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.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
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)