Sometimes there's an awesome expression of a theological truth to be found in my sometimes cheesy and somewhat angsty library of Christian rock. Take Falling Up's "Flights," for example. This song's chorus makes for an amazing expression of the truths of action and identity found in God as well as the inescapable nature and omniscience of God. Much more eloquent than I think I ever expected to hear when I got this album way back in 2007 or whenever. I got the lyrics from here, with one by-ear correction, but I honestly can't endorse whatever ads they put on the left. Especially if whatever you see is like what I saw. Lyrics for "Flights" run:
They search, They light
This place a face of the fearless
To wait the night
It's calm but you're starting to hear this
It moves so fast, stopped hearts but holding on faster
Come back, like that, and you know that
Chorus
You will find
That I'm everywhere you go
And I'm all the places you will not be
You will find
That I'm everywhere you go
And I'm all the things that you want to be
It leaves this light
This sparkles broken inside you
I swear it hides
This siren's moving it's way through
The race we hear
The fall of the wind and the whispers
The take, so clear, and you know that
Chorus
Constantly moving your heart is just wasting away
Endlessly waiting this life is just slipping away
Chorus
Monday, November 23, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Small Layout Difference
I made a picture for our top and widened the blog a little. In the picture, Austin's on left, and I'm on the right. Enjoy.
Remarriage
I'd be lying if I said I really saw a case for it in the Scriptures.
Okay, that's a lie. I do see two explicit exceptions given. One is by Jesus, who defines adultery as divorce except for reason of unfaithfulness. If not for Paul's explicit exception for a marriage in which a believer has an unbelieving spouse (plus a bit more), I would be tempted to just think that all divorce/remarriage except for reasons of prior adultery would itself be adultery. But as it stands I really only see two possible, and Scriptural, exceptions to the mandate against divorce/remarriage:
1. Prior adultery on the part of a spouse.
2. One of the partners in the marriage is a believer, the other is not, and the unbeliever does not wish to live with the believer.
As perhaps-harsh as it sounds I don't even really think I'm seeing an 'addiction' or 'abuse' clause in what I've read. I'm well aware that many Christians throughout the ages, including one or two early Church Fathers, have found more exceptions than I. The simple 'plain interpretation' of the text doesn't seem to me to line up with almost anything I've ever seen any Christian or Christian church express (yes, including the RCC.) Is there a Scripture, or some other piece of the church historical or our hermeneutic as Christians, that I'm missing, here?
Please do discuss.
Okay, that's a lie. I do see two explicit exceptions given. One is by Jesus, who defines adultery as divorce except for reason of unfaithfulness. If not for Paul's explicit exception for a marriage in which a believer has an unbelieving spouse (plus a bit more), I would be tempted to just think that all divorce/remarriage except for reasons of prior adultery would itself be adultery. But as it stands I really only see two possible, and Scriptural, exceptions to the mandate against divorce/remarriage:
1. Prior adultery on the part of a spouse.
2. One of the partners in the marriage is a believer, the other is not, and the unbeliever does not wish to live with the believer.
As perhaps-harsh as it sounds I don't even really think I'm seeing an 'addiction' or 'abuse' clause in what I've read. I'm well aware that many Christians throughout the ages, including one or two early Church Fathers, have found more exceptions than I. The simple 'plain interpretation' of the text doesn't seem to me to line up with almost anything I've ever seen any Christian or Christian church express (yes, including the RCC.) Is there a Scripture, or some other piece of the church historical or our hermeneutic as Christians, that I'm missing, here?
Please do discuss.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Games With God
Hello friends, it's been a long time since I've written much of anything on this blog. Lots of good and bad things have happened. As it may have been clear earlier, I decided almost 10 months ago to begin a year of vows, most of which just involved typical abstinence (no alcohol, no girls, no smoking) and a fast every Tuesday. I recently decided to end the vows, however, for fear that they were doing more harm than good.
At the outset of the vows, I was trying to keep myself on a straight path by avoiding things that I had seen which cause problems in my life. Thus, I decided to make decisions that would destroy my party life altogether. This was not a bad decision, but I failed to see the root of the problem. The problem will never be that I drink alcohol, or that I have something to smoke, or that I am attracted to women. The problem is that I don't see God as being real enough in my life.
Over years of heavy involvement in churches, I am starting to see vows, rules, and expectations as being very limiting and very dangerous. This weekend I suddenly realized that while I was trying to fend off the "dangers of this world" with my vows, I had failed to conquer the sin in my heart. I realized that the human heart wants to know God, but we want to know God on our own terms. We want to play games. We want to follow rules. We would rather assume these games, these pointless little games, that we think will earn points with Him.
I found myself tallying up points when I did something unselfish, fed a homeless person, restrained my tongue, witnessed to someone, went to church, encouraged a friend, etc.
My actions were plenty good, but my heart somehow was not. I was earning points for myself instead of living this way simply to be obedient. I somehow gained the notion that I could earn something good by living good.
I decided to shed it all off recently. I need to discover what faith really means at this point. God is real. God isn't just this game we're playing. He's not tallying up scores. He's a friend, a savior, a lover, a defender, a father, a brother, and a holy, righteous God who has made it clear time and time again that His desire is to dwell among us. His existence is infinitely more solid than everything that we've ever considered to be reality. How does He feel when instead of actually communicating with Him, we just try and tally points up? How do you think He feels about these silly rules that we try to follow to fit in to Christian culture, when what He really desires is closeness with us and true obedience to His will?
Give it some thought; this is open for discussion.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Love: An Example
If you're reading this, then you probably know already that I'm a decent-sized fan of the American version of The Office. Now when I read Karol Wojtyla's Love and Responsibility awhile back, I was almost obsessed with the philosophy I was absorbing, and certainly annoyingly intrigued, and it definitely created a shift in the way I saw our culture's portrayal of love. I'm definitely a tad surprised it's taken me this long to make a post about it. But anyway, now I get to post about and about L&R and about The Office. Now let it be known that reading that work has definitely affected my view of this show negatively, but it's affected my view of just about every bit of culture that even goes near what Love (the virtue) or love (romantic) means. I'm not saying I think writers endorse everything their characters do, or that I expect characters to be perfect on TV shows; they patently don't and patently aren't. But it's worth seeing where we can find examples in pop culture of stuff like Love. So here's an example of dialogue from the second season of that I think helps to illustrate amor benevolentia, or "love as goodwill."
To give some context: Jan Levinson, a regional supervisor, has come to the office to seek women who are ambitious and who might play a role in corporate life. She has urged Pam to try and get some graphic design schooling...later on, her fiance, Roy, talks her out of it, which is followed roughly by a talking head in which she rationalizes her decision. So here's the quotation, shamelessly culled from The Office Quotes. Ladies and gentlemen, Season 2, "Boys and Girls."
Love as goodwill, as I can gather, seems to mean showing Love to the other person over and above whatever attraction you have to them, or whatever desire you have for them. In a romantic context it's one possible motivator for saying "If you really love someone, you want them to be happy, even if it's not with you." In an un-romantic context the best example I can think of is telling people what they need to hear, even if they might hate you for it. This example is definitely a little bit of both; certainly there are motivations to what Jim is saying that go beyond pure goodwill, and it's pretty clear by implication that he still wants her, if only subconsciously. But it's a very slight impurity in this case, if you will, and in the scene it's pretty clear that he wants to motivate her more than he actually wants to be with her. This set of scenes remains one of the most profound that The Office cast/crew ever pulled off, in my mind. It is also one of the purest examples of love as goodwill that I've ever seen portrayed in pop culture. There will be more examples to come in the future from shows that aren't The Office. Hopefully I can find one or two with a YouTube clip available.
To give some context: Jan Levinson, a regional supervisor, has come to the office to seek women who are ambitious and who might play a role in corporate life. She has urged Pam to try and get some graphic design schooling...later on, her fiance, Roy, talks her out of it, which is followed roughly by a talking head in which she rationalizes her decision. So here's the quotation, shamelessly culled from The Office Quotes. Ladies and gentlemen, Season 2, "Boys and Girls."
This is then followed by another talking head in which Pam again tries to rationalize the decision, and winds up crying on-camera. I couldn't find the clip just by itself anywhere, so the best I can do if you want to get an idea of the sound/look of it is to go here and listen to an audio clip.
Jim Halpert: So you're not doing it. Pam Beesly: How did you know? Jim Halpert: Why not? Pam Beesly: Just, like, no big reason. Just a bunch of little reasons. Roy's right there's no guarantee it's going to lead to anything anyway. Jim Halpert: Roy said that. Pam Beesly: What. You have something you wanna say? Jim Halpert: You gotta take a chance on something sometime Pam. I mean do you wanna be a receptionist here always? Pam Beesly: Oh excuse me! I'm fine with my choices! Jim Halpert: You are? Pam Beesly: Yeah.
Love as goodwill, as I can gather, seems to mean showing Love to the other person over and above whatever attraction you have to them, or whatever desire you have for them. In a romantic context it's one possible motivator for saying "If you really love someone, you want them to be happy, even if it's not with you." In an un-romantic context the best example I can think of is telling people what they need to hear, even if they might hate you for it. This example is definitely a little bit of both; certainly there are motivations to what Jim is saying that go beyond pure goodwill, and it's pretty clear by implication that he still wants her, if only subconsciously. But it's a very slight impurity in this case, if you will, and in the scene it's pretty clear that he wants to motivate her more than he actually wants to be with her. This set of scenes remains one of the most profound that The Office cast/crew ever pulled off, in my mind. It is also one of the purest examples of love as goodwill that I've ever seen portrayed in pop culture. There will be more examples to come in the future from shows that aren't The Office. Hopefully I can find one or two with a YouTube clip available.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Defying the World's Categories: The Culture of Life
Who are the least of these? I'm going to take the tack of the persons least able to defend themselves: first physically, then economically. The abortion issue is obviously a piece of what we're dealing with here. That must be taken care of with some priority. The most defenseless human beings among us are the ones who've only entered the womb, not the outside world, and it seems clear that they do need defending. I would love to pontificate about America's wonderful progress, how much of a pro-life nation we actually are. But I can't, because we're not. A quick check at the number of Downs Syndrome abortions should clear up that perception.
I don't think we pro-lifers are going far enough in our pursuit of justice. Many of our most common arguments rely on the notion of the human fetus is a human being. The focus on the abortion issue is then justified by saying that those in the womb are the least among is, in the sense of being the most defenseless, the most open to attack and marginalization. This is fine to my mind, but it needs to be taken a step further. A pro-life stance that truly respects Christianity and its instructions for how we treat each other must take the next step and defend all stages of life, from womb to tomb, or as a high school teacher of mine memorably put it, sperm to worm. In many Catholic circles this is known as the 'consistent ethic of life,' and in some of these circles it's been misused as an excuse for downplaying the ethical gravity of abortion. But that doesn't mean it isn't true.
Clearly, the right to life begins with the right to survive. But if we allow it to end there, we are not carrying the examples of our Lord and of the traditions of our great faith to their fulfillment. Certain things that happen in church history, even that which is seen in the New Testament, are clearly motivated by concerns for social justice. Why else does it seem that the main community discussed in Acts is one in which persons sell their possessions to give to the poor? Why else would it be that in the Gospels, Jesus instructs us that, essentially, a substantially higher burden is placed on the rich in entering the Kingdom of Heaven, than on the poor? The passage in which Jesus discusses 'the least of these' makes no reference to persons in the womb, but it does talk about visiting the sick and prisoners and addressing other concerns of social justice. It is clear that the Christian church has been opposed to abortion from the beginning, if only by the early church's interpretation of the Scriptures. But it is also clear that the church has been concerned with social justice from the start.
So where does this leave us? With the inescapable conclusion that as Christians striving to take our tradition seriously, we must care about justice inside and outside of the womb, about quality-of-life justice as well as survival. Abortion does seem pretty clearly to be the most wrong of the injustices perpetrated in America today. That's a pretty inescapable conclusion to my mind. But it is not the only injustice by far.
I give nothing but kudos to all the pro-lifers (and there are many) who are seriously striving to life out a consistent ethic of life. However, we need to take it further. It may be that there are a few people whose God-given mission is to focus on the issue of abortion and not to worry so much about economic justice issues. There might also be a few people whose mission is to the poor, and who aren't supposed to be doing so much directly on the abortion issue. To risk a smiting from God, however, it is nobody's God-given mission to ignore any facet of justice and avoid its implication for their lives. If we really want to give people a solid and inescapable picture of what a converted world could look like, it means we've got to go further. We've got to seek justice in everything we do, including the perhaps-uncomfortable economic justice of giving not only to the church but to charitable organizations. Abortion is bad, but we need to be pro-life, not merely anti-abortion; it's time we defied the world to define us. We need to show our current culture of injustice what the world could look like if we chose to care about each other, sperm to worm.
Pursuit of a Good God means nothing less.
I don't think we pro-lifers are going far enough in our pursuit of justice. Many of our most common arguments rely on the notion of the human fetus is a human being. The focus on the abortion issue is then justified by saying that those in the womb are the least among is, in the sense of being the most defenseless, the most open to attack and marginalization. This is fine to my mind, but it needs to be taken a step further. A pro-life stance that truly respects Christianity and its instructions for how we treat each other must take the next step and defend all stages of life, from womb to tomb, or as a high school teacher of mine memorably put it, sperm to worm. In many Catholic circles this is known as the 'consistent ethic of life,' and in some of these circles it's been misused as an excuse for downplaying the ethical gravity of abortion. But that doesn't mean it isn't true.
Clearly, the right to life begins with the right to survive. But if we allow it to end there, we are not carrying the examples of our Lord and of the traditions of our great faith to their fulfillment. Certain things that happen in church history, even that which is seen in the New Testament, are clearly motivated by concerns for social justice. Why else does it seem that the main community discussed in Acts is one in which persons sell their possessions to give to the poor? Why else would it be that in the Gospels, Jesus instructs us that, essentially, a substantially higher burden is placed on the rich in entering the Kingdom of Heaven, than on the poor? The passage in which Jesus discusses 'the least of these' makes no reference to persons in the womb, but it does talk about visiting the sick and prisoners and addressing other concerns of social justice. It is clear that the Christian church has been opposed to abortion from the beginning, if only by the early church's interpretation of the Scriptures. But it is also clear that the church has been concerned with social justice from the start.
So where does this leave us? With the inescapable conclusion that as Christians striving to take our tradition seriously, we must care about justice inside and outside of the womb, about quality-of-life justice as well as survival. Abortion does seem pretty clearly to be the most wrong of the injustices perpetrated in America today. That's a pretty inescapable conclusion to my mind. But it is not the only injustice by far.
I give nothing but kudos to all the pro-lifers (and there are many) who are seriously striving to life out a consistent ethic of life. However, we need to take it further. It may be that there are a few people whose God-given mission is to focus on the issue of abortion and not to worry so much about economic justice issues. There might also be a few people whose mission is to the poor, and who aren't supposed to be doing so much directly on the abortion issue. To risk a smiting from God, however, it is nobody's God-given mission to ignore any facet of justice and avoid its implication for their lives. If we really want to give people a solid and inescapable picture of what a converted world could look like, it means we've got to go further. We've got to seek justice in everything we do, including the perhaps-uncomfortable economic justice of giving not only to the church but to charitable organizations. Abortion is bad, but we need to be pro-life, not merely anti-abortion; it's time we defied the world to define us. We need to show our current culture of injustice what the world could look like if we chose to care about each other, sperm to worm.
Pursuit of a Good God means nothing less.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Ted Apple's Murder
Okay, here's the link to the PDF file of Ted Apple's Murder. It's a decent-length story (1.5 spacing, Times New Roman with some formatting, brought the story proper to about 23 pages.) I'm going to post the "Disclaimer and Invitation" section below, along with the link to the PDF file. If the ideas of the story create interesting enough discussion there will probably be further posts on them, and what the heck I was thinking when I did x,y,z in the story.
You can download the PDF of the story here. I hope you enjoy it.
Disclaimer and Invitation
“Sanctification means I kick you less as time goes on.” - Andy Boyes
“I picked up Animal Farm expecting a nice, light read about animals.” - Jason Weeks
I wrote this story to explore ideas, and as a sort of love-letter to G.K. Chesterton, is one of the biggest influence on my life and thought. I've been compiling a list of theological notions and themes explored in Ted Apple's Murder and that you can find this list at the end of the story. But I should sincerely caution you against reading the list before you read the story, in no small part because I want feedback on what you as readers get out of it first. I don't want you to know the “right” interpretation of what I am saying because, at the risk of sounding cocky, God might have had a better idea in mind than mine.
That said, the way the story is told (you will discover) involved me in some sense putting words into God's mouth. I admit that as a theologian this takes an incredible amount of hubris, though perhaps not much more than it takes to even be a theologian to begin with. I think I'm doing less damage here than some of the popular speakers, mostly because I am unlikely to reach the same masses of people. I have no illusions—I am a man, and I need to make it clear to you all that not only do I not speak for God (a fact you know already), I know that I do not speak for God. On my better days maybe I behave like Christ, but only by the grace of the Spirit. This is not an attempt at any sort of Scriptural or even Saintly addition to Christianity. It is primarily an exploration of theological ideas in story.
Please do not hesitate to tell me if a theological idea that you think I'm presenting or exploring jumps out at you. I really really do want to know what people are getting out of this. And if you happen to be one of my non-religious friends, I'm also quite interested in what you have to say. The bottom line: If you're reading this and you've got something to say about it, any interaction with its ideas or what you think its ideas are, please tell me. I want to know!
Now that that's clear, I hope you enjoy the story. I suppose I'd also like to know if my writing just sucks, but please be gentle if you find that it does.
You can download the PDF of the story here. I hope you enjoy it.
Disclaimer and Invitation
“Sanctification means I kick you less as time goes on.” - Andy Boyes
“I picked up Animal Farm expecting a nice, light read about animals.” - Jason Weeks
I wrote this story to explore ideas, and as a sort of love-letter to G.K. Chesterton, is one of the biggest influence on my life and thought. I've been compiling a list of theological notions and themes explored in Ted Apple's Murder and that you can find this list at the end of the story. But I should sincerely caution you against reading the list before you read the story, in no small part because I want feedback on what you as readers get out of it first. I don't want you to know the “right” interpretation of what I am saying because, at the risk of sounding cocky, God might have had a better idea in mind than mine.
That said, the way the story is told (you will discover) involved me in some sense putting words into God's mouth. I admit that as a theologian this takes an incredible amount of hubris, though perhaps not much more than it takes to even be a theologian to begin with. I think I'm doing less damage here than some of the popular speakers, mostly because I am unlikely to reach the same masses of people. I have no illusions—I am a man, and I need to make it clear to you all that not only do I not speak for God (a fact you know already), I know that I do not speak for God. On my better days maybe I behave like Christ, but only by the grace of the Spirit. This is not an attempt at any sort of Scriptural or even Saintly addition to Christianity. It is primarily an exploration of theological ideas in story.
Please do not hesitate to tell me if a theological idea that you think I'm presenting or exploring jumps out at you. I really really do want to know what people are getting out of this. And if you happen to be one of my non-religious friends, I'm also quite interested in what you have to say. The bottom line: If you're reading this and you've got something to say about it, any interaction with its ideas or what you think its ideas are, please tell me. I want to know!
Now that that's clear, I hope you enjoy the story. I suppose I'd also like to know if my writing just sucks, but please be gentle if you find that it does.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Council of Trent, Canons on Justification
"CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema
CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema."
Source-page: http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html
Say sayonara to Perseverance of the Saints. At least, if you like the Council of Trent.
Also, a fun fact we can derive from this council's decrees, especially from the reference to the predestinate as an actual and definite thing: It exists. And even one of the Christian churches which insists most fervently on man's free will--that is, the Roman Catholic Church--insists on some notion of predestination being preserved. Of course I would argue that this notion is pretty undeniably Biblical, just, well, not the notion as the Calvinists would have it be.
Lest anyone doubt that Trent also affirmed human freedom:
"CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man's free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that, since Adam's sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema."
Clear anathemization by the council of Irresistible Grace and also of the denial of free will as a result of Original Sin. Human freedom: Affirmed!
CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema."
Source-page: http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html
Say sayonara to Perseverance of the Saints. At least, if you like the Council of Trent.
Also, a fun fact we can derive from this council's decrees, especially from the reference to the predestinate as an actual and definite thing: It exists. And even one of the Christian churches which insists most fervently on man's free will--that is, the Roman Catholic Church--insists on some notion of predestination being preserved. Of course I would argue that this notion is pretty undeniably Biblical, just, well, not the notion as the Calvinists would have it be.
Lest anyone doubt that Trent also affirmed human freedom:
"CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man's free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that, since Adam's sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema."
Clear anathemization by the council of Irresistible Grace and also of the denial of free will as a result of Original Sin. Human freedom: Affirmed!
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Ted Apple is Down for Now
I need to do more revision. And finish the thing.
I'm going to put it all up at once, as PDF and as two or three monster posts, once it's done.
I'm going to put it all up at once, as PDF and as two or three monster posts, once it's done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)