I was looking today at Gen 2 on www.youversion.com (which is fantastic and any internet involved Christian MUST check it out) and I found just the title of someone's post on the chapter and it was titled "How life was meant to be." And I was suddenly surprised to hear something in me yell "No!"
"Alright then," I said to myself "what is it supposed to be like?"
"It's supposed to be like Jesus..."
"And...?"
"The new heavens and the new earth. It is supposed to be like that and not like what it was. We as people of God are not to push back towards the Garden. Life is not meant to be a return to the Garden, and any attempt to get back there will be met with a flaming sword. We are to look forward to life with Christ, not backward to the grave. The way we have heaven now is not to fix the broken world, but to walk ever closer to our savior. Adam and Eve did not have it great because they got to walk around naked eating fruit, but because they walked close to Christ every day and every hour.
"And God when he came back and established his kingdom did indeed heal the sick and the blind and the lame, but he did not restore the garden. What he did in his death and resurrection was unite us to himself so that now we can walk closer to him more than it was to bring back the perfect balance of nature and all else. His restoring was a taste of what is come not what was before. The curtain was torn in two, and now we can walk with our Lord every day and every hour. We even have his spirit to guide and comfort us. This is what we are to revel in and seek after.
"But how much of every day am I trying to restore the garden? How much am I trying to make things 'the way they were meant to be'? Instead my efforts should be focused squarely on Christ and the way things will be in the future."
"Ah," I said to myself, "that makes more sense. Let's press on then. And do try to be more eloquent when you decide to interrupt."
Friday, March 26, 2010
And he came into the world scandolously
You know I never really sat down and thought about it, but the virgin birth was quite scandalous. I'm pretty sure that I have heard this before, but it jumped out at me again today. Our savior looked to all around as if he had been conceived out of wedlock. Kinda crazy right? I mean everyone could do that math. You were born 3 months after your parents got married.
Joseph and Mary both had their reputations stained by this essentially branded as fornicators. Here is the kicker, they would also look bad in front of the Church today. For Christ they suffered ignominy at the hands of other religious people. So in following Christ, they looked bad to the morally upstanding of their day, even those who were following the law.
I guess that just goes to remind me not to judge, and to realize that following Christ might sometimes make me do things that look bad to the rest of the world -- even the Christian world.
Joseph and Mary both had their reputations stained by this essentially branded as fornicators. Here is the kicker, they would also look bad in front of the Church today. For Christ they suffered ignominy at the hands of other religious people. So in following Christ, they looked bad to the morally upstanding of their day, even those who were following the law.
I guess that just goes to remind me not to judge, and to realize that following Christ might sometimes make me do things that look bad to the rest of the world -- even the Christian world.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Is Bloom Energy just hype?
Bloom Energy came out last Sunday with a spiffy name, and a bunch of promises, but it seems to me their numbers aren't quite stacking up. Their promise of "payback" seems completely made out of thin air.
First lets look at the natural gas aspect of this. The Bloom Device uses about 2/3 of an MMBtu per hour to produce 100 kw of electricity. If you are a utility that is buying huge quantities, that's only 2 cents per kwh. For industrial you will be closer to 3 cents per kwh, but for residential customers, it will be about 7 cents per kilowatt hour at today's prices. Just that last number pretty much kills the idea of ever getting a Bloom into your house. Unless you are in California (or Texas because Texas' electricity comes mostly from natural gas) your utility cost will be cheaper than owning one of these boxes.
Second, lets look at the payback. I don't understand how the device can pay for itself in so little time. Assuming that the Bloom is free to run, and you are in California, and you are paying residential prices for electricity, it will take about 7 years to pay back. However, when you throw in the cost of running the Bloom, it jumps out to 9 years. Throw in cheaper cost of electricity to large consumers you are looking at 12 years. Take it Alabama where electricity is only 8 cents to large customers and it won't pay back for over 40 years.
Nuclear power plants cost only about $4000 per kilowatt and take 8-10 years to pay back and have less expensive fuel costs than natural gas by an order of magnitude. Natural gas is under $500 per kilowatt installed and also has a lengthy payback. But Bloom has a $7000 per installed kilowatt and claims that it can payback in just a few years...no way.
Second, lets talk about stability of natural gas prices. And now lets look at this graph.
That doesn't look very stable to me. It looks like gasoline prices doesn't it? Are those stable? No. And what if the whole country went to natural gas? Could we even supply it? Probably not. Those are not stable prices and they never will be because natural gas wells produce most of their gas in the first couple years then taper off. Therefore natural gas has boom and bust cycles. That's how T. Boone Pickens got rich and poor several times over. He tried to guess the cycles. We are in a cheap phase so it's a great time to push natural gas technology. Wait 5 years and it will be out of vogue again.
I really don't know what Bloom has been thinking, but my guess is that it has been thought up by a close conversation between marketers and scientists without a business mind in the middle to check their numbers.
First lets look at the natural gas aspect of this. The Bloom Device uses about 2/3 of an MMBtu per hour to produce 100 kw of electricity. If you are a utility that is buying huge quantities, that's only 2 cents per kwh. For industrial you will be closer to 3 cents per kwh, but for residential customers, it will be about 7 cents per kilowatt hour at today's prices. Just that last number pretty much kills the idea of ever getting a Bloom into your house. Unless you are in California (or Texas because Texas' electricity comes mostly from natural gas) your utility cost will be cheaper than owning one of these boxes.
Second, lets look at the payback. I don't understand how the device can pay for itself in so little time. Assuming that the Bloom is free to run, and you are in California, and you are paying residential prices for electricity, it will take about 7 years to pay back. However, when you throw in the cost of running the Bloom, it jumps out to 9 years. Throw in cheaper cost of electricity to large consumers you are looking at 12 years. Take it Alabama where electricity is only 8 cents to large customers and it won't pay back for over 40 years.
Nuclear power plants cost only about $4000 per kilowatt and take 8-10 years to pay back and have less expensive fuel costs than natural gas by an order of magnitude. Natural gas is under $500 per kilowatt installed and also has a lengthy payback. But Bloom has a $7000 per installed kilowatt and claims that it can payback in just a few years...no way.
The only way this would work is if there were massive government incentives. Even with a 5 year payback, you would need over $500,000 in government incentives in the first few years. I could see some of that happening in California, but not anywhere else. In order to get that type of money, you would have to convince people that this is the next super-green technology. They have done this but convincing does not make you right.
Bloom isn't even that green. It's twice as efficient as Natural gas combined cycle turbines so it makes half as much CO2. That does mean it's about 3 times better than coal, but pretty much everything else out there (solar, wind, nuclear, hydro) is going to be about 100-1000 times less CO2. So it produces 30-300 times as much CO2 as other renewables. This should not qualify for ANY sort of tax break.
Second, lets talk about stability of natural gas prices. And now lets look at this graph.
That doesn't look very stable to me. It looks like gasoline prices doesn't it? Are those stable? No. And what if the whole country went to natural gas? Could we even supply it? Probably not. Those are not stable prices and they never will be because natural gas wells produce most of their gas in the first couple years then taper off. Therefore natural gas has boom and bust cycles. That's how T. Boone Pickens got rich and poor several times over. He tried to guess the cycles. We are in a cheap phase so it's a great time to push natural gas technology. Wait 5 years and it will be out of vogue again.
I really don't know what Bloom has been thinking, but my guess is that it has been thought up by a close conversation between marketers and scientists without a business mind in the middle to check their numbers.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
What's with our current obsession with origin stories?
It's pretty obvious right now that we have a huge obsession with origin stories. Batman, Superman, Spiderman, even Star Wars, have recently put forth stories about their origins, and for the most part, they have been quite successful. It isn't limited to movies and super-heroes either (though it does show up there the most). The "phenomenon" which was and I guess still is LOST is fundamentally an origin story. Even the recent Battle Star Galactica which completely ran out of steam at the end, has begun anew in a prequel. Even the Lord of the Rings is going to be doing a a backstory sometime soon (based on the book which started it all.)
The strange part of it for me, is that even though this seems like and feels like a fad to me, I love it. These coming of age stories which are so popular now, they pull on my heart and my emotions much more than the older stories which have clearly defined good guys and bad guys. So somehow they really affect me why is it? Right now I have couple of theories.
First and most obviously, a dynamic character who represents myself is much more interesting than someone who has already achieved the top. This generation is acutely aware of our limitations in a way that I think many before us were not. In some way we have lost hope of progress, of ultimately achieving greatness. But these stories are hopeful in a true sense of the word hope. We know the ending, we know it will all turn out more awesome than any of these characters could ever expect. I want that for myself, and it thrills me to see it.
What else drives this desire to understand the past of characters? It's the very thing that is making me think about this post. A desire to understand and to know so that I can progress. Right now as a society based on science, if we know the rules and the intial conditions we can predict and control the outcome and even understand our presence. We have learned the majority of the rules, now we just need to know the beginnings. Then we can understand where we are today, get a real grasp on what is going on and repeat the success of our heroes.
Finally, I just think that it might be our hearts crying out for history. We live in a time where so much information is about the here and now, with an eye towards the future. Money, fame, riches are all about predicting the next big trend. If you can do that, the world is yours to play with. In this flood of analysis of information about the present (go look at twitter, facebook, buzz, or pretty much any other site) the information will all be about the present. It used to be most books that you could get your hands on were written in the past. But today everything is online, and it's all about today. I see so little history online that I think there is a gaping hole in my understanding of the world. We need our history, and we know it even if we don't know it.
So why the prequel then? We need hope, understanding, and history. And that is all part of the prequel.
The strange part of it for me, is that even though this seems like and feels like a fad to me, I love it. These coming of age stories which are so popular now, they pull on my heart and my emotions much more than the older stories which have clearly defined good guys and bad guys. So somehow they really affect me why is it? Right now I have couple of theories.
First and most obviously, a dynamic character who represents myself is much more interesting than someone who has already achieved the top. This generation is acutely aware of our limitations in a way that I think many before us were not. In some way we have lost hope of progress, of ultimately achieving greatness. But these stories are hopeful in a true sense of the word hope. We know the ending, we know it will all turn out more awesome than any of these characters could ever expect. I want that for myself, and it thrills me to see it.
What else drives this desire to understand the past of characters? It's the very thing that is making me think about this post. A desire to understand and to know so that I can progress. Right now as a society based on science, if we know the rules and the intial conditions we can predict and control the outcome and even understand our presence. We have learned the majority of the rules, now we just need to know the beginnings. Then we can understand where we are today, get a real grasp on what is going on and repeat the success of our heroes.
Finally, I just think that it might be our hearts crying out for history. We live in a time where so much information is about the here and now, with an eye towards the future. Money, fame, riches are all about predicting the next big trend. If you can do that, the world is yours to play with. In this flood of analysis of information about the present (go look at twitter, facebook, buzz, or pretty much any other site) the information will all be about the present. It used to be most books that you could get your hands on were written in the past. But today everything is online, and it's all about today. I see so little history online that I think there is a gaping hole in my understanding of the world. We need our history, and we know it even if we don't know it.
So why the prequel then? We need hope, understanding, and history. And that is all part of the prequel.
Sunday, January 03, 2010
Apple's tablet to come
I am hardly known as someone who likes apple products, but with all the excitement that has been going on recently, I HAVE to speculate about what Apple is up to right now with their "Tablet."
There has been lots of speculation about this being some sort of beefed up iPod Touch with a bit more of a computer behind it. That it might even run the same OS as the iPhone. But this is really quite unlikely. I think it is entirely possible that iPhone apps will be compatible with this device through an iPhone emulator of some type, but I do not think it's primary purpose is to become some sort of larger iPhone.
I think that this device has much, much broader aims. In fact they are so broad and far flung that it may become the next must have device even though it will cost 3X what an iPod Touch costs today. Apple is gunning for every ounce of your multimedia life. They want everything from the Sopranos to Better Homes and Gardens to Youtube, and they may well have the hardware an operating system to do it.
First and most obviously, it will be a device which can surf the web with the best of them. Some tweaked version of Safari which renders pages quickly, perfectly, and sizes them for the device. It will support flash video and include as much hardware acceleration as possible. It should be joy to use the web on as this is a must for any piece of electronics, over $200 today. But more than that, it will introduce RSS to the masses. It will have a feed style listing available that will simplify even further the reading and finding of online material. Also it will create a great system of ranking webpages by popularity and reviews. Essentially, it will become what google has not. Google has a very machine learning approach to the web. Apple's will be very personal and will have similar impact as other social networking sites.
Second, is it will finally monetize the internet. The internet is super convenient way of getting information, but is still a challenge for some and is dominated by advertizing. By simplifying and speeding up the web, they will allow people to charge a very, very small amount (think $1-$5 per year) to be able to read a blog newspaper or magazine in order to read full pages without any adds popups or having to click on multiple pages to get to full articles. Expect all your magazines, blogs, newspapers and everything to come to this device within two years.
Third it will do video, and it will do it with your TV. This seems kinda obvious to me. Apple TV tried to do this and failed to generate any sort of foothold. Apple has learned it's lesson though. Everything from this device will be available to stream at a moment's notice, and it will be in high definition. It's all about convenience for this part, and I expect there will be some wireless streaming here or possibly a dock which will connect via HDMI to a majority of modern TV's.
People will be able for the first time to subscribe to individual shows for a fraction of what they are paying now for cable. Think $10 for a season or about $0.25 an hour. If you watch 5 hours of TV per day, then it will cost about $45 a month to get that level of TV which most people are paying about $100 a month for right now. You will subscribe to your shows you want to watch and see them commercial free whenever you want.
This will spawn the new Video store that will go alongside iTunes and the App Store.
It will do movies like this too. Watch out Netflix!
Fourth, it will do music. Again, the dock will be key, but I expect the music listening prowess of the iPod will be present on this device as well as the ability to connect to existing apple docking devices.
All of that in sleek 10 inch touch screen package that you can easily take on the road (possibly with a slide in keyboard to turn it into a laptop for real road warriors) and I think they will sell like nobody's business. Apple may become part of my house this year...
There has been lots of speculation about this being some sort of beefed up iPod Touch with a bit more of a computer behind it. That it might even run the same OS as the iPhone. But this is really quite unlikely. I think it is entirely possible that iPhone apps will be compatible with this device through an iPhone emulator of some type, but I do not think it's primary purpose is to become some sort of larger iPhone.
I think that this device has much, much broader aims. In fact they are so broad and far flung that it may become the next must have device even though it will cost 3X what an iPod Touch costs today. Apple is gunning for every ounce of your multimedia life. They want everything from the Sopranos to Better Homes and Gardens to Youtube, and they may well have the hardware an operating system to do it.
First and most obviously, it will be a device which can surf the web with the best of them. Some tweaked version of Safari which renders pages quickly, perfectly, and sizes them for the device. It will support flash video and include as much hardware acceleration as possible. It should be joy to use the web on as this is a must for any piece of electronics, over $200 today. But more than that, it will introduce RSS to the masses. It will have a feed style listing available that will simplify even further the reading and finding of online material. Also it will create a great system of ranking webpages by popularity and reviews. Essentially, it will become what google has not. Google has a very machine learning approach to the web. Apple's will be very personal and will have similar impact as other social networking sites.
Second, is it will finally monetize the internet. The internet is super convenient way of getting information, but is still a challenge for some and is dominated by advertizing. By simplifying and speeding up the web, they will allow people to charge a very, very small amount (think $1-$5 per year) to be able to read a blog newspaper or magazine in order to read full pages without any adds popups or having to click on multiple pages to get to full articles. Expect all your magazines, blogs, newspapers and everything to come to this device within two years.
Third it will do video, and it will do it with your TV. This seems kinda obvious to me. Apple TV tried to do this and failed to generate any sort of foothold. Apple has learned it's lesson though. Everything from this device will be available to stream at a moment's notice, and it will be in high definition. It's all about convenience for this part, and I expect there will be some wireless streaming here or possibly a dock which will connect via HDMI to a majority of modern TV's.
People will be able for the first time to subscribe to individual shows for a fraction of what they are paying now for cable. Think $10 for a season or about $0.25 an hour. If you watch 5 hours of TV per day, then it will cost about $45 a month to get that level of TV which most people are paying about $100 a month for right now. You will subscribe to your shows you want to watch and see them commercial free whenever you want.
This will spawn the new Video store that will go alongside iTunes and the App Store.
It will do movies like this too. Watch out Netflix!
Fourth, it will do music. Again, the dock will be key, but I expect the music listening prowess of the iPod will be present on this device as well as the ability to connect to existing apple docking devices.
All of that in sleek 10 inch touch screen package that you can easily take on the road (possibly with a slide in keyboard to turn it into a laptop for real road warriors) and I think they will sell like nobody's business. Apple may become part of my house this year...
So I will finally start blogging again!
Alright, so I have been not doing anything here forever. This is the year that changes.
I will share thoughts, words, ideas, predictions, observations and maybe even some predictions (actually this will start with a prediction).
So here goes!
I will share thoughts, words, ideas, predictions, observations and maybe even some predictions (actually this will start with a prediction).
So here goes!
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The valuation of intelligence and creativity
One of the interesting trends in human history is the growth in power of mankind and as a result the growth in power of individuals. Look at music which originally was passed on by hearing directly, so one had to go to the original creator or someone whom he taught to enjoy a piece of music. Standardized written musical scores allowed for the storing and distributing of music, and circulation was greatly increased by the advent of the printing press. Any well trained musician can perform any piece of music that he can get the notes to. Music began to become scalable.
The inflection point came when Edison first copied "Mary had a little lamb" onto a wax cylinder over 100 years ago. Suddenly, the performer was absent from the performance and the quality is limited only by the quality of the microphones and the speakers. Technology has moved from wax to vinyl to radio to tape to cd to mp3 to the internet. The performer can record a song and have millions of people listen to it only a few days later. More than that, musicians don't need to have any real technical skill (though most do) as modern synthesizing programs and sampling have moved us from a paradigm of performance to a paradigm of musical taste and ideas.
Originally, the power of the musician to delight an audience with his creative idea was limited by how many people he could crowd in a room. Now this power is limited only by the quality of the idea and the number of people online which will soon be everyone who has the money to afford the rapidly decreasing price of connectivity. Thanks to technology, the power to affect a large number of people has become very cheap and is firmly in the hands of individuals with ideas.
This effect of the growth and ultimate individualization of power can be seen in many areas from military power to knowledge to sermons to books and behind it all the power of ideas to affect multitudes. Essentially we now can "move mountains with a joystick" as long as someone has a really good idea for how to make that joystick. So the key now to power is the idea and technology will take care of the rest.
The idea, then, is all that really matters, and only parts of the person are valued that can create ideas: intelligence and creativity. It is by those values that we hold highest that we also begin to value people in our society. So I think most people today find their value in whether or not they are intelligent and creative. I think this is the reason why some of the gravest insults in the modern world are to insinuate that one may be stupid or un-creative for it is akin to saying that they are without value to society.
First, I believe that these are ultimately two very, very morally ambiguous virtues, and as such should be low on the totem pole. Take the always classic example of moral depravity, Hitler, who was intelligent and quite creative in the way he made war on the rest of the world and was incredibly efficient at killing people. Intelligence and creativity can be used for completely evil purposes. I think we could all attest to this in our own lives as I am sure that as we all wrestle with our flesh we wish it were quite a bit stupider and not quite so creative in the ways that we are tempted.
Secondly, I think that intelligence and creativity even regularly deliver what they promise. How often has a creative idea simply come off poorly or something that seemed so intelligent be simply foolish? All the time consulting companies are hired and though abounding in intelligence, lack the experience to develop good solutions. And often when we are creative we create something new that just isn't as good as what we had before or in fact the act of being re-created caused more problems than it could ever improve.
Finally, if we do adopt these ideas as the last vestiges of human value, they will soon be obliterated and the technology that we have created will become of greater value to us than we are ourselves. That may sound far-fetched, but let me provide an example in line with my original discussion. Recently, a computer program has been developed that can produce highly convincing mimicry's of Bach chorales and other classical pieces. Here are two examples:
Bach
Chopin
So what will happen when computers and technology finally control those last strongholds of the need for humans? Well by that time I hope that we have a great practical theology of the men and of persons ready to respond.
The inflection point came when Edison first copied "Mary had a little lamb" onto a wax cylinder over 100 years ago. Suddenly, the performer was absent from the performance and the quality is limited only by the quality of the microphones and the speakers. Technology has moved from wax to vinyl to radio to tape to cd to mp3 to the internet. The performer can record a song and have millions of people listen to it only a few days later. More than that, musicians don't need to have any real technical skill (though most do) as modern synthesizing programs and sampling have moved us from a paradigm of performance to a paradigm of musical taste and ideas.
Originally, the power of the musician to delight an audience with his creative idea was limited by how many people he could crowd in a room. Now this power is limited only by the quality of the idea and the number of people online which will soon be everyone who has the money to afford the rapidly decreasing price of connectivity. Thanks to technology, the power to affect a large number of people has become very cheap and is firmly in the hands of individuals with ideas.
This effect of the growth and ultimate individualization of power can be seen in many areas from military power to knowledge to sermons to books and behind it all the power of ideas to affect multitudes. Essentially we now can "move mountains with a joystick" as long as someone has a really good idea for how to make that joystick. So the key now to power is the idea and technology will take care of the rest.
The idea, then, is all that really matters, and only parts of the person are valued that can create ideas: intelligence and creativity. It is by those values that we hold highest that we also begin to value people in our society. So I think most people today find their value in whether or not they are intelligent and creative. I think this is the reason why some of the gravest insults in the modern world are to insinuate that one may be stupid or un-creative for it is akin to saying that they are without value to society.
First, I believe that these are ultimately two very, very morally ambiguous virtues, and as such should be low on the totem pole. Take the always classic example of moral depravity, Hitler, who was intelligent and quite creative in the way he made war on the rest of the world and was incredibly efficient at killing people. Intelligence and creativity can be used for completely evil purposes. I think we could all attest to this in our own lives as I am sure that as we all wrestle with our flesh we wish it were quite a bit stupider and not quite so creative in the ways that we are tempted.
Secondly, I think that intelligence and creativity even regularly deliver what they promise. How often has a creative idea simply come off poorly or something that seemed so intelligent be simply foolish? All the time consulting companies are hired and though abounding in intelligence, lack the experience to develop good solutions. And often when we are creative we create something new that just isn't as good as what we had before or in fact the act of being re-created caused more problems than it could ever improve.
Finally, if we do adopt these ideas as the last vestiges of human value, they will soon be obliterated and the technology that we have created will become of greater value to us than we are ourselves. That may sound far-fetched, but let me provide an example in line with my original discussion. Recently, a computer program has been developed that can produce highly convincing mimicry's of Bach chorales and other classical pieces. Here are two examples:
Bach
Chopin
So what will happen when computers and technology finally control those last strongholds of the need for humans? Well by that time I hope that we have a great practical theology of the men and of persons ready to respond.
Monday, November 03, 2008
I don't want to do well anymore
When I was putting together my life story I realized something about myself. I always want to do everything well. In school, in sports, in family, in giving gifts, in making purchases, in choosing careers, in picking colors for a room, in making a bed -- in all things I do, in every facet of who I am, I want to do well. I didn't see anything immediately wrong about this ethic, and it struck me that such a phrase could so completely and accurately sum up how I have approached my life. Then in Church on Sunday, it struck me that doing well was not a great way to try to live my life which may seem obvious or confusing, so let me go back and define what I mean by doing well.
When I think of doing well, I typically think of doing better than most other people. If you are doing well in a class, you are probably doing above the mean. If you are doing well financially, you are better off than most people. If you are doing well personally, you are happy and probably have friends. Those ideas for a life direction are all pretty shallow, highly relative, and lacking a divine direction. In fact they are very much the ideas that social psychologists use to describe generally what people try to do to feel happy.
However, I find that this way of doing things generally does not lead me to happiness for three reasons. First by trying to do well in all of these different arenas, my life becomes very fragmented and conflicting. What I need to do in order to "do well" at work may not jive with what I need to do to "do well" by my body or "do well" with Jennifer. When these conflicts arise, I can become frustrated because I just can't do well everywhere. Second, it's impossible to "do well" all the time; I will make a mistake. Third, this place of doing well is not a forgiving land. If I don't do well then I am bad and you need to fix it in a hurry by any means. There is not grace to cover, just a demand for perfection
So I have pooped on the statue, but what can I erect in it's place? There is an adage "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing poorly." I've heard it many times in my life, and every time it strikes me. Essentially what it is saying is that there exist good things which we should just do no matter what. I want to cling to this idea: there are fundamentally good things which we can do.
But I want to go even further to say that there are not really fundamentally good actions, but fundamentally good reasons or motives for acting. Trying to "do well" is not one of them. Good reasons for acting are probably very few. The two that I can think of for certain are love, and the glory of God (and maybe justice and mercy).
These motives can inform my actions across all areas of my life, and if I live by them can provide the freedom to act poorly in certain areas of my life when I need to act poorly in one area or another. They can inform forgiveness when I am bad and give me grace to understand my weaknesses. Ultimately, they will help me to be less neurotic and do all of those things which are necessary to life. So I think I will seek to give up doing well and try to live by pure motives.
When I think of doing well, I typically think of doing better than most other people. If you are doing well in a class, you are probably doing above the mean. If you are doing well financially, you are better off than most people. If you are doing well personally, you are happy and probably have friends. Those ideas for a life direction are all pretty shallow, highly relative, and lacking a divine direction. In fact they are very much the ideas that social psychologists use to describe generally what people try to do to feel happy.
However, I find that this way of doing things generally does not lead me to happiness for three reasons. First by trying to do well in all of these different arenas, my life becomes very fragmented and conflicting. What I need to do in order to "do well" at work may not jive with what I need to do to "do well" by my body or "do well" with Jennifer. When these conflicts arise, I can become frustrated because I just can't do well everywhere. Second, it's impossible to "do well" all the time; I will make a mistake. Third, this place of doing well is not a forgiving land. If I don't do well then I am bad and you need to fix it in a hurry by any means. There is not grace to cover, just a demand for perfection
So I have pooped on the statue, but what can I erect in it's place? There is an adage "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing poorly." I've heard it many times in my life, and every time it strikes me. Essentially what it is saying is that there exist good things which we should just do no matter what. I want to cling to this idea: there are fundamentally good things which we can do.
But I want to go even further to say that there are not really fundamentally good actions, but fundamentally good reasons or motives for acting. Trying to "do well" is not one of them. Good reasons for acting are probably very few. The two that I can think of for certain are love, and the glory of God (and maybe justice and mercy).
These motives can inform my actions across all areas of my life, and if I live by them can provide the freedom to act poorly in certain areas of my life when I need to act poorly in one area or another. They can inform forgiveness when I am bad and give me grace to understand my weaknesses. Ultimately, they will help me to be less neurotic and do all of those things which are necessary to life. So I think I will seek to give up doing well and try to live by pure motives.
The week of crashing
So this week it all cam crashing down on me. I know it sounds weird, because nothing really came crashing down. But what it really felt like was the top of my skull crashed into the soles of my feet and everything in-between became squished.
First, I think I realized that I have no clue why I am really at the academy. My QRE ideas have all fallen flat, and I am not sure what type of job I want to even try to get when I need to be applying in a few months. I think maybe I came here so that my better half could consider her really cool question, so I needed to be here too.
Second, I realized a lot of what I have tried to do here at the academy has failed as well. The internet still sucks, trying to re-arrange the schedule nearly caused a riot, and the refrigerators continue to remain a mess. The matins I had so much fun planning for a few days flops the day I try to put the most work into it. My grand goals for accomplishment here are further from my reach than they have been so far.
Third, I came crashing down on myself. I've always wondered if I am bi-polar. Does anyone else think this? I mean some weeks you are incredibly productive and then all of sudden it just comes crashing down. Those productive things collapse, the things you did for fun loose their luster, and all you really want to do is crawl away and sleep by yourself. Then in midst of the that you become more of a jerk than ever because people just bother you. I'm guessing this is just me.
Fourth, in the midst of this, I am critiqued, maybe not so publicly or openly, but quietly and subtly nonetheless. The new shininess we had is gone, and we are beginning to see the other for the person they really are, and that rarely lives up to the imagination. "Impression management" is over and it turns out none of us is really cool.
Doom and gloom at every corner. However each of these has another view.
1) Not knowing what I want to do my QRE on is better than working on something I don't care about. (This may be just for me, but if I don't care, I don't do very good or original work.)
2) In the midst of my failure I learn perseverance. I think I also learn that I need to carefully consider what I put my effort into. I also am forced to put my value not in what I do but in my relationship to God.
3) In my weakness, I find God as my strength. I find myself praying more when I feel bad than at any other time, and my theology and practical theology becomes stronger because I need it to make it through each day.
4) Making friends with cool people is impossible. You have to make yourself look cool to be their peers, but then you don't act like yourself and then you aren't friends because they don't really know you. The good news is that you can really be friends with un-cool people. So now that we know how un-cool we all are, maybe we can forgive, love, rebuke, and help one another grow into better people. Who knows, we may learn to re-define cool.
So that is my week. Aimlessness, failure, borderline depression, and acute awareness of the brokenness of relationship. But I know God is good, so I need not fear.
First, I think I realized that I have no clue why I am really at the academy. My QRE ideas have all fallen flat, and I am not sure what type of job I want to even try to get when I need to be applying in a few months. I think maybe I came here so that my better half could consider her really cool question, so I needed to be here too.
Second, I realized a lot of what I have tried to do here at the academy has failed as well. The internet still sucks, trying to re-arrange the schedule nearly caused a riot, and the refrigerators continue to remain a mess. The matins I had so much fun planning for a few days flops the day I try to put the most work into it. My grand goals for accomplishment here are further from my reach than they have been so far.
Third, I came crashing down on myself. I've always wondered if I am bi-polar. Does anyone else think this? I mean some weeks you are incredibly productive and then all of sudden it just comes crashing down. Those productive things collapse, the things you did for fun loose their luster, and all you really want to do is crawl away and sleep by yourself. Then in midst of the that you become more of a jerk than ever because people just bother you. I'm guessing this is just me.
Fourth, in the midst of this, I am critiqued, maybe not so publicly or openly, but quietly and subtly nonetheless. The new shininess we had is gone, and we are beginning to see the other for the person they really are, and that rarely lives up to the imagination. "Impression management" is over and it turns out none of us is really cool.
Doom and gloom at every corner. However each of these has another view.
1) Not knowing what I want to do my QRE on is better than working on something I don't care about. (This may be just for me, but if I don't care, I don't do very good or original work.)
2) In the midst of my failure I learn perseverance. I think I also learn that I need to carefully consider what I put my effort into. I also am forced to put my value not in what I do but in my relationship to God.
3) In my weakness, I find God as my strength. I find myself praying more when I feel bad than at any other time, and my theology and practical theology becomes stronger because I need it to make it through each day.
4) Making friends with cool people is impossible. You have to make yourself look cool to be their peers, but then you don't act like yourself and then you aren't friends because they don't really know you. The good news is that you can really be friends with un-cool people. So now that we know how un-cool we all are, maybe we can forgive, love, rebuke, and help one another grow into better people. Who knows, we may learn to re-define cool.
So that is my week. Aimlessness, failure, borderline depression, and acute awareness of the brokenness of relationship. But I know God is good, so I need not fear.
Legislating Morality
Prior to this week I had somewhat naively held that we could not legislate morality to be a fact of life. I had one teacher who taught it, and as I have never really been interested in politics or political ideas, I simply accepted it. Though it was something I did not think too deeply about, I think it was a very important point in my web of "I don't bother with politics because they aren't important." If politics can't do anything moral then what good are they.
The first attack on my safe little turtle shell came when Peter Feaver said that the idea that you can't legislate morality was foolish because all legislation contains in it the seed of morality. There is should to every piece of legislation. It makes a moral claim: doing as the law says is more right than doing what it doesn't say. In a way all laws must be an expression of someone's judgment on an issue. I think that was the basic idea of what he said, but I imagine his final argument is much more nuanced and has a lot more to say. Even as it is, the argument has a point, we are lawmakers in America and in some way the laws carry moral force, so we must consider carefully how we govern ourselves.
But tonight the other shoe dropped. Prabhu Guptara brought up the idea in economics that by removing legislation - even ineffective legislation - we may be legitimizing practices that are sinful. It somehow let loose a flurry of ideas in my mind about the subject which I think may have been pent up because I believed legislation of morality to be impossible.
First the idea was that legislation of morality really is possible. God gave us laws and they derive their moral force from Him -- the ultimate arbiter of morality and the law. And he has explicitly given governments authority from heaven -- even the rule or Nero. So governmental law carries morally binding aspects.
Second is the idea that without God and a strong moral compass, that laws are all we are left with to influence how people behave. This idea is a little bit scary, but I believe many people today do not ask the question whether an act is right or wrong but only whether it is legal or illegal. Legality is essentially standing in as a substitute for morals in a time when most people do not have a strong moral sense. I actually think many people may not even have the faculties to think about what is "right or wrong" let alone come to a correct answer. Law is what we have left in an age of crumbling morals.
The third idea is … oh crap! What are we going to do in an age without morals! If Laws are in some way an expression of morality and our morals go in the toilette, then our laws will follow. Then are we back to state of nature? That is a scary place that I think none of us want to see.
So I've come to the conclusion now that legislature will dictate some level of morality, especially if we don't have a Church or something to provide some level of underlying moral structure. And that without that underlying moral structure, the laws will eventually collapse. So what do we do?
Well one reaction might be to try to get as many Christian laws passed as possible in some sort of power play in Washington. However, the backlash could be terrible. Making it illegal to be homosexual would result in a lot more criminals which could feed into a new sort of gay mafia or something to that effect as people break the laws which they are bound to do.
On the other hand we can't give up either, saying that well because the culture doesn't have our morality, we just have to try to play to the middle and legislate whatever the general idea at the time is. For laws which can be changed whenever we feel like it aren't really laws.
So we are left with Feaver's mushy middle where we must engage the culture boldly knowing that we are making moral decisions, yet be aware that we are working in fallen world. The laws should be attempting to truly bring people into the good without pushing so hard that we turn everyone into a hardened criminal or make the law irrelevant.
It's time for me to hang on tight, politics I'm sure will be an interesting ride.
The first attack on my safe little turtle shell came when Peter Feaver said that the idea that you can't legislate morality was foolish because all legislation contains in it the seed of morality. There is should to every piece of legislation. It makes a moral claim: doing as the law says is more right than doing what it doesn't say. In a way all laws must be an expression of someone's judgment on an issue. I think that was the basic idea of what he said, but I imagine his final argument is much more nuanced and has a lot more to say. Even as it is, the argument has a point, we are lawmakers in America and in some way the laws carry moral force, so we must consider carefully how we govern ourselves.
But tonight the other shoe dropped. Prabhu Guptara brought up the idea in economics that by removing legislation - even ineffective legislation - we may be legitimizing practices that are sinful. It somehow let loose a flurry of ideas in my mind about the subject which I think may have been pent up because I believed legislation of morality to be impossible.
First the idea was that legislation of morality really is possible. God gave us laws and they derive their moral force from Him -- the ultimate arbiter of morality and the law. And he has explicitly given governments authority from heaven -- even the rule or Nero. So governmental law carries morally binding aspects.
Second is the idea that without God and a strong moral compass, that laws are all we are left with to influence how people behave. This idea is a little bit scary, but I believe many people today do not ask the question whether an act is right or wrong but only whether it is legal or illegal. Legality is essentially standing in as a substitute for morals in a time when most people do not have a strong moral sense. I actually think many people may not even have the faculties to think about what is "right or wrong" let alone come to a correct answer. Law is what we have left in an age of crumbling morals.
The third idea is … oh crap! What are we going to do in an age without morals! If Laws are in some way an expression of morality and our morals go in the toilette, then our laws will follow. Then are we back to state of nature? That is a scary place that I think none of us want to see.
So I've come to the conclusion now that legislature will dictate some level of morality, especially if we don't have a Church or something to provide some level of underlying moral structure. And that without that underlying moral structure, the laws will eventually collapse. So what do we do?
Well one reaction might be to try to get as many Christian laws passed as possible in some sort of power play in Washington. However, the backlash could be terrible. Making it illegal to be homosexual would result in a lot more criminals which could feed into a new sort of gay mafia or something to that effect as people break the laws which they are bound to do.
On the other hand we can't give up either, saying that well because the culture doesn't have our morality, we just have to try to play to the middle and legislate whatever the general idea at the time is. For laws which can be changed whenever we feel like it aren't really laws.
So we are left with Feaver's mushy middle where we must engage the culture boldly knowing that we are making moral decisions, yet be aware that we are working in fallen world. The laws should be attempting to truly bring people into the good without pushing so hard that we turn everyone into a hardened criminal or make the law irrelevant.
It's time for me to hang on tight, politics I'm sure will be an interesting ride.
Confused about the hero
O Lord my God, tonight my heart and mind are in turmoil. There ideas, thoughts, and concepts which flutter just out of reach. I can see the forms of the answers and the understanding, but when I reach for them come back empty handed. Please Lord, clarify my mind, give me wisdom and understanding. Help me to know how it is that you call us to live.
My God, it seems as though so much of the world seeks greatness, so that can be at the center of their own stories; so that in a way, they me be like you, saviors, heroes of other men and of the world. And Lord, though many do not know you they do manage great things in this life which may even be acts which are called good. Their dedication to their work and their desire to accomplish greatness drive them forward to fully use their talents. They heal the sick, bring peace, and care for the widow and orphan. They champion for education, justice, and equality of men. They love their children; they even give of their wealth. They make great discoveries, develop inventions, found businesses and charities alike. And Lord it seems as though the best works of them come because they seek exactly to be the saviors of this world and the heroes of men. They seek to change the world, and it seems to work for the good as a noble and admirable pursuit.
God, you have given me talents which in some ways exceed that of many of my peers. You have given me privilege, health, wealth, and opportunities to strive fore great things with my life. You have given me gifts of the mind Lord, and yet I do not know what they are good for. God is this your will for me? That I would use my talents as do those who scoff at you? Which are the talents that you have given me which I am to multiply? Are they the things that are valued by the world? Intelligence, drive, charisma, ingenuity? Am I to multiply those things in myself? Am I to put them to the same tasks that you have given to world? Those things that are valued in the public square? Or am I to seek to love my family and friends, to live a simple life and work with my hands?
But this I know is true: all of the great things which happen are not the works of man but are your handiwork. You work through everything. For what does man have that he did not receive? Nothing Lord, it all is from you.
Addendum:
Praise God, now that my heart and mind are settled, and I will attempt to write something more coherent before I sleep.
Here is an attempt at my quandary. God has given me gifts and talents that I am to use to glorify him and serve others. My question is do I need to be serving others by using my gifts for the most world changing activity I can? Do I need to be striving after those same sorts of things that other people do? Is my contentedness with a simple life of loving my wife and my family, working daily, and serving the church a poor use of my talents?
At this point I am still asking the question. But I do like how the hero idea brings the conflict into focus. I want to say that we are called not to be heroes but to be servants. Jesus makes this pretty clear. As servants our goal is to serve, not to accomplish. If accomplishment comes our way, God is good. If it does not, God is good.
There are also many important things that God has given us to do in this life such as care for our families and serve in the church. I'm not sure yet how these balance out, but I think at those moments of balancing, my only hope will be resting in God.
My God, it seems as though so much of the world seeks greatness, so that can be at the center of their own stories; so that in a way, they me be like you, saviors, heroes of other men and of the world. And Lord, though many do not know you they do manage great things in this life which may even be acts which are called good. Their dedication to their work and their desire to accomplish greatness drive them forward to fully use their talents. They heal the sick, bring peace, and care for the widow and orphan. They champion for education, justice, and equality of men. They love their children; they even give of their wealth. They make great discoveries, develop inventions, found businesses and charities alike. And Lord it seems as though the best works of them come because they seek exactly to be the saviors of this world and the heroes of men. They seek to change the world, and it seems to work for the good as a noble and admirable pursuit.
God, you have given me talents which in some ways exceed that of many of my peers. You have given me privilege, health, wealth, and opportunities to strive fore great things with my life. You have given me gifts of the mind Lord, and yet I do not know what they are good for. God is this your will for me? That I would use my talents as do those who scoff at you? Which are the talents that you have given me which I am to multiply? Are they the things that are valued by the world? Intelligence, drive, charisma, ingenuity? Am I to multiply those things in myself? Am I to put them to the same tasks that you have given to world? Those things that are valued in the public square? Or am I to seek to love my family and friends, to live a simple life and work with my hands?
But this I know is true: all of the great things which happen are not the works of man but are your handiwork. You work through everything. For what does man have that he did not receive? Nothing Lord, it all is from you.
Addendum:
Praise God, now that my heart and mind are settled, and I will attempt to write something more coherent before I sleep.
Here is an attempt at my quandary. God has given me gifts and talents that I am to use to glorify him and serve others. My question is do I need to be serving others by using my gifts for the most world changing activity I can? Do I need to be striving after those same sorts of things that other people do? Is my contentedness with a simple life of loving my wife and my family, working daily, and serving the church a poor use of my talents?
At this point I am still asking the question. But I do like how the hero idea brings the conflict into focus. I want to say that we are called not to be heroes but to be servants. Jesus makes this pretty clear. As servants our goal is to serve, not to accomplish. If accomplishment comes our way, God is good. If it does not, God is good.
There are also many important things that God has given us to do in this life such as care for our families and serve in the church. I'm not sure yet how these balance out, but I think at those moments of balancing, my only hope will be resting in God.
Seperate and better than equal
Let me preface this post by saying that it is not complete. It has really made some people angry. The main point I am trying to get across is that sometimes we must distinguish between two different groups, and that differentiation and separate treatment is necessary and better than two groups being the same. I use the example of gender because it was what is used in class, but the idea has broader applications to life. So here it goes:
The term "Separate and equal" has quite a storied past in the United States. As the basis of segregation, it provided cover for a scenario that was separate, but most definitely not equal. In the court cases which eventually struck down segregation, they ruled that segregated schools had failed to provide education which was "separate and equal." As these laws fell, which rightly they should have, they took the idea of "separate and equal" along for the ride. We no longer believe separate yet equal can apply to anything. America generally believes separation inherently implies inequality.
However, is this really the case? There certainly are real life cases where separate is not unequal. For example, consider women's and men's sports. We demand that men and women are separated from sports because putting them together simply wouldn't be fair for at the level of elite athletes, men and women have genuinely different abilities. Instead, we make things equitable by separating the sports programs (and providing equal funding and number of sports) so that each can compete within their equals making skill and practice more important than male or female.
Taking this idea beyond gender, lets move into the classroom where we have a much more gradated scale. People have different levels of academic talent, and they are focused in different areas. Our school system generally reflects that. First, we have different levels of classes from a remedial classes to honors. Now these have often been misused, by denying children access to advanced classes without just cause or neglecting true teaching in a remedial class, but the heart of the idea is excellent. Instead of teaching to the top of the class -- and leaving much of the class to learn nothing -- or to the bottom of the class -- and failing to engage the brighter students -- we separate the classes to provide the best, and most equitable, education to all.
These are two specific cases, which I hope will be accepted as cases where integration could destroy the equality of a situation, and from here we can generalize to the rule for when separate will be more equal than together. From both examples we see the key point: we should separate only in cases where there are true differences that impact the arena in which the separation is occurring.
The two examples will help to shed light on this. In the first example with sports, we see that it is necessary to separate when combining would provide undue advantage to one group or the other. The rules of sports determine that men will generally be better at every level, so by separating we make new rules which make the groups more competitive. So in competitive environments we separate to defend whoever is weaker by the rules of that specific arena. From the second example, in a non-competitive area, we see that separation is to the benefit of all to provide specialized services to those who could gain a greater advantage. This concept shows up all over our society in specialization. Therefore, we conclude that separation is not only not a problem but in fact necessary for equality in arenas with high levels of differentiation.
So how does this apply to gender? We know there are differences between the genders, but it is very challenging to know exactly what they are. We know we must separate, but is hard to say exactly where and how. So let us seek earnestly to understand, but be careful where we go.
The term "Separate and equal" has quite a storied past in the United States. As the basis of segregation, it provided cover for a scenario that was separate, but most definitely not equal. In the court cases which eventually struck down segregation, they ruled that segregated schools had failed to provide education which was "separate and equal." As these laws fell, which rightly they should have, they took the idea of "separate and equal" along for the ride. We no longer believe separate yet equal can apply to anything. America generally believes separation inherently implies inequality.
However, is this really the case? There certainly are real life cases where separate is not unequal. For example, consider women's and men's sports. We demand that men and women are separated from sports because putting them together simply wouldn't be fair for at the level of elite athletes, men and women have genuinely different abilities. Instead, we make things equitable by separating the sports programs (and providing equal funding and number of sports) so that each can compete within their equals making skill and practice more important than male or female.
Taking this idea beyond gender, lets move into the classroom where we have a much more gradated scale. People have different levels of academic talent, and they are focused in different areas. Our school system generally reflects that. First, we have different levels of classes from a remedial classes to honors. Now these have often been misused, by denying children access to advanced classes without just cause or neglecting true teaching in a remedial class, but the heart of the idea is excellent. Instead of teaching to the top of the class -- and leaving much of the class to learn nothing -- or to the bottom of the class -- and failing to engage the brighter students -- we separate the classes to provide the best, and most equitable, education to all.
These are two specific cases, which I hope will be accepted as cases where integration could destroy the equality of a situation, and from here we can generalize to the rule for when separate will be more equal than together. From both examples we see the key point: we should separate only in cases where there are true differences that impact the arena in which the separation is occurring.
The two examples will help to shed light on this. In the first example with sports, we see that it is necessary to separate when combining would provide undue advantage to one group or the other. The rules of sports determine that men will generally be better at every level, so by separating we make new rules which make the groups more competitive. So in competitive environments we separate to defend whoever is weaker by the rules of that specific arena. From the second example, in a non-competitive area, we see that separation is to the benefit of all to provide specialized services to those who could gain a greater advantage. This concept shows up all over our society in specialization. Therefore, we conclude that separation is not only not a problem but in fact necessary for equality in arenas with high levels of differentiation.
So how does this apply to gender? We know there are differences between the genders, but it is very challenging to know exactly what they are. We know we must separate, but is hard to say exactly where and how. So let us seek earnestly to understand, but be careful where we go.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Giving it my all
I am scared of losing myself in something. When I find something I really like, often I latch on. It can be quite a number of things. A project at school, looking for a new car, programming a new spreadsheet, managing finances, and any number of things that spring to mind. This thing, or idea dominates my mind, filling it whenever I have a free moment so that I cannot think properly about anything else.
I have had this experience many times where I neglect anything peripheral and even some central things in the pursuit of my temporary passion. I will skip brushing my teeth so that I can check EBay one more time for that car before I have to leave for work. I will ignore my wife's desire for intimacy because I am trying to save money on a new gadget. I will ignore my spiritual life because I am trying to update my Facebook page.
Seeing these results I begin to abhor the things I am so passionate about. They have taken me away from living the rest of my life. So what do I do? I run from these things. I leave behind the things that I am passionate about so that they do not distract me from what I need to do on a daily basis. In this way my life returns to a normal state.
But have I just thrown the baby out with the bathwater? In trying to avoid all of those things which I am incredibly passionate about, have I consigned myself to a life of boredom? I think I have. There is no way I will find a calling for which I am passionate if I run from the things which I enjoy, but neither should I be giving myself to them. What I need to learn to do is not to spend all of my time seeking after something for it’s own sake, but to bring it under my other more primary callings of Christian and husband. I need my own diet of the mind, to find those things which I enjoy but be very careful of the role and position that they begin to play in my own heart.
God, please teach my how to tame the desires of my heart so that at no season of my life do lose sight of you as that which I love and serve above all else.
I have had this experience many times where I neglect anything peripheral and even some central things in the pursuit of my temporary passion. I will skip brushing my teeth so that I can check EBay one more time for that car before I have to leave for work. I will ignore my wife's desire for intimacy because I am trying to save money on a new gadget. I will ignore my spiritual life because I am trying to update my Facebook page.
Seeing these results I begin to abhor the things I am so passionate about. They have taken me away from living the rest of my life. So what do I do? I run from these things. I leave behind the things that I am passionate about so that they do not distract me from what I need to do on a daily basis. In this way my life returns to a normal state.
But have I just thrown the baby out with the bathwater? In trying to avoid all of those things which I am incredibly passionate about, have I consigned myself to a life of boredom? I think I have. There is no way I will find a calling for which I am passionate if I run from the things which I enjoy, but neither should I be giving myself to them. What I need to learn to do is not to spend all of my time seeking after something for it’s own sake, but to bring it under my other more primary callings of Christian and husband. I need my own diet of the mind, to find those things which I enjoy but be very careful of the role and position that they begin to play in my own heart.
God, please teach my how to tame the desires of my heart so that at no season of my life do lose sight of you as that which I love and serve above all else.
The issue of evil, my perspective
In class we were discussing the problem of evil when David said something that resonated so strongly within me that I could not help but get excited about it. As my classmates attacked the weak idea, I began to try to defend the, lashing out with cobbled together proofs which were promptly shot down. As the idea was under attack, I quietly let the subject lapse and cried in class. I don't think anyone noticed.
What idea is it that sits close to the core of my Christian conviction that I have to be silent when it is discussed lest I detract from the conversation with my emotional outbursts? What is this idea that I hold so close to the nexus of my being, and why is it so important to me? The idea is this: God, by allowing sin into creation and into man with the intention of saving a remnant of that fallen world and people for Himself, will be making a new creation so much more excellent than the garden, that eternity will not be enough time to praise God for how great it is. Why it's important to me: I only have guesses.
It's a weird idea to be so passionate about, and I guess many devoted Christians may never have considered it. I myself don't understand, but I will attempt to explain why I believe it is true in the rest of this post. Please bear with my lack of clarity as you are watching me figure out my beliefs on paper.
I think the Bible hints at this being true. I am thinking here specifically of Romans 5:8. "But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us." This is the first use of the word love in Romans outside of the initial greeting. Paul has covered laws, promises, sin, judgment, righteousness, forgiveness, and justification; but this is the first mention he makes of love. It seems to me that Paul has covered all of human history up to the death of Christ in the first 4 chapters of Romans and God's love has not yet been truly expressed. But now, in the death of Christ we see that love so clearly, that it cannot be questioned.
You may also find other verses which refer to this in other parts of the Bible. God shows his love in curing the sick, fathering the fatherless, lifting up the oppressed, but mostly in saving the world (John 3:16). We see God's love most clearly expressed in the saving of the world.
God shows his love for us in saving us, but wasn't the Garden better than it is now? Wasn't his love perfectly expressed to Adam and Eve? I would argue that it wasn't. It is true that everything in the Garden was good. God said that clearly, but no where does it show that he loved man. We see God's care and his loving nature everywhere in his provision for man in the garden, but ultimately man is pronounced as good, not as deeply loved. God created something beautiful, but in the end God's love is somewhat sterile, because the labor of attaining a relationship with man had no challenge. It was an almost effortless action. He spoke and it was so. There was no blood sweat or tears sowed into this creation.
Let me put it more bluntly. When Adam and Eve fell, God could easily have just killed them right there, extinguished the universe and then made another one. It took him a week after all, and in eternity there are many, many weeks. And he would have been totally justified in doing so. He would have done nothing wrong. However, God decides to show his love by literally pouring his blood, sweat, and tears into his creation (even more amazing when you consider that god is Spirit) to show his love.
I think we see this principle in the teachings of Christ as well. The good Samaritan, the old woman who tithes. The one who gives to the point of hurting is the one who really loves. The one who gives, but it does not hurt him does not really give in a meaningful way.
However, I have not really answered my own question. I have given proof for why one might believe this to be true, but not explained why I believe so deeply that it is true. Well I think it is true, because the most amazing thing I can see about God, and the reason why I trust, love, and adore Him above all else is because he did something for me that could not have been done in a perfect world: He forgave my sins.
This is not something esoteric to me. I am a huge sinner. I know that daily I slaughter those around me with anger, kill myself with lusts and desires, and deny the presence of the one whom I claim to love with my very life. And more than this, I know that I rebelled from him at such a deep level, that if I had been cast into the fiery pit, I could offer no defense for my soul.
Yet surer, than I know what I deserve, I know I will never receive it for Christ came, lived, suffered, died, and rose again in order that I could be with him now and forevermore. That is true love. There is no greater love than that one should lay down his life for another. God has now laid down his life for his creation. How much greater is that than making something beautiful?
The first Adam walked with God, but I weep for joy at what his love has wrought.
What idea is it that sits close to the core of my Christian conviction that I have to be silent when it is discussed lest I detract from the conversation with my emotional outbursts? What is this idea that I hold so close to the nexus of my being, and why is it so important to me? The idea is this: God, by allowing sin into creation and into man with the intention of saving a remnant of that fallen world and people for Himself, will be making a new creation so much more excellent than the garden, that eternity will not be enough time to praise God for how great it is. Why it's important to me: I only have guesses.
It's a weird idea to be so passionate about, and I guess many devoted Christians may never have considered it. I myself don't understand, but I will attempt to explain why I believe it is true in the rest of this post. Please bear with my lack of clarity as you are watching me figure out my beliefs on paper.
I think the Bible hints at this being true. I am thinking here specifically of Romans 5:8. "But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us." This is the first use of the word love in Romans outside of the initial greeting. Paul has covered laws, promises, sin, judgment, righteousness, forgiveness, and justification; but this is the first mention he makes of love. It seems to me that Paul has covered all of human history up to the death of Christ in the first 4 chapters of Romans and God's love has not yet been truly expressed. But now, in the death of Christ we see that love so clearly, that it cannot be questioned.
You may also find other verses which refer to this in other parts of the Bible. God shows his love in curing the sick, fathering the fatherless, lifting up the oppressed, but mostly in saving the world (John 3:16). We see God's love most clearly expressed in the saving of the world.
God shows his love for us in saving us, but wasn't the Garden better than it is now? Wasn't his love perfectly expressed to Adam and Eve? I would argue that it wasn't. It is true that everything in the Garden was good. God said that clearly, but no where does it show that he loved man. We see God's care and his loving nature everywhere in his provision for man in the garden, but ultimately man is pronounced as good, not as deeply loved. God created something beautiful, but in the end God's love is somewhat sterile, because the labor of attaining a relationship with man had no challenge. It was an almost effortless action. He spoke and it was so. There was no blood sweat or tears sowed into this creation.
Let me put it more bluntly. When Adam and Eve fell, God could easily have just killed them right there, extinguished the universe and then made another one. It took him a week after all, and in eternity there are many, many weeks. And he would have been totally justified in doing so. He would have done nothing wrong. However, God decides to show his love by literally pouring his blood, sweat, and tears into his creation (even more amazing when you consider that god is Spirit) to show his love.
I think we see this principle in the teachings of Christ as well. The good Samaritan, the old woman who tithes. The one who gives to the point of hurting is the one who really loves. The one who gives, but it does not hurt him does not really give in a meaningful way.
However, I have not really answered my own question. I have given proof for why one might believe this to be true, but not explained why I believe so deeply that it is true. Well I think it is true, because the most amazing thing I can see about God, and the reason why I trust, love, and adore Him above all else is because he did something for me that could not have been done in a perfect world: He forgave my sins.
This is not something esoteric to me. I am a huge sinner. I know that daily I slaughter those around me with anger, kill myself with lusts and desires, and deny the presence of the one whom I claim to love with my very life. And more than this, I know that I rebelled from him at such a deep level, that if I had been cast into the fiery pit, I could offer no defense for my soul.
Yet surer, than I know what I deserve, I know I will never receive it for Christ came, lived, suffered, died, and rose again in order that I could be with him now and forevermore. That is true love. There is no greater love than that one should lay down his life for another. God has now laid down his life for his creation. How much greater is that than making something beautiful?
The first Adam walked with God, but I weep for joy at what his love has wrought.
Journalism
The other night I had the opportunity to attend an open panel discussion on the role of the media in an election. Assembled on the panel were some of the men and women who have been directing coverage of campaigns for major networks since the sixties. I found the discussion fascinating as it was on a topic I had never contemplated in any sort of depth, yet had observed all my life.
The main aspect of their discussion that stood out to me is how much these men saw the role of journalism was in the accurate portrayal of information that they could authoritatively prove to be true. In essence they believed journalism is a truth telling profession, and that the measure of a how good a journalist is just how accurate your statements are.
Their definition went even further than saying political journalism had to tell the truth, it had to say things which were relevant to the discussion and important for people to understand. The journalism the panel described was not one that delved into the details of misspoken words, rather it attempted to deal with the substantive issues that would more directly pertain to the nature and personality of the candidate or official.
Finally, they drew a line between news and opinion which I found to be surprising even though it fell perfectly in line with ideas they had already expressed. Coming from a post-modern viewpoint, one assumes that all statements of fact -- other than some purely mathematical ones -- are actually statements of opinion and power plays as you are enforcing an interpretation (this idea comes from Nietzsche). Therefore, it is impossible to be un-opinionated in any fact you give and is better to simply state your biases and then your opinions. However, the men in the panel were certain that it is not only possible but better to give truly objective news.
Bringing this all together, their pursuit of journalism actually excited me. It is an attempt to convey the truth in such a way that it will be correctly interpreted by their audience so as to appropriately inform the public for proper and good decision-making regardless of bias. Now that is something I can get behind.
I wonder though, would a truly unbiased show ever make it on the air today? Would they get swamped by all the other companies, or could they do it? Would their work be recognized as truly great or would it be decried as being opinionated as a means of attempting to dismiss the facts of a situation. Whatever happened it would be challenging, but I'd love to see someone really try.
The main aspect of their discussion that stood out to me is how much these men saw the role of journalism was in the accurate portrayal of information that they could authoritatively prove to be true. In essence they believed journalism is a truth telling profession, and that the measure of a how good a journalist is just how accurate your statements are.
Their definition went even further than saying political journalism had to tell the truth, it had to say things which were relevant to the discussion and important for people to understand. The journalism the panel described was not one that delved into the details of misspoken words, rather it attempted to deal with the substantive issues that would more directly pertain to the nature and personality of the candidate or official.
Finally, they drew a line between news and opinion which I found to be surprising even though it fell perfectly in line with ideas they had already expressed. Coming from a post-modern viewpoint, one assumes that all statements of fact -- other than some purely mathematical ones -- are actually statements of opinion and power plays as you are enforcing an interpretation (this idea comes from Nietzsche). Therefore, it is impossible to be un-opinionated in any fact you give and is better to simply state your biases and then your opinions. However, the men in the panel were certain that it is not only possible but better to give truly objective news.
Bringing this all together, their pursuit of journalism actually excited me. It is an attempt to convey the truth in such a way that it will be correctly interpreted by their audience so as to appropriately inform the public for proper and good decision-making regardless of bias. Now that is something I can get behind.
I wonder though, would a truly unbiased show ever make it on the air today? Would they get swamped by all the other companies, or could they do it? Would their work be recognized as truly great or would it be decried as being opinionated as a means of attempting to dismiss the facts of a situation. Whatever happened it would be challenging, but I'd love to see someone really try.
Soular Rocket Science
I don't feel like I have much to write about this week. We spend much of this week discussing the details of arguments for the existence of God, which in the end were largely discounted because they were either wrong or simply out of date, no longer appealing to the modern (or rather, post-foundationalist) mind. In a way it seemed like we were chasing our own tail, knowing that God exists, seeing the conclusion only inches away but ultimately being unable to prove his existence to a non-believer through rational argument.
So what was the point of the week spent in philosophical debate? Is David just wasting our time with philosophical arguments? We know David a little bit by now, so my guess is he isn’t just wasting our time.
But why do we study philosophy? Is there a point to studying in detail something with so little seeming application? I think there is. We are studying those assumptions which we take for granted about who God is and the reasons why we believe them. We are defending and defining our faith. Now in this exercise it is very, very important to get the exact definitons, wordings and ideas because we are doing rocket science of the soul.
Perhaps that is a little dramatic, but let me explain what I mean. For satellites to precisely orbit the earth, they must be launched to exactly the correct altitude and given exactly the correct amount of thrust. If the velocity or altitude of a satellite in orbit is unstable, the consequences are ultimately catastrophic. A faulty orbit may show only slight deviations from the predicted trajectory, but over the years these deviations grow and compound towards an ultimate fiery demise. For this reason, the most important thing about launching a satellite is not so much that all the electronics work as those problems can be fixed as go along our journey (case in point, the Hubble Telescope mirror which was fixed following initial launch), but there is a stable orbit.
In the same way we are trying now to set our trajectory for our year and Lord willing the rest of our lives. So during this time we may run multiple pre-flight checks, double and triple checking our basic assumptions, carefully calculating our goals and purposes, and making sure that we are ready for a long service life.
So lets try to be patient, and really put our energy into a little bit of spiritual rocket science so that we can work out the less essential points from a stable orbit.
So what was the point of the week spent in philosophical debate? Is David just wasting our time with philosophical arguments? We know David a little bit by now, so my guess is he isn’t just wasting our time.
But why do we study philosophy? Is there a point to studying in detail something with so little seeming application? I think there is. We are studying those assumptions which we take for granted about who God is and the reasons why we believe them. We are defending and defining our faith. Now in this exercise it is very, very important to get the exact definitons, wordings and ideas because we are doing rocket science of the soul.
Perhaps that is a little dramatic, but let me explain what I mean. For satellites to precisely orbit the earth, they must be launched to exactly the correct altitude and given exactly the correct amount of thrust. If the velocity or altitude of a satellite in orbit is unstable, the consequences are ultimately catastrophic. A faulty orbit may show only slight deviations from the predicted trajectory, but over the years these deviations grow and compound towards an ultimate fiery demise. For this reason, the most important thing about launching a satellite is not so much that all the electronics work as those problems can be fixed as go along our journey (case in point, the Hubble Telescope mirror which was fixed following initial launch), but there is a stable orbit.
In the same way we are trying now to set our trajectory for our year and Lord willing the rest of our lives. So during this time we may run multiple pre-flight checks, double and triple checking our basic assumptions, carefully calculating our goals and purposes, and making sure that we are ready for a long service life.
So lets try to be patient, and really put our energy into a little bit of spiritual rocket science so that we can work out the less essential points from a stable orbit.
Outsourcing
Modern technology is rapidly outsourcing our knowledge across all areas of our lives.
Personally, we have outsourced phone numbers to our cell phones, email addresses to our contact lists, knowing streets and directions to Mapquest and GPS, child-rearing to television and day-care, dating to matchmaking sites, musical ability to recorded performers, cooking and hospitality to restaurants, playlist selection to smart shuffle or Pandora, sleep to Starbucks, entertainment to movies and television, friendships to Facebook, Twitter and blogs, and of course all general knowledge to Google and Wikipedia.
Professionally, driving to work is replaced by calling in to meetings, talking to clients is replaced by email, scheduling to our digital calendars, getting up and walking 30 feet to instant messenger, calculations to excel, report making to macros, and any aspect that is not your core job to someone else.
The lists go on and on leaving almost no area of our lives untouched. The great offload. All of this makes work and social life vastly more efficient. We can do many times more than what we have ever been able to accomplish before, because it just takes less work to get things done in the world. However, there are several areas where the level of effort required cannot decrease or may even need to increase in the face of such a rapidly moving world.
Any knowledge which is not purely informational is partly experiential and cannot be outsourced. This includes but is not limited to intuition or any type of personal relationship. Perhaps more importantly, you cannot outsource any sort of personal development. Any experience that you want to impact you, any knowledge that you want to change your personality, or anything that you want to affect your way of thinking cannot be outsourced to another person. You must do and learn them personally.
So now as this applies to class: we can't outsource the disciplines and the study of Christ. It falls into all of these categories. We can't rely on a Pastor to be our Google search, pulling all of the important bits right to front so that we can download them on Sunday morning. We can't count on a peer review of theology or practice to point us to the things which we need to grow in. We are unique, distinct individuals, and we must learn to walk personally with our Lord.
(This thought came to me while we were in class and John and Emily knew the scriptures that David was trying to reference)
Personally, we have outsourced phone numbers to our cell phones, email addresses to our contact lists, knowing streets and directions to Mapquest and GPS, child-rearing to television and day-care, dating to matchmaking sites, musical ability to recorded performers, cooking and hospitality to restaurants, playlist selection to smart shuffle or Pandora, sleep to Starbucks, entertainment to movies and television, friendships to Facebook, Twitter and blogs, and of course all general knowledge to Google and Wikipedia.
Professionally, driving to work is replaced by calling in to meetings, talking to clients is replaced by email, scheduling to our digital calendars, getting up and walking 30 feet to instant messenger, calculations to excel, report making to macros, and any aspect that is not your core job to someone else.
The lists go on and on leaving almost no area of our lives untouched. The great offload. All of this makes work and social life vastly more efficient. We can do many times more than what we have ever been able to accomplish before, because it just takes less work to get things done in the world. However, there are several areas where the level of effort required cannot decrease or may even need to increase in the face of such a rapidly moving world.
Any knowledge which is not purely informational is partly experiential and cannot be outsourced. This includes but is not limited to intuition or any type of personal relationship. Perhaps more importantly, you cannot outsource any sort of personal development. Any experience that you want to impact you, any knowledge that you want to change your personality, or anything that you want to affect your way of thinking cannot be outsourced to another person. You must do and learn them personally.
So now as this applies to class: we can't outsource the disciplines and the study of Christ. It falls into all of these categories. We can't rely on a Pastor to be our Google search, pulling all of the important bits right to front so that we can download them on Sunday morning. We can't count on a peer review of theology or practice to point us to the things which we need to grow in. We are unique, distinct individuals, and we must learn to walk personally with our Lord.
(This thought came to me while we were in class and John and Emily knew the scriptures that David was trying to reference)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)