells these people to "test the spirits".
For antinomians, presumption comes in the form of ideas like this: "I don't need to have specific times to pray each day, for I am praying without ceasing;" "every moment is a holy moment, so I need not go to church;" and, "why read the Bible consistently when the Spirit is informing me of his will every moment." This is presumption because the spiritual life is a journey, where we are growing in holiness, though Christ has already imputed it upon us. Antinomianism involves presuming that you are at a spiritual stage in your life that you are not at.

A Hauerwas Sermon, Wesleyan Hymns And Devotion, Aristotle On The State, and Equality Is Evil

2009-10-27T23:10:00.005-06:00

Hello. I am happy to present you with an interesting lineup of articles for this posting. If you have time for any of the articles, let it be #4, as it is the most interesting, controversial and perhaps most important article you may ever read in your life. Enjoy.

In This Entry:
1) An Old(ish) Stanley Hauerwas Sermon On Why The Reformation Maybe Was not So Good.
2) Wesleyan Hymns And Devotion
3) Aristotle On States as Natural And The Highest Form Of Community
4) My Thoughts On How Equality Is Often An Evil.

1) An Old(ish) Stanley Hauerwas Sermon On Why The Reformation Maybe Was not So Good.
I was directed to an old(ish) sermon of Stanley Hauerwas' earlier today. The sermon was preached on Reformation Day, October 29, 1995. Although Hauerwas is a an Anglican and Reformation Day is supposed to be a day where all Protestants celebrate breaking away from the Catholic church, in this sermon Hauerwas bemoans the Reformation. The sermon is quite interesting. To read the sermon, click here.

2) Wesleyan Hymns And Devotion
I have recently realized that hymns are fantastic for devotional times. Though contemporary worship songs are often emotional, catchy, and musically decent, they leave something to be desired. I find that a number of more contemporary songs are a little "fluffy" and leave a lot to be desired theologically.
And so I have turned to hymns. Hymns can be musically boring, and are sometimes fluffy as well. But, when a good hymnist is discovered, their works provide for deep devotional times. Recently, I have discovered the hymns of Charles Wesley. Charles Wesley's hymns are poetic, theologically deep, and emotionally deep. If you are interested in doing something different for devotions, then consider going to the Wesley Center Online and looking at Charles Wesley's hymns.
Here is one of Charles Wesley's hymns chosen at random (capital letters are where new lines begin):
1 AUTHOR of faith, to thee I cry, To thee, who wouldst not have me die, But know the truth and live; Open mine eyes to see thy face, Work in my heart the saving grace, The life eternal give.
2 Shut up in unbelief I groan, And blindly serve a God unknown, Till thou the veil remove; The gift unspeakable impart, And write thy name upon my heart, And manifest thy love.
3 I know the work is only thine, The gift of faith is all divine; But, if on thee we call, Thou wilt the benefit bestow, And give us hearts to feel and know That thou hast died for all.
4 Thou bidd'st us knock and enter in, Come unto thee, and rest from sin, The blessing seek and find; Thou bidd'st us ask thy grace, and have; Thou canst, thou wouldst, this moment save Both me and all mankind.
5 Be it according to thy word! Now let me find my pardoning Lord, Let what I ask be given; The bar of unbelief remove, Open the door of faith and love, And take me into heaven.

3) Aristotle On States as Natural And The Highest Form Of Community
I think that people should read and attempt to understand much of Aristotle's works, as I have found them deep, wise, and of considerable importance. If you have not opened up any of Aristotle's works, you should check out his Nicomachean Ethics, or his Politics, as they are more easily understood and more readily applicable than some of his other works.
Here is a most interesting quote from Aristotle's Politics in which he comes to the conclusion that the state is a natural and the highest form of community. Previous to this quote, Aristotle has been talking about smaller groupings of people, such as families and tribes/villages.
"When several villages are united in a single complete community, large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life. And therefore, if the earlier forms of society [families, tribes, villages] are natural, so is the state, for it is the end of them, and the nature of a thing is its end. [By This Aristotle means that a thing is most what it is supposed to be when it has developed fully. For example, a child does not show the nature of a human, for a child is said to be underdeveloped; whereas, a fully grown, intelligent, fully functioning adult is said to be the exemplar of what it means to be a human. Therefore, the most fully developed state of a thing is the end or goal of what a thing is supposed to be. In this case, Aristotle is arguing that the State is the fullest natural consequence of the relational nature of human beings.] For what each thing is hn fully developed, we call its nature, whether we are speaking of man, a horse, or a family. Besides, the final cause and end of a thing is the best, and to be self-sufficing is the end and the best.
"Hence, it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above humanity."
I wonder what Aristotle would have to say about the United Nations or the European Union. Something tells me that he would think that they might be something of an abomination, or a lesser for of political community than the state. See some of Pierre Manent's thinking on this.

4) My Thoughts On How Equality Is Often An Evil.
Is it just me, or are some things more important than other? For instance, (1) the eye is more important than the little toe, (2) the boss is more important than the worker, (3) the governor is more essential than the civilian; and, (4) the intellect is more important than the emotions.
It is interesting that two of the books on political and societal change that I am reading both mention how important the idea of equality was in distorting society. In Charles Taylor's A Secular Age, one of the main points seems to be that, in the secularization of the West, equality has been a major factor. Taylor points out that this idea of equality began in the church (especially in the Protestant sects), as leadership thought that all people should be attaining to the same high level of piety. The same idea was floating around in society, as it was in the church, for a more moral citizen would make for a better citizen.
This idea of equality (which is now coming into its most fullest form of fruition, where people of all races, genders, sexual orientations, ages are equal) went against an older form of thinking that said that the distinctions between people are important. The idea was that of "hierarchical complementarity". Just as in the body, the intellect should be in charge so that the passions could be guided correctly and so receive the best forms of pleasure, so there were higher and lower levels in society, family, and church. However, it was not simply a matter of higher being better, or more essential (though they were), but that each level served their purpose. For instance, in medieval society, the poor, though low in social status, were thought to be more holy. The point is that, although there is a hierarchy, the levels complement each other and help to provide society, church, family with its fullest array of beauty and excellence.
This thought is looked down upon today. If a person says that a man is the proper leader of the family, many, if not most, would strongly disagree. But this idea of equality, of the great leveling of humanity, has with it a denial of there being an ordered creation, where God has given each thing its proper nature and end. If everything is equal, then there is no order to creation, and then there probably isn't a God. It is very interesting to learn how important equality has become in this secularization process, as Taylor points out many times throughout his book (and he is simply stating this as a fact, not arguing that it is good or bad).
This very same idea is important in Dostoevsky's The Possessed, which is something of a prophetic novel of how Communist ideals began to infiltrate Russian society. "Everything must be reduced to the common denominator of complete equality" says Peter Verkhovensky, one of the main characters. Good and evil, men and women, rich and poor, virtue and vice all become equated by the progressive socialists throughout the story. But even the main theorists in the story know that there must be a ruling class and a "normal human" class, which is, in fact, just how communism happened. It is interesting how this equality often brings along with it the rejection of theism, as it did with Communism, with many socialists, and as is the trend in this "secular age".
It is amazing to think that this idea of hierarchical complementarity, which is so frowned upon by many these days, is what most people have thought for most of history. And I would even go so far as to argue that those who believe the Bible is true must largely accept this hierarchical view of life.
Once again, this idea is expressed in a conversation in The Possessed: "By the way, Shatov insists that if an uprising were started in Russia, it would have to begin with atheism. Maybe he's right. There was a gruff, white-haired old captain among them. He sat in silence, but then he suddenly got up, stood in the middle of the room, and said aloud, but you know, as though he were talking to himself, 'If there were no God, how could I be a captain?' Then he picked up his cap, shrugged, and walked out."
The idea that the captain was voicing, though rather discreetly, in the above quote, is that, if there is no hierarchy, there is no God. If there is no God, then things have not been designed, and therefore, the old idea, that God gave things specific qualities, jobs, and natures, is false. The idea is expressed by J. P. Sartre, in his The Humanism of Existentialism: "When we conceive God as creator, He is generally thought of as a superior sort of artisan… When God creates He knows exactly what He is creating, thus, the concept of man in the mind of God is comparable to the concept of a paper cutter in the mind of the manufacturer" And since Sartre was an atheist, he thought the opposite: "Man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. ... There is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. Not only is [each individual] man what he conceives himself to be, but he is also only what he wills himself to be after this thrust toward existence." This, is man's dignity, according to Sartre. And one of Dostoevsky's more extremely atheistic characters, decides that he wants to kill himself, as it is the most fearless act of self-creation, most fearless act of his own will.
But this is overtly un-Christian. In fact, this is anti-Christian! What a discovery!
It seems obvious that, in the Bible, men are to be leaders, political leaders are essential, good is better than evil, and that God is the highest in and beyond all creation. In the Bible, hierarchical complementarity is presupposed. So, perhaps we did something wrong when we decided to go against nature and start equalizing everything? I think that a strong case can be made that the Church Universal needs to go back to a more classical understanding of how creation actually works, for we seem to be conceding more and more as we agree with this idea of equality.
Equality is often an injustice. In stead of equality, we need to be exercising justice. Justice is giving something its due, and involves placing something in its rightful position, according to how God created it.
The church (and humanity in general, but I have more faith in Christ's church) needs to somehow regain the truths of the classical world and yet retain the good points of the post-classical world. How is this to be done? Perhaps I should write a book. This subject would be well worth researching!

Book Review: A Prayer to Our Father

2009-10-18T00:21:00.004-06:00

Review: A Prayer to Our Father - Hebrew Origins of the Lord's Prayer

A Prayer to Our Father by Nehemia Gordon and Keith Johnson is the latest book that I have received as an Ooze Viral Blogger. While I was awaiting the arrival of the book I began to question my choice. Am I really interested in a book that does what so many others have done (that is, commented on the Lord’s Prayer)? After having read the book, I am glad to say that I enjoyed my time with the book, especially since it had so much in it that I did not expect.
A Prayer to Our Father is short (170 page), easy to read, moderately insightful, and quite entertaining. The premise of the book is that a devout, intellectual Jew named Nehemia Gordon and Keith Johnson and an African American Elder in the United Methodist Church (miraculously?) meet and team up to deliver a book that Chronicles their adventure to better understand the Lord’s Prayer, or the “Our Father”/ “Pater Noster”.
Due to the complex nature of Gordon and Johnson’s meeting, their journey, and the meaning of the Hebrew version of the Lord’s Prayer, the book can be divided into four major sections. The first section comes after the introduction and chronicles how the two very different authors, from two quite different backgrounds were able to come together. In the second section, the authors tell the very interesting story of how they came to be friends, and their discovery that the Lord’s Prayer, and the whole of the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (though this was new to them, this is not new to biblical scholars, though it is often undervalued).
The third section of the book was one of the most exciting parts for me, because it involves the two authors trying to find the actual place where Jesus spoke the Sermon on the Mount, which contains the Lord’s Prayer. The description of the place where Jesus probably preached the famous sermon will stick with me and be an incredible mental picture that will enliven that text for me.
In the fourth part, the authors explain and comment on the Lord’s Prayer using insights gained from the Hebrew text, which often brings clarity and insight to the passage. Though this part of the book was good, it was not great. However, I still believe that the gems that can be gathered from this section make this part of the book worth a glance.
Another major component of the book is that it involves a Jew and a Christian getting together and meeting on common ground. This provided insights that could not have been gleaned otherwise.
All in all, the book was mostly a pleasure to read (though there were moments where it got bogged down and the insight was almost anti-insightful to me). I would recommend this book, especially for the storyline and the discovery of the spot where the Sermon on the Mount was probably preached.

Check out the book's website here.
Listen to a interviews with the authors here and here.

News-Media, Devotional Life, Alexisonfire, and a Controversial News Article

2009-10-16T22:34:00.007-06:00

In this blog:
1) News-Media
2) Straight Talk on Devotional Life
3) Alexisonfire's Anti-Christian Album
4) A Controversial News Article About War

1) News-Media
There were a few interesting articles in the Atlantic, October 2009 edition, especially revolving around media. The two articles that I would like to highlight are "The Story Behind the Story" by Mark Bowden and "Cheap Laughs" by Christopher Hitchens.
First, I thought that Christopher Hitchens made an interesting point in his article, "Cheap Laughs". The subtitle to the article reads: "the smug satire of liberal humorists debase our comedy - and our national conversation." Very interesting. Though I enjoy watching Jon Stewart from time to time and although I quite enjoy the Colbert Show and despite the fact that I enjoyed Al Franken's The Truth (With Jokes) I must say that I agree with Hitchens in his critique of how people have allowed these comedians to become major news analysts. Although satire can be very helpful in small doses (especially if it is done well - and a big part of the article is that it is not being done well). But if satire becomes the main source of news, it will help to sour its viewers even more, and this will take away from any possible national unity. Whereas the prophet is traditionally supposed to point out the evil in a nation, he should also give some hope, and he should be concerned about national unity. My basic argument is that when a nation's or generation's diet is solely or mostly or even substantially satirical, that generation or nation will turn on the government that provides a fairly good life. Though Hitchens doesn't seem to make the same argument that I am making, it certainly lies in his premise that the national conversation is debased by satire.
Secondly, Mark Bowden's "The Story Behind the Story" is an article that points to the fact that a lot of news coverage is nothing but the opinions of ideologists who drag up dirt and info, with little true, objective research in order to get their view across.
To make his case, Bowden takes the case of the resent Sotomayor nomination to the Supreme Court. Do you remember that, during Sotomayor's nomination, the news coverage was against her? The supposed evidence that Sotomayor was a racist, law-making judge were based on words that were directly from her mouth... though - Bowden proves - the statements were greatly taken out of context. But where did this pieces of evidence come from? who drug them up from Sotomayor's history?
It turns out that Morgen Richmond, a right-wing Christian (Sotomayor is a Democratic judge), randomly came across what he saw to be evidence against Sotomayor's judicial integrity and therefore legitimacy. Richmond posted a speech clip on his friend's site and on YouTube and left it at that. He was surprised to see it all over the news during Sotomayor's nomination.
The point that Bowden makes (and he uses only the case of Sotomayor's nomination, I believe) is that the news companies did little of their own research into Sotomayor, but relied on some media clips to stir up some controversial news that was more interesting and less work for them. These clips came from an under-researched, ideologically-driven source. (Granted, everyone is ideologically slanted, but there is a difference between basing your preference on researched truth than simply searching to back up your preference with under-researched 'truth'.)
Considering the power of news-media, it is extremely important that reporters and journalists do due diligence. We expect no less of any other job.
The classic (Platonic-Aristotelian) view of the soul is that the intellect comes first, then the will. The important thing to notice is that it is the intellect that moves the will. The intellect must properly see or perceive what is right and then move the will to do it. Bowden is getting at this same idea when he says, "Journalism, done right, is enormously powerful precisely because it does not seek power. It seeks truth" (p. 54).

2) Straight Talk on Devotional Life
A friend recently asked me what I do to try and keep my faith vibrant. I gave several answers that I believe to be important: Read the Bible consistently, pray consistently, write letters to God, read good authors, and be involved in a small group.
I said that it is up to us to to exert effort and to try and encourage a positive attitude in ourselves. Often, when we are down and not really feeling God moving, we tend to feel bad, and to blame God. Both of these reactions are counterproductive.
If we are feeling bad because of sin, we should remember the words of John Wesley: "And when the sense of our sin most abounds, the sense of his love should much more abound." It is true that we should feel bad about our sins and to do something about them, but to dwell on sin leads us into despair. We must know that, though our sin is great, God's mercy is all the greater and he loves us.
Sometimes when our spiritual lives are down we blame God. We blame God for not being tangible to us, for not being understandable to us, for not making us happy, etc. The truth is though, that God's goodness is the same all the time, so we really have reason to rejoice at all times. Rather than blaming God, it is important for us to continue or start developing our spiritual lives. We are the inconstant ones. We are the sinful ones. We are the ones that tend to pride and laziness. Read 2 Peter 1.3-11 to see what Peter recommends. He says that God has given us everything necessary for a god-ward life of virtue and unity with God, but that we must exercise and build upon our spiritual lives. We must use what God has already provided for us. And the ability to live such a life is given to people who have been cleansed of past sins.

3) Alexisonfire's Anti-Christian Album
Probably few readers of this blog are fans of the edgy band, Alexisonfire (Alexis on fire). However, to those readers who enjoy Alexisonfire, it is might be interesting to note how anti-Christian their new album, Old Crows/Young Cardinals is.
Here is my view on three of the songs on the album. I previously sent this in an email to a friend. There are a few changes here.
1) Born and Raised seems to be a raising of the question: "Is there a Creator who has made everything and therefore a hope of things beyond or is everything here through chance?" Perhaps they are settling with some sort of agnosticism. Fair enough. Perhaps we all feel a pull between wanting something better and yet seeing the indifference in nature. But the ideas of truth, justice, etc. seem to confront us with a universe that is very concerned with goodness.
2) The Northern seems to be a stinging critique (as it should be) of a type of Christianity that seems to be vindictive against people who disagree with it. I disagree with that view as well. It says in the case that it is based on an old hymn. The song reminds me that they are reacting against what Christians might call a "heresy" if we were living before 1700 or so. But now it is just one view among a few. A more proper view is strangely expressed by J.P. Sartre in his play No Exit where people are in hell due to their own vices and choosing. Also, without the punishment of wrongs after death, it is hard to argue that fairness or justice during life are anything but arbitrarily enforced.
3) Accept Crime surprised me as kind of a stupid argument after the at least semi-intellectual songs before it. They seem to be basing their argument for using their bodies as they please (especially in regards to the physical pleasure of sex) on the fact that no outside authority can tell them how to act. True enough. They don't have to listen. I would say that the authority must be internal to be consistent. In fact, I think their authority argument can go against them. It seems that many people use something external to retard sex: i.e. birth control. Also, it often seems to be our culture (an external authority/pressure of sorts) that leads us to consider that using our bodies as we please is the best thing to do. Many fail to consider that, perhaps, there is a greater pleasure (different than physical pleasure of course, which is palpable to even children) that can be grasped through self-control or temperance.

4) A Controversial News Article About War
Here is a link to a controversial article that might help us to reconsider the value of force and the necessity of injustice in war: Civil Fights: Goldstone's recipe for never-ending conflict by Evelyn Gordon.

Pierre Manent on Political Philosophy

2009-10-15T17:45:00.002-06:00

Recently, I discovered Pierre Manent, a French political philosopher. Some of his stuff is genius and I will enjoy reading his books one day (hopefully soon, but I have some other to get through first). But for now I am left with an article he wrote for First Things back in May 2000, titled The Return of Political Philosophy.
The article is a bit lengthy and technical, but if you are at all interested in political philosophy or are discontent with modernity and modern politics, take a look at the article. It will be worth your while.

A Thought from the Monster to Ponder

2009-09-24T21:51:00.006-06:00

It is amazing how often I think thoughts similar to those of the monster in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein:
"Was man, indeed, at once so powerful, so virtuous, and magnificent, yet so vicious and base? He appeared at one time a mere scion of the evil principle, and at another as all that can be conceived as noble and godlike. To be a great and virtuous man appeared the highest honour that can befall a sensitive being; to be base and vicious, as many on record have been, appeared the lowest degradation, a condition more abject than that of the blind mole or harmless worm."

How do we get from vices (bad habits) to virtues (good habits), from vicious to virtuous?

Three housekeeping notes:

1) A while ago I wrote about a debate on Honduras that was aired on democracynow.org. I had not listened to the debate at that time. I listened to the debate a week or so later and am just now commenting on the debate ever so briefly. Not only was the debate interesting to listen to due to my interest in Honduras, but it was fun to listen to the debate by way of rhetorical skill, like watching two boxers fighting for the title. Either way, I suggest that you give the debate a listen. Find the debate here.

2) Recently, I have been reading A Secular Age by Charles Taylor. A former professor mentioned the book when I was preparing to interview Bart Ehrman. Here is the premise of the book: "The change I want to define and trace is one which takes us from a society in which it was virtually impossible not to believe in God, to one in which faith, even for the staunchest believer, is one human possibility among others." Very interesting, and something that I find very fun and influential to ponder. I am currently 120 pages into the book and I am finding it to be a treat. Despite the continual repetitions (which are necessary, due to the complex history of the subject) and the 850+ pages, people should not be deterred from reading this book.

3) Go to democracynow.org (September 24th, 2009) to find an interview of Michael Moore centering on his new documentary: Capitalism: A Love Story.

Reflections on 1 Corinthians 2.1-5

2009-09-19T11:57:00.002-06:00

2.1: Paul did not come to the Corinthians proclaiming (there is that word again) the mystery of God (is this the same as the message about the cross from 1.18?) using rhetorical skills or even human wisdom. Why, then, is this so important nowadays? Or is it that Paul knows that they must see a changed life first, that they must have a change of mind and heart in order to know the wisdom that is from God, in order to delve deeper and deeper into the truths of God?

2.2: Paul chose to live the way of renunciation; he chose to know nothing among the Corinthians except Jesus Christ and Him Crucified. This can mean a few things, but it seems plausible that he chose the way of self-giving and self-renunciation. It can also mean, or this meaning can be added to the last: He preached Christ and His death and self-giving, and did not bother with the convincing words of philosophy or sophistry.

2.3: Paul came with an attitude of a servant to his master. He came to serve the Corinthians. He came to the Corinthians in weakness and fear and trembling. This phrase, “fear and trembling” occurs a few other times in Paul’s letters, namely 2 Cor.7.15 (The proper attitude of the Corinthians to the arrival of Titus…complementary to being obedient), Eph 6.5 (slaves obedient to masters; a slaves attitude to his master), and Phil 2.12 (work out salvation with…). Generally, these phrases seem to connote the proper attitude of a lesser to a superior. Once again, this points to the self-emptying attitude that Paul learned from Jesus Christ, especially in His crucifixion.

2.4: This self-giving is a demonstration of the freedom from and the work of the Holy Spirit. Paul let his life – under the power of the Holy Spirit/ in Christ – that spoke for itself. Paul knew that the message of the cross, the mystery of God (once again: are they equivalent? It seems so here.) was foolishness, that God emptying himself, suffering, and dying was foolishness to the Greek mind. He did not speak what they would have thought of as plausible words of wisdom. Instead, Paul demonstrated what a life in the Spirit is like. His proclamation (once again, this word comes up) was through deeds of the Spirit. The mystery of God, which Paul proclaimed, came by way of a demonstration of the Holy Spirit and power. Now, does this mean that the Corinthian church was mostly Gentile, because earlier Paul was saying how the Jews wanted to see signs (1.22), and the proclamation of Christ crucified (which by now seems to be the mystery of God he was proclaiming because of the frequency of how the word proclamation is being used) was a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1.23). What I am asking is: aren’t these signs to the Jews and therefore this type of proclamation through deeds is not a stumbling block to the Jews. In the end though, I think that Paul is not talking about miracles (though he might be), but about the demonstration of a changes, pure, holy life that gives of itself.

2.5: Paul proclaimed the mystery of God (the self-emptying, self-giving nature of God = the message of the cross, proclaiming Christ crucified) in this manner – through deeds, not through convincing arguments – so that the faith of the Corinthians did not rest on human, intellectual knowledge, but on the power of God. Therefore, it is through the proof of a life lived in the Spirit that Christ is proved. How hard this is to come by when our tendency is towards pride and a demanding of rights! None of us likes to be offended, but if we suffer offense, loss of rights, and give of ourselves in humility and truth – in Christ – we will be God’s true ambassadors to the world. This reminds me of two stories that I heard in the last two days – both at work, speaking with people in the construction/demolition industry. I spoke to one man from Nigeria, Africa who said that the preachers in his country were always one-upping each other in order to attract more converts and more money. He said that you could not be on TV as a pastor unless you were performing miracles, that you would be considered a laughing stock. He told me this because he asked me if my motive for going into the ministry was for money or for what? Another story: a guy I work with told me that he went to Catholic school. During his time at that school a priest told him, in front of his eighth grade class that he was going to hell, not for anything he had done, but because he was born out of wedlock. The actions of Christians can be atrocious. And yes, grace is available for us all, live according to what you believe. If you have stopped acting like a Christian, don’t call yourself one; or, if you call yourself a Christian, you must work out your salvation with fear and trembling, submitting yourself to God, so that He may change you. It is so easy for our sinful nature to rear its ugly head, whether it is in need of approval, in pride, in asserting one’s own rights, in self-pity, in debauchery, in whatever of the dead fruits of the world. We must watch our lives and our doctrine closely (1 Timothy 4.16). Lord, help us. Live in us and change us. Make us more like you.

3) DOERS OF THE WORD

2009-09-18T06:08:00.000-06:00

This is the third in a series of talks that I gave at SGA's Crossroads Summer Camp.

Holy Spirit guide us. May we think about these things long after this weekend. Teach us. Make your truths to dwell in our hearts and minds and help us to persevere in training ourselves. Move us to action.
This talk is called Doers of the Word. It only makes sense that after having first learned what faith is and some reasons for belief in Jesus, and after having learned about the importance and beauty of some of the core tenets of Christian belief, that we, along with James, talk about the importance of acting on that belief. In his letter in the New Testament, James was very concerned that his readers would not just hear the gospel and forget that it needs to impact their life. He urges Christians to act on their beliefs. James 1.22-24 says, “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks at (NIV).”
If we look into the mirror in the morning and see that we really need to shave, that our hair is a mess, or that there is a gross red stain on our white t-shirt and then forget about it immediately, and if we go about through our day, we will be regarded as slobs, not get a date, not get the job you are interviewing for, etc. If we look at ourselves in the mirror again, later, we will probably be embarrassed of how we presented ourselves to the world.
God’s words to us are like a mirror, showing us what defects we have; showing us how much God loves us, revealing how we should be basing our life on Jesus’ life. If we think that our appearance is important, how much more important are our actions, our love, our anger, our snootiness? Our attitude, demeanor, and actions are supremely important, but how often do we try to line our lives up with what God reveals to us in the Bible, in sermons, in camp talks, or through the Holy Spirit teaching us something in prayer.
James says that faith without works is dead. The way we act, the way we talk, what we talk about, how we help others, etc. shows our faith. James writes: “Faith by itself, if it has no works is dead” (James 2.17); and again: ”Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe – and shudder” (2.12,19).
How easily we can read or here these words inspired by God and pass them by, as if forgetting to comb our hair after seeing what a mess it is. It is written for us. It must be taken seriously. Even the demons believe in God, just as we do when we read the Bible and then do something counter to what God has taught us.
The question James is asking is this: “Does what you say you believe in actually affect your life?” Take some time to consider this seriously. Does what you say you believe in actually affect your life?
Do you believe that God is good? Then are you joyful, trusting that he takes care of you? Does your worry are anger or grumpiness show that you don’t always believe that God is good?
Do you believe that God is been merciful to all? Are you merciful and generous to others? Do you give even when it hurts? Do you show kindness and gentleness even when someone gets on your nerves? Do you show the same kind of patience that God has shown you?
Do you believe that God is powerful and answers prayers? Then do you ask Him to help you and to empower you to love others, to be kind, merciful, gentle, patient, joyful, self controlled, loving, and peaceful? These are the fruit of the Spirit and God will be faithful to grow these virtues into your life. Are we willing? Do we believe that God can do such a thing?
It is clear in the New Testament that the gospel is not just a personal opinion. It is not something that we can hold when it is convenient. Our faith in Jesus Christ is truth for the whole world to know.
How sad that we have relegated faith to personal opinion! Christians know and believe that Jesus is Lord. That is truth. If the gospel is true it has individual, communal, and universal implications. We all know that faith is not just for Sunday mornings, but is our faith so weak that we are not living out our faith or encouraging it in others? Are we being too timid too scared, or are we just uncertain of what our faith is and how true it is? It is my prayer and the wish of the Holy Spirit that you have grown in your knowledge and confidence that Jesus is Lord. The goal of the teachings on faith this weekend has been to move you to confidence in the gospel, so that you might live it out in your life with confidence, passion, and joy; and so that you will share it with others.

The gospel must be believed and lived by you as an individual. You must understand it. Of course, there will always be questions that we want to solve, and we cannot understand the gospel fully, but, if we claim to be Christians, we need to understand what we believe and we are to live it. If you are studying to be a doctor, an engineer, a pastor, or anything else, you will study hard, persevere, grow in understanding and act on what you have learned and have come to know. It is the same for Christians and their faith.
Christians should study God’s word, the Bible, to learn who God is and who God has called them to be. We must also pray, both talking to God and listening to the Holy Spirit. We must be intelligent, be unafraid to ask questions, to probe deeper and deeper into what it means to be a believer and to learn how great it is to be children of God, through Christ Jesus. This is done out of love, passion, and discipline, not out of trying to appease God. God wants your heart and your mind; your entire self.
A faith that is only intellectual will not impact your everyday life, instead your faith will stagnate and will become dead. Trust me, I have leaned this way before. I have also leaned the other way, where my faith has been a matter of the heart only, not intelligent, but very caring. This type of faith is better than a stagnating intellectual “faith,” but it is not as deep and meaningful.
We must learn to love God with our whole being, trusting God to aid us in understanding and making sure that we teach our hearts to act on His truth (we often have to teach our hearts, for they are stubborn; this requires self-control, will-power, discipline). We must act on what we know, not relying on emotion, but being committed to loving God.
If you believe that God’s love for you, as shown by Jesus, is true, then you must live your life accordingly, or else you are a liar.
Philippians 1.9-11: “And this is my prayer, that your love may overflow more and more with knowledge and full insight to help you determine what is best, so that on the day of Christ you may be pure and blameless, having produced the harvest of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ for the glory and praise of God.”
And again, faith is not only to be practiced on Sundays; instead, we are to be knowingly living in God’s presence all the time. 1 Thess. 5.17 (“Pray without ceasing.”).
If you don’t act on your belief in God, your faith is dead.

But we are not just individuals. As Christians, we are members of Christ’s body, the church. It is easy for us to forget in our day – when we have become so concerned with being “individuals”, when we have lost that communal closeness that has been alive in families and churches in the past – that the New Testament is most often not addressed to individuals, but to the churches as a whole. This means that our faith is corporate as well as individual.
Colossians 3.12-16: “As God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience. Bear with one another and, if anyone has a complaint against another, forgive each other; just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; teach and admonish one another in all wisdom; and with gratitude in your hearts sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to God.”
Hebrews 10.24-25: “Let us consider how to provoke one another to love and good deeds, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day approaching.”
This leads us to wonder: How does our church function as the body of Christ? Are we forgiving? Do we “bear” with one another when that is the best option? Do we encourage each other in the faith? Do we take time to talk about our spiritual lives with one another? Are we afraid of being spiritual, even in church? I’ve notice that you get mixed reactions from Christians when you say, “God bless” to them. Some are surprised that you would even say it. Others think you are uttering a cliché, and others really appreciate it. What about you? Are we good at encouraging each other in our walks with God, and in our communal walk with God? Does we act on our faith in church? Is our faith proven dead based on our acts in the church?
How do we encourage one another in the faith?

Our faith is also proven dead if we do not encourage others to believe the same. If we don’t think our faith is worth sharing, if we don’t really believe it ourselves, we will not share it, or make it public. Also, if we are timid about our faith, we will be timid about sharing it. Missionary Lesslie Newbigin, making the same point, once wrote: “Missions are the test of our faith that the gospel is true… The test of our real belief is our readiness to share it with all peoples.” This is true. An author would not publish a work of non-fiction unless he or she believed it to be true and accurate. When we are timid about our faith (either in deed or in word) we are showing that we are not too sure of what we believe.
I am not talking about evangelism, per se. I am talking about day-to-day life. In First Peter we see that our everyday conduct is essential: “Wives, in the same way, accept the authority of your husbands, so that, even if some of them do not obey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives’ conduct” (1 Peter 3.1).
It is the same for us all. The way we act at work, how we respond to others when we are stressed, our attitudes, our quickness to ask for and to give forgiveness. All these and others, if we live them out consistently, by the power of God, will be evangelizing in the most excellent way.
Of course, we must share the gospel verbally too. It is now act rightly or present the gospel verbally; it is both. Our words will mean nothing if we are not living out our faith, and our acts will mean little if people think it is just because we are “good people,” not knowing why and for Whom we act the way we do.

Clearly, God wants us to act on our faith, else it will die. We must cultivate good habits in our personal, church, and public lives, in order to be faithful to Christ Jesus. This does not happen in an instant, but it will with God’s help, for He loves us and is supremely powerful.
Our first and most important question is this: Have I really put my faith in Jesus Christ, or am I just acting most of the time, with a few “high points”? Do we learn about the Faith and talk to God only on retreats, or is this daily, moment-by-moment, true to our lives?

(I am greatly indebted to my readings of Lesslie Newbigin’s The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. All praise to the Holy Spirit for leading us into truth.)

3) Discussion Questions: DOERS OF THE WORD

• Is there a disconnect between what you think, say, and act? Do you consistently live out your faith, or is your belief in God somehow peripheral?
• How can we input (encouraging ourselves in the faith)?
• How can we in/output (encouraging us as a community of believers in the faith)?
• How can we output (passing on the faith through deeds and words)?
• What good habits can we get into to cultivate faith in our personal, corporate, and public lives?
• Are you embarrassed of the faith, or timid? Or do you continually witness to the truth of the gospel through our actions, thoughts, and words?
• What does this mean to you: “Missions are the test of our faith that the gospel is true”?
• What can we do to move away from an individualistic mentality in your spiritual formation?

2) WHAT WE BELIEVE

2009-09-10T22:45:00.000-06:00

This is the second in a series of talks that I just gave at SGA's Crossroads Summer Camp.

Holy Spirit guide us. May we think about these things long after this weekend. Teach us. Make your truths to dwell in our hearts and minds and help us to persevere in training ourselves. Move us to action.
This talk is called What We Believe. After having learned about what faith is and at least one clear reason to believe, it will be prudent to talk about what we believe. The substance of this talk will focus on some main points of our faith. There might be a chance for a question and answer afterwards. Even feel free to ask questions during the talk. If it gets too cumbersome, I will say that we should refrain from questions until later.
We need to be reminded much more often than instructed. Have you ever thought about those stubborn Israelites, traveling from Egypt to the Promised Land? Not long after they had been miraculously delivered from Egypt, they began to complain and to lose faith in God. It’s almost unbelievable, until I think how I similarly forget how good and important God is; there is so much that I have to get done on any given day. We need constant reminders of God’s truth and His goodness.
The content of today’s talk is both revolutionary and millennia old; it is sometimes boring and always fresh; always alive and often difficult to understand. We must be reminded what we believe often, lest we forget.
Even in the New Testament, it was easy to forget. Paul writes, “Remind them” (Titus 3.1), and Peter wrote his second letter to “refresh your memory” (2 Peter 1.13). One of the most helpful talks I can give is simply a reiteration of what you – most likely – already know about the Christian faith.
Often these important, extremely valuable beliefs lose their importance in our lives because we forget about them, or because we don’t really understand why they are important. It is my goal to both state some of the core Christian beliefs and to deepen our understanding of them. I also want to open up these topics so that you will be interested enough to look into them for yourself at some point in the near future.
Can anyone offer up some suggestions about what Christians believe? I will be sharing six of the core beliefs of the Christian faith with you. There are other really important beliefs that I will not be getting to.

First and Second, we believe that God exists and that He is good. The whole Bible teaches and presupposes this. In Genesis, God makes everything good, it is only afterward, when Satan and Adam and Eve exercise their free choice wrongly that things go badly (more on this later). In Job and many of the Psalms, the writers are trying to come to grips with how there can be such suffering in the world with such a good God governing things. We would not be able to question why there is suffering in the world unless there is a good God.
The author of Hebrews puts it this way: Without faith it is impossible to please God, for whoever would approach Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him” (Hebrews 11.6). How can we approach God if we don’t believe that he exists? We will not because the idea will make little sense to us. And why would we seek Him or love Him unless He were lovable, unless God rewarded those who seek after Him and love Him. That God rewards for honest seeking shows His goodness. If He were not good, he would probably ignore us.
God exists. Recently, there have been a few prominent atheists writing books and proposing atheist summer camps, not unlike this one. Atheists do not believe that God exists.
The Christian faith affirms not only that God exists, but that He makes everything else to exist. We affirm this for at least three reasons (by no means is this exhaustive):
1. As we learned in our last talk, God has revealed Himself in history to certain people. They have seen His miracles. This means that there is some outside power. We can trust these people because of their character. This is an argument from authority. We rely on the testimonies of reliable witnesses.
2. An argument from reason: Even little children know how to appeal to something beyond them: “that’s not fair.” This means that there is an idea of “fairness” among all mankind, an idea that could not come from nature. Also, consider truth, beauty, and goodness. Where do these universal ideas come from?
3. From experience. If miracles have happened to us, and also the H.S. working inside us.
God is good. This is the most important belief for us who know that God exists, that He is real. This is important because if God were not good, we should not love, nor trust, nor obey Him. We will see specific instances of His goodness in the four remaining core beliefs. Keep in mind, though, that if God is not good, we should not believe any of it. In fact, however, the following points will prove that God is immeasurably good!
This idea that God is not good is often expressed like this: “Why do bad things happen to good people?”, or “Why does God send people to hell?”, or “Why are Christians so stuck up?” All of these are challenges to God’s goodness. This is a frequent subject in the Bible. Job. The psalmist. Ecclesiastes. Revelations. All the N.T. epistles. The answer to such questions as these are found in a few of the other core doctrines to be discussed. The basic answer is this: Jesus came and revealed God’s goodness, and we rely on his coming again to set everything right. We long for Him to come and make all things new. This is the promise of God in the New Testament.
There are clues to God’s goodness that we can know right now. For instance, that we rejoice in life: a baby being born, a person being saved from trouble, etc. This shows us that the God who created us is interested in life as well. Also, even during hard times in life, the people who go through these hard times with humility, love, and courage a.k.a. those with good, godly characters have a sense of peace and they learn from their experiences. Therefore, even the bad things in life are seen to be opportunities for those who are following God; this is what the New Testament teaches. (James 1.2-4; Phil 1.27-30; 1 Corinthians. 4.17; Romans 8.18.) There is a certain type of pleasure to be had and goodness to be gained even in difficult times.

Third, humans are sinful and aren’t righteous on their own. There is something wrong with humankind and it hinders them from being with God. God made things perfect in the beginning. There is no way that a good God would make things badly, especially with His wisdom and His power. God gave us the ability to freely choose what to do, but at the very start Adam and Eve sinned and the rest of humanity have been “born in sin” (See Romans 5.12-21). It is not that we wouldn’t have done the same, but that Adam and Eve actually did it. And because they were the first humans, the disease spread to all their children. And we see the consequences: corruption, murders, hatred, desiring the wrong things, considering ourselves Gods, etc. The consequences are all around us and are evident.
Because we stopped obeying God – Who is wise and has ordered all things well – we have brought evil to the world, and we always set ourselves against God. “I am the king of my own life” is a common thought for all.
We need to realize our sinfulness. Often though, it is difficult for us to see the problems of sin clearly, for sin is a perversion of what is good. Of course, we often – though not always – feel guilty when we sin, but we soon forget our evil and we fall into the same old vices, the same bad habits. This shows both how we tend to not want to think of our own sins (they show us how weak we are) and how sin weakens us so that we will continue in sin if we do not continually check ourselves. Perhaps this is partly what Jesus was alluding to in His Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) when he said that misplaced anger is murder and that lust is adultery. Serial killers have started out looking at pornography; hardcore drug addicts began with lesser drugs. Most “big” sins have their beginnings in something small.
Those who reply by saying that they are not murderers or adulterers, etc. mean that sins often do not escalate. First, I would disagree. Second, even if we “maintain” a certain level of sinfulness without becoming murderers, etc., we are making our souls ugly, we are offending God, and we are going against our better judgment. In effect, we are killing ourselves and killing our communities. Committing sin is essentially an assault on the goodness of life. If God is good and has ordered all things well, when we sin we are breaking that good, life-giving order, and we are encouraging death. Perhaps this helps us make sense of that famous verse from Romans 6.23: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” God is good and he orders things well. He even offers Himself up to erase our sins. He is that good. In contrast, sin is a harsh master. Whenever we sin we are incurring a type of death, however covert and hidden it may be. We all feel that when we feel guilt for our sins.
I offer two helpful thought experiments to help us think about the serious problem of sin more clearly: First, I like to think about how my sins might affect my (future) children. If I am constantly angry without reason, chances are that they might be as well. Then they will have kids and pass this unreasonable anger on. Imagine this goes on for hundreds of years as my family continues to grow. Imagine how this anger will continually break apart the family, causing quarrels and bad blood. Imagine how my family will affect and be viewed by outsiders. The results won’t be pretty.
Our second thought experiment comes from one of my favorite C.S. Lewis books: The Great Divorce. The book is a picture that C.S. Lewis wanted to give of what hell, and heaven might look like. The main point of the book seems to be that the decisions we make on earth really matter towards our eternal life. The book begins with a quote from George MacDonald. Part of that quote is this: “…no plan to retain this or that of the devil in our hearts or our pockets.” This means that God will not accept any of our sin in heaven, that our bad habits on earth will hinder us from heaven. In the story, the main character gets to see how peoples inability to be rid of their sins make them reject heaven. One woman learns that a man who sinned against her is in heaven and she cannot forgive him, her hard heart keeps her from heaven. Another believes so strongly that miracles and God are not real and so he simply rejects all that he sees and hears.
Personally, I wonder about those Christians who were racists. If they see that there are black people and Asian people are in heaven, will they say, “this cannot be heaven; I reject this place”? Or what about those people who live as though God is not good, who hate and live their lives in mediocrity? Are they really showing that they reject God by not believing that He can and wants to change them, that He is really good?
Often the results of sin are difficult to see in the moment. Thought experiments like these that help us to see the long-term and eternal effect of our sins and our bad habits are helpful. They make things more clear for us.

Fourth, Jesus, Christ is the affirmation of all we have said so far and all we will have to say. He is at the very center of our faith.
In regards to God’s existence, Jesus proved this through miracles, and by his own character and commitment to what he said was true even during the great trials of his life. If there has been one person who has known the Father, it is certainly Jesus.
In regards to God’s goodness, we know that Jesus was and is God. Colossians says, “For in Him al the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” (1.19); and, “He is the image of the invisible God” (1.15). So, if there is any visible example of what God is like, we believe that Jesus showed us exactly what God is like. So, if we see that Jesus is good, we know that God the Trinity is good. When you look at Jesus’ life you are struck with his wisdom, love, mercy, goodness. God’s goodness is especially shown in that Jesus gave his life so that we might find life in Him. He did this while we were still sinners.
Jesus Christ was the answer to the problem of suffering and evil in the world. To those who believe in Jesus, asking for forgiveness, he has mercy, and Jesus suffered so that we would not have to. Jesus’ answer to those who believe in Him is: mercy, a giving of His life for us. He shows Himself to be both good and just. The answer for the problem of suffering in the world to those who choose to continue in evil is this: They must suffer the just consequences of their actions and live eternally apart from Him, in hell. But even to the “perishing”, God waits patiently, and holds back judgment so that they have time to repent (See 2 Peter 3.9 and Romans 2.4). God’s answer to those who accept Him and reject Him is the same on two meaningful levels: mercy and justice. But isn’t God sending people to hell unjust, something archaic, not to be believed anymore? More on this later.
Therefore, in regards to sin, Jesus is the answer. No man could save the world from sin, but only man can suffer for man for justice to be paid. So God came as a man to mankind. He did not despise us, considering us as dirt, much lower than Him, and worthless. Instead, He showed His goodness ultimately when the Son became man. Even though man had been defeated by sin and even though everyone deserves death, Jesus came and overcame sin. We would not be willing, or able to undertake such a project.
Jesus saving us from sin is also just because He did not force us from sin, apart from our own choosing, but He has let us choose freely. This again shows God’s goodness along with His justice, which is an expression of His goodness. Jesus also revealed God’s wisdom in dealing with the fundamental problem in the universe: sin. In taking our sins upon Himself, Jesus has been both supremely merciful and supremely just (sin was punished, and man is set free).
We have not addressed the next two topics, but Jess is the key to these as well. In regards to the Trinity (which is our next core Christian belief), Jesus opened us up to know God as Trinity, which we would have never known on our own. We need God to reveal this truth to us.
Last, in regards to the last things, Jesus gives us hope, because there is life after death with God. We know this because Jesus rose from the dead, as a type of proof that there is life after death and vindication for the righteous (see First Corinthians 15.23, Colossians 1:18, Revelations 1.5.)

Fifth, is a particularly unique and often puzzling belief: God is a Trinity. Christians are monotheists (that is, we believe in one God), yet we believe that this one God is Three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I enjoy remembering how belief in the Trinity came about. First, the disciples, who were strict monotheists, who prayed to Yahweh, cam into contact with Jesus. Having lived with Jesus for three years, having hear his teachings, witnessed the miracles, death and resurrection and ascension of Jesus, the disciples began to worship Jesus as they had only allowed themselves to worship God. They had such an experience of Jesus that they were compelled to praise Him, not as a good man, or as an angel, but as God! This must have been very strange for strict Jews! It must have been a strong and real encounter with Jesus that they had, not something fake, dreamt, or simply hoped.
The disciples then knew God as Father and Son. They also knew that Jesus had taught them about the Holy Spirit. All three were mentioned in the great commission: “Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). In other words, baptize them in the name of God, which involves all three of these names: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
It took about 350 years for Christians to come to an understanding of their tendency to worship Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The issue was terrible complex and confusing for early Christians and it can be the same for us, even after 2000 years. However, it is just as true today as it was in Jesus’ day, and, in fact, for all eternity.
It might be helpful to talk for just a moment about each Person in the Trinity. We know the Father as Creator. We know Jesus, the Son, as the one who was sent to reveal to us what God is really like (as we mentioned earlier). Jesus, the Son, died, and was raised from the grave so that we might die with Him and rise with Him in newness of life.
After Jesus ascended into heaven, to be at the right hand of the Father, He sent the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, so that Christians would be instructed, unified, and love and obey God. The Holy Spirit has come to teach us all truth (John 16.12). The Holy Spirit illuminates us to know what we do not know on our own. He inspires and equips us with the tools to live a holy, God honouring life.
Here is a quote from a very wise man who lived at about the time when Christians were trying to better understand the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Here, Basil of Caesarea explains a little bit about the Holy Spirit to us:
[The Holy Spirit is] wholly present to everyone [that is, as individuals] and wholly everywhere at the same time. He is shared without being affected [unlike cake]; He remains whole and yet gives Himself in the sharing, like a sunbeam whose warming light shines on the one who enjoys it as though it shone for him alone, yet it also lights the land and the sea, and mingles with the air. (From “On the Holy Spirit” or de Spiritu Sancto)
As important as this belief is, I wonder how important it is in our lives and churches?
So much for our discussion on the Trinity and on the Holy Spirit in particular. Now let us move on to the last of the core Christian beliefs that we will be addressing.

Sixth, and lastly, let us discuss an important Christian doctrine that is often neglected these days: Heaven and Hell. The big truth for us to understand about life after death is that we must understand that our decisions in life really matter. We addressed this earlier when we talked about the impact of sin.
Here are the basics of Christian belief on heaven and hell: Those who have faith in God will have eternal life with God. Those who reject God will have eternal death, which is separation from God.
But there are some big questions about this. One important question goes like this: “How can a good God condemn people to hell?” I think that Christians can answer the question – as Jesus might – with another question: “Why have certain people chosen to go to eternal punishment? Why have many people consistently chosen bad thoughts and actions?”
Like I have said: Our decisions matter. To think that God will smooth everything over at the end of time, despite some people not wanting God, despite that people have lived lives that reject God in words, action, and thought. Our decisions matter. This means that two things are very important:
1) Our minds and thoughts that help us to know the truth and therefore inform our decisions.
2) Our wills and actions, for we must act out what we have decided is the best to do.
In his book, James V. Schall writes: “The criteria given at the final judgment are mostly ones of relation to others – feeding the hungry, turning the other cheek, even sacrificing one’s life for one’s friends, though in other places we are admonished also to know the truth to be free” (p.198).
Therefore, us believing the truth that Jesus Christ is God and our acting out our beliefs by leading virtues lives in the Spirit, modeled on Jesus’ life, are both important. This helps us to answer another, yet similar, question: “Why does God send good people to hell?” Here is a clue: both knowing and doing are essential. Both knowing the truth and doing what is good are essential.
Here are some quotes that might help, on Hell, from Josef Pieper’s book The Concept of Sin:
When discussing “eternal punishment” one must clearly distinguish the images that are meant to make the essence of the matter visible to the imagination form the essence of the matter itself. But if the essence of damnation is rightly characterized as separation from the infinite Good, which God himself is, then the punishment only consists in not possessing what one has already expressly renounced. “Hell” should not be thought of as a dungeon inside which one has been forcibly locked up against one’s will. The bolt on the door that seals off the way into the open air is not located outside, but inside, the person. It is the stiff-necked will of the damned person himself, a will that turns away from God, which has closed the gates of hell in on itself.
…
Hell consists in man being taken at his word when he refuses to love.
…
Dostoyevsky: What is hell? I think it is the pain of no longer being able to love.
…
C.S. Lewis: In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell is itself a question: “What are you asking God to do? To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them? They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what He does.
…
Forgiveness can be vouchsafed only to the one who wants it, or at least is willing to accept it, [this] is perfectly obvious to everyone.
On this topic of heaven and hell, there are many books. For a fairly quick, quite insightful book, read C.S. Lewis’ The great Divorce, which I spoke of earlier when I was talking about the consequences and deadliness of sin. The book really helps us to see how decisions made in this life might affect you in the life to come.\
There are those who like to do evil, who will reject God. This means that eternal death, a.k.a. hell is for those who have chosen to hate God, through how they have lived and acted. God will punish evil, will vindicate the righteous, and will “make all things new.” We will see, especially in the end, that God is good and just. We believe this in faith, believing that Jesus is God and that He showed His goodness in His life and death.

In summary, I have tried to bring light to our faith, by highlighting six core Christian beliefs: 1) God’s existence, 2) God’s goodness, 3) Humanity’s great sin problem, 4) Jesus as the key to all Christian belief, 5) The Trinity, especially the Holy Spirit; and, 6) Heaven and Hell.
There are many important beliefs in the Christian faith, but we must know and understand at least these core beliefs to have a coherent faith. I encourage you to take one of the points that interests you, or which you do not understand very well and to do some praying and some research. Read some books; ask pastor ken about it, etc. Know what you believe, why, and what it means.

Applications:
1) Rejoice.
2) Research and contemplate.
3) Share with others.

Prayer
See if anyone has questions…or perhaps it would be better for some songs of response.
Hand out discussion questions. Point out Apostle’s Creed.

The Apostle’s Creed

1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and the life everlasting.
Amen.
2) Discussion Questions: WHAT WE BELIEVE

• Do you understand the importance of God’s goodness in all this?
• Which of the points did you not know about before, if any?
• Which of the five points impacted you the most?
• Which do you struggle with or still have questions about?
• Was this helpful for you to understand the faith a little more? How so or why not?
• Do you feel more comfortable with your faith after having heard the talk?
• Which point would you like to focus your prayers and thoughts on over the next few months? What are some steps you can take to understand more?

Talk 1) WHAT IS FAITH? and SOME REASONS TO BELIEVE

2009-08-31T07:31:00.002-06:00

This is the first in a series of talks that I just gave at SGA's Crossroads Summer Camp. The main theme: Faith.

Holy Spirit guide us. May we think about these things long after this weekend. Teach us. Help us to know and love you more and more. Move us to action.
This talk is called: What is Faith? and Some Reasons to Believe. The title needs no explaining. There might be a chance for a question and answer afterwards.
So, what is faith? (Really ask.) What does faith mean to you? Put it in your own words? Why do you believe? What do you want to know about Christianity? Are you comfortable with your faith? Do you share your faith?
In my testimony last night I shared with you how I became confused over matters of faith, how my heart grew cold, how I began to sin against God. Although an apparent “leader”, my faith was immature, my knowledge of God was weak. As it was the Apostle Paul’s goal to “warn and teach everyone in all wisdom, so that he could present everyone mature in Christ” (Colossians 1.28), so it is my goal to teach wisdom to you, that you may become mature, not childish in your faith, so that empty preaching and empty “truths” do not “take you captive” (Colossians 2.8).
It is true that the Christian faith can be so easy to live that a child is the exemplar, according to Jesus: “Unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 17.2). But it is not for us adults – for we are adults – to be childish in our understanding of the faith. Yes, we should be like children in our trust, in our humility, in our relationship to our Heavenly Father. But much of the New Testament makes clear that we must move on from the first, simple understanding of the faith. The author of Hebrews says, “Let us go on towards perfection, towards maturity, leaving behind the basic teaching about Christ, and not laying again the foundation” (Heb. 6.1-2). How many of us know what the foundation is? What does that prove to us? The same is repeated elsewhere in the New Testament (Heb 5.13,14; Pet. 2.2), and it makes sense. We must grow up; we must mature in our faith. We must move on from the first, simple understandings of the faith.
And we can do this – we can grow up in the faith – as the Holy Spirit teaches us more and more. Childish knowledge in the faith is fine for children, but we will begin to fall away if we do not continue to grow in Christ; both verses from Hebrews above speak of childish knowledge of the faith (not childlike faith) while warning against falling away. The reason is this: growth in understanding is essential to any relationship.
I was first attracted by Halyne’s qualities: her loyalty to friends, her strong will power, her sense of respect for others, her kindness, her servant-heart. Our relationship would not have even begun if I had not seen this in her, if I had not observed and known these things about her. (By the way, pay attention to how seeing and knowing relate in this talk.) Then Halyne had to grow to discover a few things about me. Then I learned about her family, and she about mine. We learned about each other’s past. After more time we learned about each other’s hopes and dreams. And the journey continues. We are learning little things like how to share stories as a couple, how much personal time we need, etc. If we stopped learning about each other, our relationship would surely stagnate and die, maybe not outwardly, but certainly inwardly. We would grow to have a certain amount of coldness towards each other. Certainly, there may be a stage where couples stop learning about each other, but I doubt it.
The same is true of our relationship with God. If we stop growing in our understanding and faith of Him, or if our faith becomes confused, our relationship with Him will certainly grow cold, as the author of Hebrews warns us.
Understanding is a “diving in,” it means “to know someone or something from the inside.” Our initial attraction to others is how we see them act, or how they look. Then we begin to know them in deeper and deeper ways. Our love for that person grows as we begin to understand them more and more (that is, of course, if they have good qualities, for if they have bad qualities, we would surely not want to marry them…that would be asking for a world of trouble).
Notice here what understanding and love have to do with each other. The more we begin to understand someone, if they are admirable, the more we will love them. In this way, by learning more and more about God, who is the most admirable, we will love Him more and more.
Can you want, desire, or love something or someone you don’t know about, that you don’t even know exists? No. Can you love someone you don’t know? Impossible. It is only when we get to know someone that our love for them develops. It is only as we understand someone that our love starts to grow – if they are admirable. Our love only grows as our understanding grows. The same is true with God: when we begin know Him more and more, we will begin to love Him more and more. This is because God is good. We would not love Him if He was not good. And so, in understanding God more and more, in having an intimate understanding of God, our love for Him will become more passionate. Thus, we will begin live out the greatest commandment more and more: To love God with all that we are.

But what does this talk of understanding and loving God have to do with faith? Perhaps you already see the connection. Notice that, if we don’t have faith, we cannot love Him or please Him. Hebrews 11.6 says, “without faith it is impossible to please God, for whoever would approach Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him” In other words: how can we approach Him if we don’t know that he exists? And why would we approach Him unless He is good (rewards honest effort)? Here, the author of Hebrews is saying what we said earlier: We must first believe that God exists and second understand that He is good and admirable, or else we cannot please Him. How could I please Halyne if I didn’t know her and her good qualities, for I would have never started a relationship with her in the first place unless I had known her? And so, without belief that God exists and that He is good, we cannot love God. But the more we come to believe that God is real and that He exists, the more we will love Him.
The problem with knowing God is that he is invisible and doesn’t always communicate with us in ways we would like: i.e., audibly talk to us, or show us physical body language, etc. But, there was a time when God came to earth, in the incarnation of Jesus. And the Bible makes clear that Jesus revealed to us the mystery of who God is and the mystery of God’s plan for the renewing of the world. Colossians 1.19 tells us: “For in Him [Jesus] the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” and later in that letter Paul tells us that “the mystery that has been hidden throughout the ages and generations…has now been revealed to his saints” (Col. 1.26) and that Christ is the “knowledge of God’s mystery (Col 2.2). But we have another problem: Jesus lived about 2000 years ago. And now, we can’t see God. How can we understand Him? Imagine this question from someone who does not believe in the authority of the Bible: How can you claim to understand who Jesus is if you have never seen Him or even heard Him say anything to you? How can you claim to know God?
Now, there are lots of ways we could go from here. We all know that our relationship with God is not troubled (much) by not seeing Him or hearing Him, and that we hear from Him in many different ways and that we see Him in many ways, but I want to take the opportunity to explain something fundamental about faith here. Let me explain what I want to get at using a scenario: Imagine seeing the robbery of a grocery store take place. In fact, you were there when the robber came in with his gun. You saw him take the cash from the till and drive off. They were stupid and had no mask on. You are a first-hand, eyewitness.
Now, imagine that the eyewitness is someone else and you are a member of the jury at the trial of the bank robber. The witness, the person who saw the crime gives their testimony. It is up to you as the jury, who can only hear about the crime (there were no cameras), to believe or not believe the eyewitness.
Notice the two parties involved: 1) the eyewitness, who has seen the crime taking place, and 2) the jury member who only hears what has taken place. Knowing something like 1+1=2 can be compared to seeing, like that eyewitness really saw the crime. 1+1=2 is obvious to us. We can take one finger on one hand and another finger on the other hand and see that there are two fingers there. We can see it for ourselves. But faith is not like that. Belief in Jesus and His goodness are not quite so obvious. Faith is compared to hearing, like the hearing of the jury member. Make a mental note: Knowing is likened to seeing and the eyewitness; faith, or believing, is likened to hearing and the jury. Also note that, if the jury believes the testimony of the eyewitness, he or she will act accordingly and cast a vote to convict the criminal of the crime.
Notice that both knowing something for sure, as an eyewitness, as a “seer”, and believing as a member of the jury, as a “hearer” as affirmations. They both say “yes.” Knowing and believing both affirm that something is true. Doubt, on the other hand is not affirming.
The Apostle Paul often uses this same type of language that we have been using (knowing=seeing; believing/faith=hearing): “For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I am fully known” (1 Corinthians 13.12). Instead of comparing faith to hearing, St. Paul compares faith to “seeing dimly” (remember what mirrors must have been like in that day). The analogy of knowing to seeing remains. St. Paul is saying that our knowledge of God is imperfect during this lifetime, that, in fact, we live by faith, not sight; but he is looking forward to seeing God after death, to knowing God.
And so faith is an imperfect form of knowing. There is an imperfection about it. If it was perfect, Paul would not have compared it to seeing dimly, as in an old-fashioned cloudy mirror. That faith is an imperfect type of knowing is a disconcerting thought at first, but we must take hope in the fact that Paul recognized this, and so did the author of Hebrews in his definition of faith.
They took hope, as we can, in this thought, which was expressed by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 1500s:
Other things being equal sight is more certain than hearing; but if [the authority of] the person from whom we hear greatly surpasses that of the seer’s sight, hearing is more certain than sight: thus a man of little science is more certain about what he hears on the authority of an expert in science, than about what is apparent to him according to his own reason: and much more is a man certain about what he hears from God, Who cannot be deceived, than about what he sees with his own reason, which can be mistaken. (S.T. IIa, IIae, Q4, art.8, Reply to objections 2 and 3)
Thomas compares faith to a student learning from a teacher. The student has limited knowledge, where the teacher has lots of experience. Therefore, it is better for the student to trust the teacher than to only go on with his limited knowledge. (For example, hw many of us could know much about our solar system without trusting in scientists who study the solar system?)
So we need not worry about faith being an ”imperfect knowing.” As I said before, even St. Paul said so. But it is not as if our faith is groundless, for the jury must have good reason to believe the eyewitness.
In fact, though we rely on our personal experiences with God, our consciences, our hearing of the Holy Spirit, and our miraculous experiences, we rely on the Bible for our knowledge of God’s specific actions in history, including the incarnation of Jesus, and we rely on the Bible for our belief that Jesus is God, one of the three Persons of the Trinity, and we rely on the Bible to affirm that God is merciful, that He will judge the living and the dead, and that Jesus died for our sins so that we can live with God forever, having eternal life. And so we, like the jury, rely on the eyewitnesses of the apostles and those who saw and heard and touched Jesus, both before His death and after His resurrection. We rely on these people, who were appointed by God, to accurately tell us of Jesus’ character, of his teaching, of his deeds and miracles, that Jesus was worthy of worship of a kind of which only God is worthy.
It is important to remember that a group of people were actually with Jesus when he did miracles, and saw Him and really experienced Jesus after He has risen from the grave. These are not myths, they actually happened. This is important to know. Peter says:
For we do not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received honour and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to Him by the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is My Son, My Beloved, with Whom I am well Pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain.
So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. (Second Peter 1.16-19)
Notice that Peter was an eyewitness. Just as the jury judges the credibility of the eyewitness based on the character of the witness and other criteria, so we can trust in the witness of Peter, who died because of his faith in Jesus, as did Paul and many of the other apostles. Some believe that the apostles hallucinated when they saw Jesus risen from the grave. First of all, this seams flat out ridiculous, since Jesus was seen by man, but also, would you be willing to stake your life on a hallucination? And what are the chances that that many people had similar hallucinations? The apostles staked their lives (the very way they lived their lives changed) and deaths (they were willing to die for preaching Jesus) on the reality of what they experienced in Jesus Christ. Obviously, Peter had really seen, touched, heard, experienced Jesus and had known Jesus’ character and goodness.
As both an aside, and yet an integral point, notice how important character is to witnessing. Are we living this kind of life, sure of our faith, and living life virtuously? How can we be good witnesses if we are not? How can we expect people to believe in Jesus when they have bad characters to look at?
As another aside and yet integral point, noticed how encouraged we are as believers when we read these words of Peter, that he actually saw, heard, touched, knew Jesus. We should be unashamed to share similar faith stories with one another. This will help us to “be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith,” as St. Paul wanted to encourage in Romans 1.13, which is a part of the theme verse for this year’s Crossroads group.
Notice also that Peter tells us to believe his message (“you will do well to be attentive to this”), because it lights our way. Notice how seeing is used here. We can only be believers, for we did not see Jesus working miracles, etc. We can only know imperfectly, but the words of the apostles shine light into the darkness. The fact that Peter and the other apostles really experienced Jesus, and that they can be trusted, allows us to believe firmly, with the same assurance as someone who knows that 1+1=2.
The Apostle John also uses this real experience of Jesus as a basis for believing his words:
We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life – this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us – we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ. (First John 1.1-3)
By now you may be asking, “What is the point of all this?” Or perhaps the point is obvious to you. There are a few great points that come out of this: 1) the nature of faith as imperfect knowledge, yet superior to simple, personal knowledge; 2) that growth in understanding and faith in God lead to a more intense love for Him, so it is worthwhile to grow in faith; 3) some of the teachings of Scripture have surely become clearer; 4) we have been reminded that our character is essential to our testimony; 5) we have seen how we can encourage each other in the faith, through stories of God’s activity in our lives, also through teaching, and through the reading and understanding of Scripture; 6) we can now “give a reason for the hope that is inside you” as First Peter 3.15 says we should always be prepared to give.
There are other reasons to trust the Bible besides the character and lives of Peter and John and Paul, just as there is more than one reason for a jury to believe an eyewitness. We won’t talk of these in detail. The coherency of the beliefs, the “opening up” of our person when our faith grows, the beauty, and inherent goodness in the faith are all corroborating reasons to believe in Jesus as Lord and God, and that the words of the Bible are authoritative. There are many more reasons too, but we will not discuss them here.
We should now take a look at the classic, biblical definition of faith. The classic biblical definition of faith is found in Hebrews 11.1. I have chosen not to approach this text first because we tend to read over it, assuming that we understand it because we’ve read it so many times; a classic confusing of familiarity with understanding.
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen,” says Hebrews 11.1. Notice the idea of seeing is present again. Although we do not see God, nor fully understand Him, nor did we see Jesus do miracles, or rise from the dead, nor have we seen God “make all things new,” or resurrect the bodies of believers, yet we still are convinced that these things have happened (the historic happenings of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection), are happening (making all things new), or will happen (resurrection of the dead). Though belief is imperfect knowledge, yet it still shares the same certainty as knowledge (“assurance”, “conviction”). It is something that we believe that changes the way that we live our lives. We will talk about faith and action in the third and last talk, but for now I will quote a line from Lesslie Newbigin’s book The Gospel in a Pluralist Society: “Missions are the test of our faith that the gospel is true” (p.127, 1898, Eerdmans). By this, the former missionary in India means that if we really believe the gospel, we will publish our love for God both in our actions and in our words, in acts of love, and in sharing our faith with others; we must not be ashamed of the gospel, (Romans 1.16; Second Timothy 1.8) for God’s power comes for salvation of all (it is universal), even if it leads to us suffering for our faith, as it meant for the apostles and the early Christians.

Now, we should briefly talk of two vices, or bad habits of the mind, that hinder faith in us. We can encourage “blindness of mind” and “dullness of mind” in our lives. Blindness of mind can come about because we deliberately turn away from the truths or consequences of faith, but this rarely happens. More often, blindness of mind comes as a result of distractions in our lives. We get distracted knowing God more intimately through love of sleep, of watching TV, etc. There are many more habits, even more serious habits that distract us from knowing God more. We must intentionally seek a more profound faith, as God wishes to grow this in us. It takes a lot of work to get rid of old habits and replace them with new ones, but it is necessary for a life that is more full. These things distract us and hinder us from our goal of knowing God more fully, just as excess weight slows down a marathon runner; “Let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us” (Hebrews 12.1). And we do need perseverance, and the encouragement of each other in order to keep on those good habits.
Secondly, “dullness of mind” can hinder our faith. Some are naturally dull. It is a weakness of mind; an inability to perceive something without copious amounts of explanation. This can be worked on. It takes a long time for many of us to learn something complex, such a new language. The same is true of understanding the faith. It is like the author of Hebrews just reminded us: it takes perseverance. It takes much prayer to God for understanding until we really start to get it.
To sum up: 1) the nature of faith as imperfect knowledge, yet superior to simple, personal knowledge; 2) that growth in understanding and faith in God lead to a more intense love for Him, so it is worthwhile to grow in faith; 3) some of the teachings of Scripture have surely become clearer; 4) we have been reminded that our character is essential to our testimony; 5) we have seen how we can encourage each other in the faith, through stories of God’s activity in our lives, also through teaching, and through the reading and understanding of Scripture; 6) we can now “give a reason for the hope that is inside you” as First Peter 3.15 says we should always be prepared to give; 7) we must act on our faith if we really believe it, even if it means persecution; if it is true, then it is even worth dying for; 8) we must avoid the temptations to be lazy and to give up on our relationship with God; there are many distractions and much difficulty along the way, but the end result is worth it; 9) although we have often been compared to the jury who judges the words of the Scriptures, it must be said that, when we believe in Jesus as God, his words end up judging us, showing us how to be more like him, encouraging us to destroy sinful habits, for God did not call us to impurity, but in holiness” (Colossians 4.7).
Let me conclude with this: it is worth it. To continue the above quote from Hebrews: “Let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God” (Hebrews 12.1,2). In the next talk, among other truths, we will learn of the joy that awaits us.
End with a prayer.
See if anyone has questions…or perhaps it would be better for some songs of response.
Hand out discussion questions.

(I am greatly indebted to my readings of Josef Pieper (Faith, Hope, Love) and of Thomas Aquinas (S.T. IIa, IIae) for this understanding of faith. All praise to the Holy Spirit for leading us into truth.)

1) Discussion questions: WHAT IS FAITH? and SOME REASONS TO BELIEVE

• What do you think about “growing in understanding,” of deepening your faith in God? Is it true that we are supposed to understand our faith more and more? Or is it better to have a “simple” faith?
• Have you ever had a time in your life when you’ve questioned your faith? Can you tell of that time?
• In your words, what is faith?
• Does faith as “imperfect knowing” make sense to you? Is it biblical? Does the analogy of seeing and hearing as knowledge and faith make sense to you? Why or why not?
• How can “imperfect knowing” (i.e. faith) be better and more trustworthy than “knowing for yourself”?
• Can we trust the words of the Bible? Why?
• Are you more comfortable with your faith after this talk? Or perhaps less? How so?
• Do you think you would be more comfortable talking to others about your faith after this talk? Why or why not?
• Will you be more comfortable talking with each other about matters of faith after this? Will you be more confident?
• Why do you think we can be embarrassed or timid when it comes to talking about our faith in Jesus Christ? Does this seem to be consistent with our actions or while we are singing praises to God in church? Do we have the same boldness inside and outside of church? Are we confident in either place?
• Do you have bad habits that keep you from developing your relationship with God? Sin? Laziness? Apathy? Or is it just too difficult to understand the Bible or is it too boring to read? How can we get rid of these bad habits (blindness and dullness of the mind)?
• How is your prayer life? Do you spend time cultivating your relationship with God through prayer?

Chavez Tightens His Grip On Venezuela

2009-08-08T07:04:00.002-06:00

I read an article about some laws that Chavez is trying to get passed in Venezuela. These laws will potentially hinder the Venezuelan media from accurate reporting.

On July 30, 2009, Venezuela's attorney general introduced draft legislation on 'media crimes' that establish prison sentences of up to four years for anyone who, through media outlets, provides 'false' information that 'harm[s] the interests of the state.'
...
Minister Cabello also proposed new regulations that state that any cable channel with more than 30 percent Venezuelan-produced programming (including shows and advertisements) would be compelled to transmit President Chávez's speeches live at his request, and would be subject to Venezuelan media laws, including the Law on Social Responsibility.
Source: Human Rights Watch

It is interesting to note what we take for granted in articles like this (the assumptions of the writer of the story): the ability of people to be able to able to filter the truth of media, the goodness of the media, our rights to know, that a free market economy is better than a controlled economy.

Also, this got me thinking about Jesus. It strikes me time and time again that, though Jesus had the power and the popular vote, he never sought office. In fact, the New Testament Gospel writers saw this (as Jesus must have himself) as a major evil, satanic temptation.

I am going to enjoy reading The Politics of Jesus again over the next few months. I was unable to grasp it the first time I read it, about a year ago, but my level of understanding has grow since then.

How people should be involved in politics/government is a hugely important topic.

Debate on Honduras

2009-08-08T06:54:00.002-06:00

I have been trying to keep track of the situation in Honduras. I have not yet listened to the debate between Lanny Davis and Greg Grandin, aired on DemocracyNow!, but I am sure that it is worth considering. Here is a link: Honduras Debate.

Pleasure: Small, Medium, or Large?

2009-08-03T15:30:00.003-06:00

Recently, I listened to a segment on the health problems related to overeating in America and how the food industry has helped create that (see the end of the entry for a brief description and a link to the piece) In my opinion, the story is worth watching/reading/ listening to. Before I address the news story, I would first like to talk about something that Plato has taught me and that I think about on a regular basis.

In 583b- 587a of The Republic, using a dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon, Plato tells us that there are three levels to pleasure: Pain, pleasure, and repose (a sort of neutral point between pain and pleasure, something like good, but not great). Plato, through Socrates then says, "Let's not be persuaded that relief from pain is pure pleasure or that relief from pleasure is pure pain." Those who have not reached for pleasure and have supposed that repose is the greatest pleasure are missing out on true pleasure. Of course, here, Plato is talking about the pleasure of virtue (specifically, virtue of the mind, or wisdom; and, in fact, the proper allotment of pleasure to each part of a person).

In our context, Plato reminds us that, though we get pleasure out of eating fatty, and sugar-saturated foods, it is lower on the scale of pleasure from simply taking care of our bodies, through temperance and self-control (which, I admit, I need to ask God for more of). Indulging in/ being controlled by many pleasures will actually stop us from better, higher pleasures. They will hinder our judgment, create bad habits, and alter our characters and our ability to be wise. Often this is subtle. Often it is difficult to perceive why wisdom is so important and why we shouldn't follow the whims of lower pleasure.

We should trust the sensitive palates (speaking metaphorically here) of the likes of Plato, Aristotle, Jesus, Thomas Aquinas, and others who longed for, sought, and experiences happiness like few have. We must not settle for "repose", that comfortable spot between pain and pleasure, in our lives. Let us search for a higher pleasure.

Here is another way to understand what Plato was trying to get at: Plato tells us that when the proper ruler is in place, that everything is aligned correctly and that everything receives what is due. When tyrants rule, they seek not for the proper alignment of society, but to gain the most pleasure for themselves, and in so doing ruin the nation.

It is the same in us. If the proper ruler is in place (the mind, if it is wise) alots proper amounts of pleasure to the other parts of a person (not too much or too little food, sex, fear, pride, etc.). But if, say, the desire for food takes over, it will be a tyrant, and won't allow the mind or other important parts of a person to receive their proper pleasure. Soon enough the whole person may be ruined.

Perhaps this bit has been too metaphorical and to "airy", with nothing "solid" being said. I apologize for that, but I have still thought it worth sharing. We will do well to consider Plato's pain-repose-pleasure continuum.

Going back to the news story: as I listened, it struck me that there are two sides to this story:
1) Yes, food companies are probably making their food more tasty so that we will buy more. This "tastiness" is often unhealthy. This unhealthy "tastiness" has, to a certain extent, become an addiction, even at a chemical level. Food companies need to become virtuous, selling good products. This first part was the major focus of the story.
2) Though food companies can and should be blamed for part of the problem, and, if smoking is regulated, so should addictive and bad foods, but how much is this the fault of regular people who have not had enough virtue to steer clear from fatty foods? It is always our job to become more and more virtuous, and this often includes breaking bad habits. We need to become more virtuous.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler: "The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite" *

A new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns that the direct medical costs of obesity total about $147 billion a year. That amounts to nine percent of all US medical costs. It's also over $50 billion more than the annual spending on cancer. In the midst of this national focus on obesity, today we'll speak to David Kessler, who has spent the last seven years trying to understand how the food industry has changed American eating habits, made certain foods difficult to resist, and helped create the country's number one public health issue.

Listen/Watch/Read
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/3/former_fda_commissioner_david_kessler_the

Toward a Healthy Scepticism about Scepticism

2009-08-02T22:53:00.004-06:00

It is my belief that one of the biggest problem facing North America and especially the Church in Western society is the intrusion of an unhealthy scepticism. Below are some of my thoughts, and more importantly, the thoughts of some others on the topic. I encourage you to spend some time on the quote below, as it is worth your time, even if you have to come back to it. I realize that people do not like to spend their time on long blog entries. We like it compact. As I mentioned, this is a topic of great concern, worthy of much consideration.

I had noticed myself, over the last number of years, becoming more and more sceptical. Always questioning. Always making sure to point out the bad with the good, emphasizing the bad. I became less encouraging, and more of something that I call "cold" or "hard-hearted". As a Christian, I became increasingly unable to pray or sing songs of praise to God with any meaning. When someone talked about God working in their life I really questioned it. These were the symptoms.
Something was wrong. Something had changed. It began to bother me that I had trouble connecting with the God that I claimed to have faith in. What was the matter?
It turns out that I had bought in to a philosophy that is incongruent with the gospel. Scepticism's priests, such as David Hume, have claimed that there is no God, that there can be no such thing as a miracle, and that everything must be called into question. Little did I know, but I was buying in to these very principles, without even knowing the philosophy. (I still know little about it. What I do know is from my own personal experience with it, and from some books.)
Of course, I am not saying that we shouldn't call things into question, for that is what I am doing right now. More on this later.
This mistrust of everything leads to a lack of hope and general cheer in life. Once again, I am not calling for an unrealistic approach.
Perhaps it would be good at this point to let someone smarter to jump in. I am looking forward to reading a book called A Secular Age, by Charles Taylor, that will hopefully clarify my thoughts on the "enlightenment project." As for books I have read, Alisdair MacIntyre's After Virtue has become somewhat of a classic when it comes to understanding the failures of the Enlightenment "project", including the thought of sceptics, such as Hume (also see Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy as another book of the sceptic's cannon). MacIntyre's book is phenomenal in its displaying of scepticism as unfounded, leading to nihilism (which seems to be a strange theme for this blog), which is expressed in Nietzsche's work. Niezsche, it must be said, carried the conversation to its logical conclusions... either live under God or be a nihilist, or, as expressed in MacIntyre's book: either be an ethical realist (there is goodness and rationality in the universe without man's having created it; man has not constructed nature, but must discover it) or be an ethical constructivist (there is no creator above man, and so there is no one above man who has given absolute truth, or goodness). Nietzsche sides on the ethical constructivist side.
As stated in an earlier entry, Fyodor Dostoyevsky also speaks of these themes, most notably in his The Brothers Karamazov, where Ivan becomes a sort of Enlightenment figure. It takes the cunning of Smerdyakov, the half-brother, to really take to heart the thoughts of Ivan and bring them to their logical conclusion: nihilism.
Along with MacIntyre, Nietzsche, and many others, I have to thank my wife for clearing my head of this muddle, for she has never bought into such cold scepticism. Praise be to God for his mercies.
But the inspiration for this whole blog has been a passage in a book that I have recently been re-reading. I will almost certainly do a review on the book in a later entry. The book is highly recommended.
The following extended quote comes from Lesslie Newbigin's book, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, p. 227-229. This comes in a section where J.E. Lesslie Newbigin is describing the six characteristics that the church needs in order influence society in a proper, Christ-like way (both as servant to society and uncompromising in it's character). The first and second of Newbigin's points are bellow, with some of my comments in square parenthesis.

1. It [the church] will be a community of praise. that is, perhaps, its most distinctive character. Praise is an activity which is almost totally absent from "modern" society. Here two distinct points can be made.
a. The dominant notes in the development of the specifically "modern" view of things has been (as we noted earlier) the note of scepticism, of doubt. The "hermeneutic of suspicion" is only the most recent manifestation of the belief that one could be saved from error by the systematic exercise of doubt. It has followed that when any person, institution, or tradition has been held up as an object worthy of reverence, it has immediately attracted the attention of those who undertook to demonstrate that there was another side to the picture, that the golden image has feet of clay. I suppose that this is one manifestation of that "disenchantment" which Weber regarded as a key element in the development of "modern" society. Reverence, the attitude which looks up in admiration and love to one who is greater and better than oneself, is generally regarded as something unworthy of those who have "come of age" and who claim that equality is essential to human dignity. With such presuppositions, of course, the very idea of God is ruled out. The Christian congregation, by contrast, is a place where people find their true freedom, their true dignity, and their true equality in reverence to One who is worthy of all the praise that we can offer.
b. Then, too, the Church's praise includes thanksgiving. The Christian congregation meets as a community that acknowledges that it lives by the amazing grace of a boundless kindness. contemporary society speaks much about "human rights." It is uncomfortable with "charity" as something which falls short of "justice," and connects the giving of thanks with an unacceptable subservience. In Christian worship the language of rights is out of place except when it serves to remind us of the rights of others. For ourselves we confes that we cannot speak of rights, for we have been given everythingand forgiven everything and promised everything, so that (as Luther said) we lack nothing except faith to believe it. In Christian worship we acknowledge that if we had received justice instead of charity we would be on our way to perdition. A Christian congregation is thus a body of people with gratitude to spare, a gratitude that can spill over into care for the neighbour. And it is of the essence of the matter that this concern for the neighbour is the overflow of a great gift of grace and not, primarily, the expression of commitment to a morale crusade [This has been the goal of the Enlightenment project, according to MacIntyre in After Virtue. It is the goodness of God, especially seen in Jesus Christ's removing our sins that is the cause of Christian joy; those who do not believe in miracles, such as the resurrection, cannot have this same view of goodness and are stuck either constructing moral rules (as Hume and Kant did) or denying that all such man-made rules are arbitrary and thus denying them (as Nietzsche did). It is of the essence that Christians discover more and more the deep goodness of God, for it is the antidote to the cold heart that many hate to have, but feel there is no other option.]
2. Second, [the Christian congregation] will be a community of truth. This may seem an obvious point, but it needs to be stressed. As I have tried to show in these chapters, it is essential to recognize that all human thinking takes place within a "plausibility structure" which determinds what beliefs are reasonable and what are not. The reigning plausibility structure can only be effectively challenged by people who are fully integrated inhabitants of the another [meaning that the "modern" structure that a priori denies miracles, God, etc. must be challenged by another type of thinking, which for Newbigin, is found in the gospel]. Every person living in a "modern" society is subject to an almost continuous bombardment of ideas, images, slogans, and stories which presuppose a plausibility structure radically different from that which is controlled by the Christian understanding of human nature and destiny. The power of contemporary media to shape thought and imagination is very great. Even the most alert critical powers are easily overwhelmed. A Christian congregation is a community in which, through constant remembering and rehearsing of the true story of human nature and destiny [found in the gospel], an attitude of healthy scepticism can be sustained, a scepticism which enables one to take part in the life of society without being bemused and deluded by its own beliefs about itself. And, if the congregation is to function effectively as a community of truth, its manner of speaking the truth must not be aligned to techniques of modern propaganda, but must have the modesty, the sobriety, and the realism which are proper to a disciple of Jesus.

Does the Devil Wear Prada?

2009-07-28T21:55:00.005-06:00

Go here to read a very interesting article from a man who translated Dante's major poetic trilogy.
If anything, at least read up until you see how Dante depicts the devil. Fascinating.
Also, the way that freedom is talked about is quite refreshing:
"It is hard to recall the medieval definition of freedom, which was not the political license to follow our bellies or the philosophical encouragement to send our elders packing. Freedom was understood, rather, as a growing into the habits, the virtues, that allow us to fulfill our end as human beings without the impediments of vice."

We All Need Cosmic Logotherapy

2009-07-27T22:17:00.004-06:00

It is amazing how important the future is to us. If we see no good future for ourselves, we either become depressed, nihilistic, or try to carve out a new future.
What vision of the cosmos do we buy in to?
Viktor Frankl based a whole psychology on the idea that we need our stories, or lives to have a point. Logotherapy was created by Frankl while he was in a Nazi concentration camp. He noticed that prisoners who had nothing to look forward to died, whereas those who persevered had something to look forward to.
Now, it would be wrong for us to have some vision for our future that does not fit into the bigger picture of the entire cosmos and all of history (taking for granted that it can really be seen as a fairly coherent whole).
Dostoyevsky was getting at the same thing when he wrote nihilists who committed murder, because they had no reason not to, and some reasons that they thought were good. If there is nothing to live for, why care about life?
Aristotle made an entire ethic focussed around this idea.

Perhaps our society is losing or has lost a good vision for the future...perhaps we will see more and more nihilist literature.

"You cannot have hopeful and responsible action without some vision of a possible future. To put it in another way, if there is no point in the story as a whole, there is no point in my own action. If the story is meaningless, any action of mine is meaningless. The loss of a vision for the future necessarily produces that typical phenomenon of our society which the sociologists call anomie, a state in which publicly accepted norms and values have disappeared."
-Lesslie Newbigin in The Gospel In A Pluralist Society.

Looking into the future, the Apostle John wrote (Revelation 21.1-4):
"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed awa, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I hear a loud voice from the throne saying, 'See, the home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them; he will wipe every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more; mourning and crying and pain will be no more, for the first things have passed away."

Now that is a vision of the future that moves to action and to life.

On Fyodor Dostoyevsky

2009-07-26T19:58:00.004-06:00

Though I would not call my reading experience thorough, I have read a fair share of books. Through all my reading I have not encountered an author so stimulating as Dostoyevsky (please note that his name can be transliterated in a number of ways). Fyodor Dostoevsky is one of my all-time favorite novelists.

Though Dostoyevsky's books are sometimes too imaginative for my imagination, and though his cast of characters is often too large for me to keep track of (in a single novel), and though he wrote his books many years ago, in a different culture, country, and language, I still hold Dostoyevsky as one of the greats of the literary world, for the following reasons:

I love the way that Dostoyevsky writes his characters. They are both believable, yet over-the-top; both real, yet caricatures. It is poetic how the virtues, vices, and ideas of each of the characters either catch up with them or vindicate them. Perhaps it is this very quality of his writing that caused seven prominent dissidents of the former USSR to rave of Dostoyevsky's prophetic story-telling in their book From Under the Rubble (1974).

Prominent North American pastor Eugene Peterson even found a "mentor" in Dostoyevsky, as he wrote in his book Under the Unpredictable Plant (1992). I too have found a sort of mentor in Dostoyevsky and in several of his characters, especially Alyosha Karamazov.

Plato himself would find an intelligent and insightful dialogue partner in Dostoyevsky, as both thinkers have brought attention to the three types of people: The gain-lover, the victory-lover, and the wisdom-lover. At least, that is how they are referred to in Plato's Republic. Dostoyevsky would later give these types flesh, bones, and names in The brothers Karamazov: Dmitry Karamazov (the sensualist), Ivan Karamazov (the intellectual), and Alyosha Karamazov (the mystic).

Few have argued more brilliantly for belief in God and the rejection of nihilistic, death-seeking ideologies than Dostoyevsky (in fact, nihilist pamphlets in the USSR would later take some of Dostoyevsky's quotes as their own, as shown in Under the Rubble). Like Friedrich Nietzsche, he shows the logical conclusions to beliefs that people are rarely willing to live out in real life. Nietzsche said of Dostoyevsky, "[he is] the only psychologist from whom I have something to learn."(Wikipedia see section on Dostoyevsky and Existentialism). Dostyevsky doesn't buy nihilism, but dispels it as an ideology of death. In contrast, he views Christianity as a life-giving belief system. This is interesting, and should cause us to ask, "If nihilists were borrowing from Dostoyevsky, that probably means that he understood their position at least as well, if not better than they did, so why didn't they read his novels more thoroughly, and end up with Life?"

If there is one novelist I would like to emulate in insight and writing ability, it is Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky.

Overwhelmed

2009-07-25T19:23:00.000-06:00

http://chadblock.ca/

Book Review: Finding An Unseen God

2009-07-25T18:51:00.004-06:00

3 out of 4 stars.

As an Ooze Viral Blogger (http://viralbloggers.com/), it is my duty and privilege to review books, available to me through The Ooze, of my choosing. The first book I reviewed (go here for the review and here for a sort of follow-up) was called Jesus Interrupted by Bart Ehrman. In his work, Ehrman’s personal experiences with faith and Christianity are clearly a major motivation for his denial of the importance of the Bible and a God that is good.
This interweaving of personal experiences with a historical faith is even more evident in Alicia Britt Chole’s new book, Finding An Unseen God, subtitled “Reflections Of A Former Atheist”. Throughout the book, Chole weaves chapters recalling her atheistic years with chapters stating her current thoughts and beliefs.
At first, this weaving together of different times in her life might be difficult for the reader to sort out. An explanation might prove to be helpful. Chapters alternate between exploring her atheistic past (which is indicated on the contents page with a chapter title on the left, ascending from 1 to 26) chapters that explain her current faith and how that came about (indicated by chapter titles being on the right side of the contents page, descending from 52 to 26).
The greatest collision of Chole’s two belief-sets (Atheism and Christianity) in the final chapter of the book (26) prove to be both the climax and denouement of Finding An Unseen God. In the final chapter, Chole tells of her surrender to Jesus, after years of bitterness towards Him. As a climax, the chapter serves to highlight the point of decision. As denouement, the chapter shows the resolution of the tensions in the book. Though Chole says that becoming a Christian never simply solved her questions, they gave her a better place to see truth from.
As somewhat of a biography – spanning a life’s worth of adventure and pondering – many topics are addressed in this book. The many topics include: Atheism, how Christians should act towards Atheists, pluralism, respect for other belief systems,, the historicity of the Bible, simple-minded Christianity, objective truths, theodicy (the problem of evil and suffering in the world), the importance of friends and family in one’s life, and presence of God in Christian worship.
Two of these topics will be considered. First, in ways reminiscent of Polkinghorne and Newbigin, Chole devotes a large portion of her book to dealing with religious pluralism and Christianity’s claim to be both different and truer than other religions (see especially p. 79-105). Chole admits that there are many religious options out there to chose from, and that can be difficult to decide which is the right one; that, in fact, all paths lead to the top of the same mountain. Though it can be difficult to sort through all the different believe-systems, “difficult to find is a different matter than impossible to find” (p.81).
Chole then goes on to deliver a kindly, yet lucid critique of religious pluralism. Her three main arguments against religious pluralism are summed up in her first point, which is contra the believe that “world religions really ARE saying the same thing, or at least have compatible core beliefs” (p. 104):
Ask them, Ask the committed Muslim, the devout Jew, the practicing Hindu, the devoted Christian, and the sincere Buddhist if they are all saying the same thing or if, at the very least, their core beliefs are compatible. With the possible exception of the Hindu, my guess is that you will hear great unity in their response of “no!” (p. 104)
Here, of course, Chole is implying that if devout followers of different religions see that each religion is unique, then how can someone who is outside of the traditions altogether understand them as “communicating complementary messages”? (p. 104) She is also pointing out the arrogance of such assertions.
If religions make distinct and competing claims, how can we learn which one is the best? To solve this problem, Chole provides four questions that serve as “filters” (p. 88):
1) Is my belief system…consistent (at its core)?
2) Is my belief system…livable (and not just quotable)?
3) Is my belief system…sustainable (through life-size pain)?
4) Is my belief system…transferable (to others)?
Perhaps Chole’s four filters (and their subsequent proving of the truthfulness of Christianity) are too simplistic for some, but I find that they provide a helpful screen in discerning the varying levels of truth and goodness in various religious claims. In truth, much of Chole’s book reads this way: simple, yet profound and powerful.
The second topic found in Chole’s book that I will consider is that of theodicy, which is the problem of evil and suffering in the world, in lue of an all-good and all-powerful God. It turns out that this issue is, for people such as Bart Ehrman, is a deal-breaker when it comes to believing in Jesus. For Chole, the problem of injustice in the world provided her atheism with both peace of mind and potency. “If there is no God, then we do not have to question him, her, or them about why the innocent are condemned and the guilty freed-it is simply human error” (p.63).
However, that peace of mind, the fact that we should not expect otherwise soon began to haunt her, turning peace of mind into a darker approach to life:
As an Atheist, the road to suicide was less fraught with moral or philosophical obstacles than perhaps it would be for a Theist of whatever persuasion. There was no god, There was no afterlife, death ended all pain. Why wait for the release when I could initiate it? (p.78); Underneath, something significant had shifted within me, My atheism had experienced a mutation: It was no longer benign… Life is painful…Through a more personal acquaintance with relational and emotional pain, my Atheism morphed into “anti-theism”…How could anyone have the audacity to suggest the existence of a god or gods that “hold all the power”? How could such beings exist and not use their power to prevent pain? Obviously there is no god. (p. 133-144)
Unfortunately, the problem of theodicy is not intellectually countered in Chole’s book. Instead, experiential answers are given:
In many ways it would be a relief to once again chalk these atrocities up to the human condition alone; to return to a worldview that would deliver me from wondering where God as and what prayer does. But for me, and other sincere people of faith, the tension remains…Over the years, though, I have experienced a glorious discovery: There is treasure in the tension. The struggle is a doorway. Sincerity in the quest ushers us mysteriously across the threshold, and on the other side is – not answers – but knowing. On the other side is intimacy. (p.64); Beliefs are celebrated in the light. They are tested in the dark. (p. 116); Life is not tidy. Pain coexists with joy… God does not conveniently edit out the uncomfortable…Spiritually seeing God’s wholeness did not blind me to the world’s woundedness. Over the years, my sensitivity to injustice and pain has only heightened. Walking with God, I still see life’s complexities – but now that sight is attended by hope and complimented by a renewable strength to fight. Relationship with this realistic god has made me, both in thought and action, more (not less) in touch with the true aches of humanity.
It is helpful to notice here, what Chole calls the “fruit” (p.75) of a belief system. The fruit is the result of the belief system, it is the quality of fullness in life, the “honey” of the “fruit and honey” in life. Belief in Jesus has given Chole the ability to see hope, and therefore, to be more merciful to others and to bring more goodness and justice to the world. Instead of her thoughts of suicide, and negativity towards others, she learned that with Jesus she could participate more in life. As He once said, he has come to bring not just life, not just breathing and eating, but fullness of life: joy, peace, hope, and love (John 10:10, my translation). Other fruit that Chole has experienced since being a Christian has been, contra the writing of the New Atheists, an increase in mental vitality: “What I did not anticipate [as a result of her conversion], though, was an increase in my ability to learn, When God awakened me to his existence, my critical-thinking skills expanded and my creativity exploded” (p. 147).
Another section of Finding an Unseen God must be discussed. Chole’s retelling of her moment of realizing that God is real (ch.25) was the highlight of the book for me. I will not spoil the book for those who wish to read it, but I should point out that it struck me as such a moment of beauty, serenity, power, and worship. It made so much sense where and when her conversion happened, and yet none at all.
I appreciated Finding An Unseen God for its simplicity, its truth, and its respect for other belief systems. It should be noted that Finding An Unseen God is no textbook, filled with arguments and counter-arguments. It is a journal of a life-journey. The book will leave readers encouraged 1) in their faith and 2) in learning more about their faith and the faiths of others. Finding An Unseen God’s 173 pages will leave its readers both satisfied with their faith and thirsting for more truth.

See the (very interesting) Trailer.
Go to Alicia Britt Chole's website.
Read a review and excerpts from the book.
Read more reviews.

God is Good

2009-07-16T13:30:00.003-06:00

Over the last few weeks I have been refreshed with the truths that God is 1) Good, 2) Wise, 3) Just, and 4) Powerful. I’m not sure why this struck me so much. I suppose that it was the Spirit weaving different thoughts and truths in my mind.
At the time I was thinking of the need to love people more concretely…to actually do something about what I learn and hear about the world, and to take care of my own life and family too. I was also read Ecclesiastes, thinking about how wrong that author had it, how he must be wrong about God’s goodness, and how he was not open to the idea of the resurrection. Around that same time I read a passage in the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, talking about the Incarnation.
All these thoughts converged on me at the same time, that God is essentially good, that even when he knows that things are bad, he has plans to make all things new, and even when all deserve punishment for messing up God’s creation, God desires to be merciful rather than to condemn us. It struck me: God is good. This is our best, most joyous thought: God is good.
And our worst thought is this: God is not good. For if this is true, there is no reason for hope of a joyous afterlife, or of mercy, or any good thing. If God is essentially evil, or a mixture of good and evil, then we have few reasons to really be happy, and to look forward to the future.
There was a stirring of great joy in me, so much that my heart began to ache. I believe that this thought was at least a part of the inspiration for Paul’s words:
“Rejoice in the Lord always; again I say rejoice. Let your gentleness be known to everyone. The Lord is near. Do not worry about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and our minds in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4.4-7).
If God is not good, what sureness is there in prayer? Little to none. But for Christians, who know God as good, there is assurance of answered prayer. So then, let us pray that God would give us good gifts; let us pray for wisdom and understanding; let us pray thankfully and consistently; let us pray that the Holy Spirit would move us to greater and greater joys.

Prayer to the Holy Spirit
Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Your faithful, and enkindle in them the fire of Your love. Send forth Your Spirit and they shall be created. And You shall renew the face of the earth.
O God, You instructed the hearts of those who believed in You by the light of the Holy Spirit. Grant us in the same Spirit to be truly wise and ever to rejoice in His consolation: through Christ our Lord. Amen.
(From Prayers and Devotions of the Catholic Faith)

Letter to Peter Kent, Regarding Honduras

2009-07-15T13:39:00.006-06:00

About the Honduras Situation

Dear Mr. Kent,

Recently. I have been learning about the situation in Honduras. It is not clear to me if President Zalaya was trying to extend his presidency or not. I suspect that people in power often want to extend their reign.
It is also unclear to me whether Mr. Micheletti has a good goal, though is pursuing it through evil means. I suspect that Micheletti should not be supported as no leader should call another names such as Mr. Micheletti called President Obama. Also, I see that Dr. Juan Almendares, who appears to be an upstanding person, and also ran against Pr. Zalaya in the last presidential elections supports Zalaya being accepted back into the country.

I also know that there are some Canadian companies in Honduras (mining and textiles) that might profit if Pr. Zalaya is kept out of the government. I urge to to put pressure on these companies not to support the coup and to stay out of political affairs for the time being. What is profit compared to living quality?

In light of all of this, I am unsure how to advise you. I do request that you research more into the situation, not trusting the words of Pr. Zalaya or Mr. Micheletti completely. It is my guess that it is within your power to find out where Canadian aid is going (to whom and for what) and I ask you to do this. If you are refused, then you must cease aid, understanding that the usage of the aid is being hidden for most likely evil means. I suggest this as your first step, as it will reveal the intentions of Micheletti and his care for the Honduran people.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I will be posting this on my blog (http://important-topics-ahub.blogspot.com/) for my readers to see. Please respond to this email. Please reply with your wisdom on this issue and your intended action in regards to Honduras.

Respectfully,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(End of letter)

Peter Kent is Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Americas) in the Canadian Cabinet.

If you would like to research some of what is happening, visit the sites below:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124744094880829815.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/15/honduras
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/07/02/honduras-decree-suspends-basic-rights
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-estrada10-2009jul10,0,1570598.story
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14369
http://www.straight.com/article-238367/harsha-walia-dissecting-coup-honduras
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1747599
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Canada+condemns+Honduran+coup/1743900/story.html
http://www.peterkent.ca/

After informing yourself, and if you can make an informed and prudent judgment, or have any good suggestions on this issue, contact Peter Kent.

Contact Peter

7600 Yonge Street
Thornhill, Ontario
L4J 1V9
Phone: 905-886-9911
Fax: 905-886-5267
Email: kentp@parl.gc.ca

Community Office
7600 Yonge Street
Thornhill, Ontario
L4J 1V9
Phone: (905) 886-1426
Fax: (905) 886-5267

Ottawa Office
Peter Kent
110 Justice Building
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Phone: (613) 992-0253
Fax: (613) 992-0887

2001 Massacre of Suspected Taliban POWs

2009-07-14T00:20:00.005-06:00

Obama Calls for Probe into 2001 Massacre of at Least 2,000 Suspected Taliban POWs by US-Backed Afghan Warlord

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/13/obama_calls_for_probe_into_2001

It was incredible to hear how these suspected Taliban POWs were treated. The evidence of the massacre is clear. What is not clear is how much the U.S. military/government was involved. It is wrong for people to be treated in that manner; worse than animals should be treated. Inhuman. I am glad that Obama is open to inquiry about this.

Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin

2009-07-13T23:14:00.002-06:00

Recently I received an email that concluded with this: Love the sinner, hate the sin.

It is easy to understand this in the wrong way, from both directions. I mean, (1) if you are the speaker of the sentence it is easy to forget that you are a sinner and that the other person, who is in fact a sinner, is essentially good, else God would not love him. And (2) if you are the receiver of such a sentiment it can easily offend us to think of ourselves as sinners, and we wonder if that other person knows at all how to differentiate between what I do and who I am.

I would like to show two quotes that help us understand this phrase. The first quote comes from C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity, the chapter entitled Forgiveness), and the other comes from St. Thomas Aquinas (Commentary on the Ten Commandments, in the preamble explaining how love for God and neighbour fulfills all the commandments). It is important to note that these authors make none of the aforementioned mistakes. The authors (1) explicitly or implicitely admit their own sinfulness. (2)They wish that others would lead the happiest of lives, not wishing them condemnation or hell, realizing that God is good in every way. (3) The authors show that this phrase must lead us to be merciful, compassionate and forgiving. (4) Lastly, there is justice going on, in that the evil is rightly hated while those whom God has created and loved are being loved.

The most important notice I can give is this: those people who use this phrase wrongly, to condemn people, to judge those they should not judge, to feel justified in feeling high and "righteous", to be unmerciful or unforgiving...those people don't understand God correctly, as these authors do. C.S. Lewis and St. Thomas Aquinas understand God to be the epitome of Goodness, Justice, Wisdom, and Power. Christians believe that God is so good and merciful and life-affirming that he paid a great - the greatest - price to help us. He is Just in that all of sin has been punished, through Christ, and that he has done it through a human to free humans and that he has not removed our free will to reject his goodness. He is wise because he devised a way to do all this. And all of this would be meaningless if God could not actually do this, but God is in fact all-powerful. Anyways, enough with my introduction.

(1)
For a long time I used to think this a silly, straw-splitting distinction: how could you hate what a man did and not hate the man? But years later it occurred to me that there was one man to whom I had been doing this all my life - namely myself. However much I might dislike my own cowardice or conceit of greed, I went on loving myself. There had never been the slightest difficulty about it. In fact the very reason why I hated the things was that I loved the man. Just because I loved myself, I was sorry to find that I was the sort of man who did those things. Consequently, Christianity does not want us to reduce by one atom the hatred we feel for cruelty and treachery. We ought to hate them. Not one word of what we have said about them needs to be unsaid. But it does want us to hate them in the same way in which we hate things in ourselves: being sorry that the man should have done such things, and hoping, if it is anyway possible, that somehow, sometime, somewhere he can be cured and made [more] human again. - C. S. Lewis

(2)
“Love your neighbor as yourself.” This precept the Jews and Pharisees badly understood, believing that God commanded them to love their friends and hate their enemies. Therefore, by “neighbors” they understood only friends. Christ meant to repudiate this understanding when he said (Mt 5:44): “Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you.” Note that whoever hates his brother is not in the state of salvation (1 Jn 2:9): “He who hates his brother is in the darkness.”
We must be aware, however, of texts to the contrary. For the saints hated some people (Ps 138:22): “I hated them with perfect hatred.” And in the Gospel (Lk 14:26): “If anyone does not hate his father and mother and wife and sons and brothers and sisters, even his own soul, he cannot be my disciple.” We should realize that in all that we do, what Christ did should be our example. For God loves and hates. In any man two things should be considered: his nature and the wrong. What is of nature in man should be loved, what is wrong should be hated. So if anyone wished a person to be in hell, he would be hating his nature, but if he wished him to be good, he would be hating the sin, which should always be hated (Ps 5:7): “You hate all who do evil.” And (Wis 11:25), “Lord, you love all that exists, and hate nothing which you have made.” See, then, what God loves and hates: He loves what is of nature and hates what is wrong.
We should realize, however, that sometimes a person can do evil without sinning, that is, when he does evil so that he may desire good, because God also does this. For instance, when a man is sick and is converted to good, whereas while he was well he was evil. In the same way someone can be converted to good when he meets adversity, after being evil while living in prosperity, according to the text (Is 28:19): “Terror alone shall convey the message.” Another case is to desire the evil of a tyrant destroying the Church, in as much as you desire the good of the Church through the destruction of the tyrant; thus (2 Mac 1:17): “Blessed in every way be God who has punished the wicked.” And all must want this not just by willing it, but also by doing it. For it is not a sin justly to hang the evil; for they are ministers of God who do this, according the Apostle (Rm 13), and these people are acting in love, because punishment is given at times to castigate evil, and at times for the sake of a greater and divine good. For the good of a city is a greater good than the life of one man. But note that it is not enough not to wish evil, but one must also wish good, that is the correction of the sinner and eternal life.
For someone can wish the good of another in two ways. One way is general, in so far as the person is a creature of God and is capable of partaking in eternal life. The other way is special, in so far as the person is a friend or companion. No one is excluded from a general love, for everyone should pray for everyone, and help anyone in extreme need. But you are not held to be familiar with everyone, unless he asks pardon, because then he would be your friend; and if you refused him you would be hating a friend. Thus it is said (Mt 6:14-15): “If you forgive people their sins, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you yours; but if you do not forgive them, neither will your Father forgive you your sins.” And in the Lord’s Prayer it is said (Mt 6:9): “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”