Not to be disrespectful or critical, but how can Christianity contain both 1) the viewpoint that intense suffering can be purposeful and cleansing and 2) the viewpoint that heaven has no suffering? I'll restate it in a different manner. If there are two hypothetical Christians of sturdy faith, the first of which is targeted by extended woe and pain (e.g., debilitating chronic disease) and the second of which dies at the age of thirty after a fairly smooth life, how is this set of outcomes fair?
Both Christians go to heaven, and once there experience no more suffering evermore. Thus, their faith is equally valid "in the end" (indeed, it's only by mercy that either of them are justified). Why should the first "suffer for redemption" before being with the Savior, but not the second?
I'm not questioning the spiritual value of suffering, particularly when it's temporary. What I'm questioning is the manifest inequality of the distribution of suffering. If it's purifying and necessary (a point that I'm not sure I concede), then why do some Christians receive so much more "purification" than others, only for all of them to inherit heaven? Moreover, what of the cases of the most devoted followers enduring afflictions as their less zealous brothers backslide without visible consequences?
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
God the ever-present
It may be a trifling thing, but as worshipers who claim that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing, does it make sense for Christians to speak of God "being present here", as if that's worthy of comment? Let's be humbly honest on this. We can't invoke God. God is everywhere, and God does what is perfect. In fact, God inhabits and accepts us solely through God reaching out to us first to enable reconciliation.
God didn't vanish when the temple was destroyed.
God didn't vanish when the temple was destroyed.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
the "agnostic" household
On the Web, I've read the phrase "raised in an agnostic household". Some time later, I started pondering what it could possibly mean.
- The less-likely option is that it refers to a household in which the authority figures actively taught agnosticism. Instead of nightly prayers, there were recitations of standards of proof. The question "Why are we here?" was answered with "Nobody knows, since nobody can prove anything sufficiently conclusive". And the Christmastime inquiry, as to how and why the songs describe an infant as a King, elicited the reply "the infant may or may not have been a king, and in any case we can never know for certain". Perhaps some households do this, but I'm skeptical. To put it mildly, the young have a tendency to want their answers to be unequivocal.
- The more-likely option is that the authority figures of an "agnostic" household weren't so much agnostic as they were religiously apathetic. They didn't discuss religion. If anything, they were careful to ensure no ideas were "enforced" on impressionable minds. They were neither for nor against any ideas about God. Rather, they kept their Sundays busy by worshiping different gods altogether, like leisure and entertainment.
Friday, November 14, 2008
the role of tradition
Traditions in Christianity should neither be rejected nor embraced. Traditions should be held, examined, and either kept or dropped based on value. Some are more timeless than others. Discern in accordance with a couple guidelines:
- A historical and cultural context molded each Christian tradition just as surely as such contexts molded the behavior of people in the Bible (to convince you of this, study the biblical occurrences of polygamy or slavery). A tradition may no longer be helpful within one's own context.
- Prudently avoid the overly "progressive" assumption that, by definition, the past is outdated and its inhabitants are more primitive. Remember that they were people who lived, not merely names. Listen to them, although the result of this "conversation" could be flat disagreement. Consider the possibility that they might have been correct about ____ .
Saturday, November 8, 2008
odd ethical confluence
One ethical trend is an upswing in the opinion that heterosexual marriage is a meaningless legal distinction. "If a man and a woman are in a long-term, caring relationship, why should they go through an archaic marriage ritual or otherwise try to 'forcefully ensnare' one another in a way that lessens his or her personal freedom, flexibility, independence?"
On the other hand, a second ethical trend is an upswing in the opinion that homosexual marriage must be equivalent to heterosexual marriage in the eyes of the legal system and society at large. "If homosexuals are in a long-term, caring relationship, why shouldn't they go through the beautiful ritual of marriage and publicly acknowledge their strong personal bond rather than continue to be treated as independent individuals?"
Does marriage matter or not? The greater likelihood of a heterosexual couple having a family (surely that can't be denied?) points to their marriages being more important. But that would be too logical.
A peculiar joint expression of these two trends is a heterosexual couple who claims to forgo marriage until homosexual couples can also marry. Or the already-married will stop wearing their rings. What a protest! That'll show 'em! Show your support for marriage by not doing it!
On the other hand, a second ethical trend is an upswing in the opinion that homosexual marriage must be equivalent to heterosexual marriage in the eyes of the legal system and society at large. "If homosexuals are in a long-term, caring relationship, why shouldn't they go through the beautiful ritual of marriage and publicly acknowledge their strong personal bond rather than continue to be treated as independent individuals?"
Does marriage matter or not? The greater likelihood of a heterosexual couple having a family (surely that can't be denied?) points to their marriages being more important. But that would be too logical.
A peculiar joint expression of these two trends is a heterosexual couple who claims to forgo marriage until homosexual couples can also marry. Or the already-married will stop wearing their rings. What a protest! That'll show 'em! Show your support for marriage by not doing it!
Thursday, October 30, 2008
which part of the Trinity do you pray to?
Recently I heard someone express thankfulness for "sending your Son" in a prayer. That would seem to imply that his prayer was directed to the Father. I'm sure I've heard others express thankfulness in prayers for "coming to Earth to die". That would seem to imply that those prayers were directed to the Son. Then there's the rather generic "Spirit, come and fill this place" requests in yet other prayers.
I don't recall hearing someone pray to "you all" (contracted to "y'all"), however.
I don't recall hearing someone pray to "you all" (contracted to "y'all"), however.
Monday, October 27, 2008
the most exclusive Christian is...
...the Christian, ahem "Christ-follower", who doesn't attend any church because he or she complains of and assumes that any church is too exclusive (narrow-minded, dogmatic, etc.). Not much chance of participating in a community of love and truth if one is congregating with oneself.
Friday, October 17, 2008
God is not weather
Remember how God is not luck? I'd maintain that God is not weather, either. The cold front that shifted, allowing you and yours to have a spotless family reunion, instead flooded someone else's basement. Be grateful to God, address your concerns, but please don't read Him into the movements of atmospheric gases similar to the way other folk read the future in palms and tea leaves.
Compare Him to the force and irresistibility of nature, if you are grasping for an inferior analogy, but don't be fooled. God has the power to create it, which is far more profound.
Compare Him to the force and irresistibility of nature, if you are grasping for an inferior analogy, but don't be fooled. God has the power to create it, which is far more profound.
Monday, September 29, 2008
the Kingdom is the church
Increasingly, I've been reading and hearing about a greater emphasis among Christians of the Kingdom of God. Jesus announced it had come, he taught often about it ("the kingdom is like..."), and so on. Along with greater emphasis on the Kingdom has come greater emphasis on discipleship and Lordship, carried out not only in the afterlife (perhaps the common label "kingdom come" should now be dropped as misleading...) but here and now. And the forgiveness of sin is extended to the citizens of the Kingdom by the King, not to anyone who merely recites the right prayer out of guilt. This part of the trend is quite good, of course, because it encourages greater participation and diligence from nominal Christians.
But I've also been disturbed by a different part of the trend: the tendency to misconstrue the definition and extent of the Kingdom. The Kingdom is not the entire universe. The Kingdom is the church, the group of people regenerated divinely.
The Kingdom is not an earthly government. As a rule I veer away from petty politics, but it seems to me that if God wished for a world that enforced Christianity then Jesus would have lived his short life differently. The way that I read the Bible, it doesn't support the notion that the way to expand the Kingdom is by force, political or otherwise. Christians in a democracy can vote their consciences, naturally, but the Bible doesn't provide a blueprint for a nation, only a group of devotees. We aren't called to institute heaven on earth or to correct every problem. Our mission is to spread good news and be citizens of a Kingdom that isn't bounded by any lower kingdom.
The way to expand the Kingdom is by bringing people together in obedience and love to the highest Authority. That is the nature of the Kingdom's existence.
But I've also been disturbed by a different part of the trend: the tendency to misconstrue the definition and extent of the Kingdom. The Kingdom is not the entire universe. The Kingdom is the church, the group of people regenerated divinely.
The Kingdom is not an earthly government. As a rule I veer away from petty politics, but it seems to me that if God wished for a world that enforced Christianity then Jesus would have lived his short life differently. The way that I read the Bible, it doesn't support the notion that the way to expand the Kingdom is by force, political or otherwise. Christians in a democracy can vote their consciences, naturally, but the Bible doesn't provide a blueprint for a nation, only a group of devotees. We aren't called to institute heaven on earth or to correct every problem. Our mission is to spread good news and be citizens of a Kingdom that isn't bounded by any lower kingdom.
The way to expand the Kingdom is by bringing people together in obedience and love to the highest Authority. That is the nature of the Kingdom's existence.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
the introverted Christian
This entry will be contemplative and personal. If you don't want to read that, move along. I'll proceed by detailing my own experiences, then posing questions about what it means to be an introverted Christian.
Where I'm speaking from:
I'm a (male) congenital introvert. While I've very seldom hated people, either individually or as a general concept, I confess that they frequently frustrate and exasperate me. When I misunderstand them, their behaviors seem senseless. When I understand them, their behaviors seem petty and/or brutal.
At the same time, I learned to read at a young age. My interests leaned toward anything that was wondrously unreal. I liked humor and peacefulness, not solemnity and aggressiveness. The interests of most of my peers weren't also mine. Sports were trivial games--to this day I struggle to care at all about what happens. Weapons, explosions, and wars weren't nearly as fun or exciting to me as they seemed to be to others--to this day I've never fired a gun, although I respect those who use guns responsibly for a narrow set of purposes. The thrill they experienced at disobeying rules and instructions was experienced by me as fear and confusion; at first I neither comprehended why people would enjoy mere (though symbolic) rebellion against caring authorities, nor how they would view guilt as fun. In short, I am a natural-born nerd. (Most of the time, I dislike the neat categories/labels people are placed in because of the accompanying simplification, limitation, and devaluation, but all the same I can't deny the many similarities between me, the "nerd" stereotype, and those known as "nerds".)
Perhaps an active and kooky imagination, a logical bent, and a notable lack of identification with my peers are all partly to blame for the phenomenon that I usually encounter when I honestly express myself (rather than answering direct questions, etc.): the hearers look at me askance and seem to be dumbfounded at the way my line of thought runs. They wonder why I'm not down-to-earth. They question my questioning of "common sense" and "conventional wisdom". They suggest that I "over-think", as if thinking is something I do and not part of what I am. They might say that reading, or indeed the consumption or production of any artistic pursuit, is for outcasts (stated in smaller and coarser words, naturally). In any case, it wasn't too long before I realized that "the crowd"--i.e. most people--and I had nothing much to offer each other. This need not be a bitter realization, and for me it wasn't, most of the time. I liked and even admired people. I just didn't feel like I was one of them.
Introversion and Christianity (Now What?):
What does it mean for someone like me, an introvert who can't envision thinking and acting any other way, to be a Christian? What does it mean for he or she to be part of the Body? How can one be an instrument of the love of God if one has difficulty being around, or wanting to be around, the majority of people? What contribution can an introvert make to the church's mission? How can an introvert please and glorify God? In an ideal society that brims with harmony, somewhere like heaven, what place should an introvert have?
I have some opinions on these questions, but I freely confess I'm unsure. My firmest certainty is that introversion isn't evil. It's a personal tendency, not a sin. Specifically, introversion isn't equivalent to egocentrism. An introvert's thought-life is dominated by more abstract things than an extrovert's. However, that doesn't imply an introvert's thought-life is necessarily dominated by his abstract self-concept any more than an extrovert's thought-life is necessarily dominated by vainness and popularity.
Introversion does have its own danger to the Christian, independent of self-obsession. It may distract him or her from maintaining a godly focus. Both introverts and extroverts can be victims of diversions; the difference is one of type. For introverts, it's potentially harder because their very thoughts can be the problem, and thoughts are hard to avoid. Thinking, imagining, creating are activities. Activities should be indulged in with moderation, according to the commands of God, and if at all possible should be utilized to advance His goals.
I'm less certain about reconciling introversion to the many mentions in Christianity about people in groups. I sometimes have the impression that the Christian ideal is for all people everywhere to be happy being side-by-side, sharing all their selves and possessions freely, feeling affectionate toward everyone, and just generally not needing much more than each other and God to be happy (does one need to enjoy camping, for instance, in order for Eden to be considered "paradise" in any sense?). I doubt I'm alone in being skeptical of the plausibility of at least portions of that vision, assuming I'm not exaggerating or misinterpreting too drastically.
I'm not reassured by the imperfect model of God's kingdom on Earth, the church, either. I participate in my local church, as opportunities arise to serve how I am capable. I support it wholeheartedly. I attend gatherings and events of all sizes--for me the resolve to serve God outweighs the temptation to retreat into solitude. Nevertheless, I'm stymied by group situations in which people are expected to "mingle" (yeah, I know, in Christian-ese it's "fellowship"). Or situations in which people are expected to intimately follow the details of others' lives and serve them accordingly. Or situations of preaching/teaching--even a kids' class, because to me much of childlike behavior isn't "cute" but unruly.
What does it mean to be an introverted Christian? Must I act completely contrary to my nature? I'm not ruled by it, and I said earlier I do appreciate people--in the abstract, in any case. This is important, since the Christian life here is meant to be a poor reflection of the afterlife. Will there be room for "life of the mind" in heaven? Will heaven have privacy? Existing in the presence of the infinite fount, will there be any puzzles left to solve? Will everyone be constantly talking, even when the conversation is insubstantial?
Introversion is so integral to who I am that I find it hard to posit an inverted, extroverted me. If introversion can have no part of my Christianity, then to me that casts doubt on the notion that Christianity is for saving all people. Although I'll admit that the sentiment "I want to save you, but I might not want to be around you all the time" appears self-contradictory.
Where I'm speaking from:
I'm a (male) congenital introvert. While I've very seldom hated people, either individually or as a general concept, I confess that they frequently frustrate and exasperate me. When I misunderstand them, their behaviors seem senseless. When I understand them, their behaviors seem petty and/or brutal.
At the same time, I learned to read at a young age. My interests leaned toward anything that was wondrously unreal. I liked humor and peacefulness, not solemnity and aggressiveness. The interests of most of my peers weren't also mine. Sports were trivial games--to this day I struggle to care at all about what happens. Weapons, explosions, and wars weren't nearly as fun or exciting to me as they seemed to be to others--to this day I've never fired a gun, although I respect those who use guns responsibly for a narrow set of purposes. The thrill they experienced at disobeying rules and instructions was experienced by me as fear and confusion; at first I neither comprehended why people would enjoy mere (though symbolic) rebellion against caring authorities, nor how they would view guilt as fun. In short, I am a natural-born nerd. (Most of the time, I dislike the neat categories/labels people are placed in because of the accompanying simplification, limitation, and devaluation, but all the same I can't deny the many similarities between me, the "nerd" stereotype, and those known as "nerds".)
Perhaps an active and kooky imagination, a logical bent, and a notable lack of identification with my peers are all partly to blame for the phenomenon that I usually encounter when I honestly express myself (rather than answering direct questions, etc.): the hearers look at me askance and seem to be dumbfounded at the way my line of thought runs. They wonder why I'm not down-to-earth. They question my questioning of "common sense" and "conventional wisdom". They suggest that I "over-think", as if thinking is something I do and not part of what I am. They might say that reading, or indeed the consumption or production of any artistic pursuit, is for outcasts (stated in smaller and coarser words, naturally). In any case, it wasn't too long before I realized that "the crowd"--i.e. most people--and I had nothing much to offer each other. This need not be a bitter realization, and for me it wasn't, most of the time. I liked and even admired people. I just didn't feel like I was one of them.
Introversion and Christianity (Now What?):
What does it mean for someone like me, an introvert who can't envision thinking and acting any other way, to be a Christian? What does it mean for he or she to be part of the Body? How can one be an instrument of the love of God if one has difficulty being around, or wanting to be around, the majority of people? What contribution can an introvert make to the church's mission? How can an introvert please and glorify God? In an ideal society that brims with harmony, somewhere like heaven, what place should an introvert have?
I have some opinions on these questions, but I freely confess I'm unsure. My firmest certainty is that introversion isn't evil. It's a personal tendency, not a sin. Specifically, introversion isn't equivalent to egocentrism. An introvert's thought-life is dominated by more abstract things than an extrovert's. However, that doesn't imply an introvert's thought-life is necessarily dominated by his abstract self-concept any more than an extrovert's thought-life is necessarily dominated by vainness and popularity.
Introversion does have its own danger to the Christian, independent of self-obsession. It may distract him or her from maintaining a godly focus. Both introverts and extroverts can be victims of diversions; the difference is one of type. For introverts, it's potentially harder because their very thoughts can be the problem, and thoughts are hard to avoid. Thinking, imagining, creating are activities. Activities should be indulged in with moderation, according to the commands of God, and if at all possible should be utilized to advance His goals.
I'm less certain about reconciling introversion to the many mentions in Christianity about people in groups. I sometimes have the impression that the Christian ideal is for all people everywhere to be happy being side-by-side, sharing all their selves and possessions freely, feeling affectionate toward everyone, and just generally not needing much more than each other and God to be happy (does one need to enjoy camping, for instance, in order for Eden to be considered "paradise" in any sense?). I doubt I'm alone in being skeptical of the plausibility of at least portions of that vision, assuming I'm not exaggerating or misinterpreting too drastically.
I'm not reassured by the imperfect model of God's kingdom on Earth, the church, either. I participate in my local church, as opportunities arise to serve how I am capable. I support it wholeheartedly. I attend gatherings and events of all sizes--for me the resolve to serve God outweighs the temptation to retreat into solitude. Nevertheless, I'm stymied by group situations in which people are expected to "mingle" (yeah, I know, in Christian-ese it's "fellowship"). Or situations in which people are expected to intimately follow the details of others' lives and serve them accordingly. Or situations of preaching/teaching--even a kids' class, because to me much of childlike behavior isn't "cute" but unruly.
What does it mean to be an introverted Christian? Must I act completely contrary to my nature? I'm not ruled by it, and I said earlier I do appreciate people--in the abstract, in any case. This is important, since the Christian life here is meant to be a poor reflection of the afterlife. Will there be room for "life of the mind" in heaven? Will heaven have privacy? Existing in the presence of the infinite fount, will there be any puzzles left to solve? Will everyone be constantly talking, even when the conversation is insubstantial?
Introversion is so integral to who I am that I find it hard to posit an inverted, extroverted me. If introversion can have no part of my Christianity, then to me that casts doubt on the notion that Christianity is for saving all people. Although I'll admit that the sentiment "I want to save you, but I might not want to be around you all the time" appears self-contradictory.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Sunday, September 7, 2008
an essential element of Christian freedom
Any discussion about freedom should specify what the freedom is from. The personal freedom to do something is omnipresent; the more relevant issue is the action's consequences.
I have the freedom to cross between states of my nation. Even if there were prohibitions and patrols, I'd nevertheless still have the freedom to cross between states. I'd be detained and/or charged, but my personal freedom to provoke those reactions (or not) is never in question. In this case, the actual freedom described is freedom from government interference of my state-crossings. Put another way, each person is free in his or her own soul. We possess the human dignity of decision-making at all times. In that sense, no one is ever "granted freedoms" that he or she didn't have already.
When a believer or an unbeliever says or sings "I am free", the statement ascribes no additional attributes to "I". "I" wouldn't be "I", if "I" wasn't free. The immediate question to "I am free" shouldn't be "Free to do what?" but "Free from what?"
Without this context, Christianity's concept of freedom can befuddle. For some people, freedom implies being able to do whatever is in one's power. Whereas for the Christian, that freedom is assumed for everybody in any case. Christianity's freedom then must be "freedom froms", not "freedom tos". Christianity's freedom is freedom from Hell, from selfishness, from fear, from despair. Some unbelievers see Christianity and freedom as opposites because God's demands of holiness draw firm bounds around a number of "freedom tos". They don't see that coupled with this list of behavioral limits is a long list of "freedom froms". In alternative words whose coarseness approaches rank inaccuracy, the Christian "trades" lordship over his own life--a lordship that might not be going at all well--for freedom from sinful bondage now and freedom from eternal punishment later.
I have the freedom to cross between states of my nation. Even if there were prohibitions and patrols, I'd nevertheless still have the freedom to cross between states. I'd be detained and/or charged, but my personal freedom to provoke those reactions (or not) is never in question. In this case, the actual freedom described is freedom from government interference of my state-crossings. Put another way, each person is free in his or her own soul. We possess the human dignity of decision-making at all times. In that sense, no one is ever "granted freedoms" that he or she didn't have already.
When a believer or an unbeliever says or sings "I am free", the statement ascribes no additional attributes to "I". "I" wouldn't be "I", if "I" wasn't free. The immediate question to "I am free" shouldn't be "Free to do what?" but "Free from what?"
Without this context, Christianity's concept of freedom can befuddle. For some people, freedom implies being able to do whatever is in one's power. Whereas for the Christian, that freedom is assumed for everybody in any case. Christianity's freedom then must be "freedom froms", not "freedom tos". Christianity's freedom is freedom from Hell, from selfishness, from fear, from despair. Some unbelievers see Christianity and freedom as opposites because God's demands of holiness draw firm bounds around a number of "freedom tos". They don't see that coupled with this list of behavioral limits is a long list of "freedom froms". In alternative words whose coarseness approaches rank inaccuracy, the Christian "trades" lordship over his own life--a lordship that might not be going at all well--for freedom from sinful bondage now and freedom from eternal punishment later.
Friday, August 22, 2008
"missional" should be implied
One word that bugs me among Christians is "missional". Christianity itself is missional. "Go and make disciples". "Faith without works is dead". Christianity is bowing one's entire being and life to the Holy God. Don't bother to tell me a ministry or church is "missional", although that's nice to hear. I'm missional. You're missional. Together, we are even more missional.
People like to point out that God doesn't despise creation, in order to emphasize that sex isn't repulsive in its proper time and place. I remind them that it also means that belief in God isn't only mystical or mental. Jesus stated that the kingdom of heaven had come. We are part of it now. We live in it now. Christianity has physical consequences. It can't help but be missional.
People like to point out that God doesn't despise creation, in order to emphasize that sex isn't repulsive in its proper time and place. I remind them that it also means that belief in God isn't only mystical or mental. Jesus stated that the kingdom of heaven had come. We are part of it now. We live in it now. Christianity has physical consequences. It can't help but be missional.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
the scapegoat everyone can agree on
American culture.
Apparently, regardless of a complainer's perspective or the specific, systemic societal downfall he or she complains of, American culture is to blame. If only it was more like ______, then people would act the way they should.
The sad yet amusing truth is that the accusation is somehow both simplistic and correct: American culture is in actuality brimming with subcultures and regional differences, but it is still an "invisible hand" that directs behavior. "Culture" is composed of so many pieces and assumed by so many minds that the bulk of it can't be suddenly changed. The most anyone can do is 1) produce counteracting works of culture and 2) cultivate and expand a counterculture.
And 3), remember that culture includes crucial items other than mass (crass) media. Human relationships, for instance. "Unplugging" oneself from electronic noise (this blog excepted!) is a fine way to become reacquainted with, well, reality, which Christians are called to beneficially engage in.
Apparently, regardless of a complainer's perspective or the specific, systemic societal downfall he or she complains of, American culture is to blame. If only it was more like ______, then people would act the way they should.
The sad yet amusing truth is that the accusation is somehow both simplistic and correct: American culture is in actuality brimming with subcultures and regional differences, but it is still an "invisible hand" that directs behavior. "Culture" is composed of so many pieces and assumed by so many minds that the bulk of it can't be suddenly changed. The most anyone can do is 1) produce counteracting works of culture and 2) cultivate and expand a counterculture.
And 3), remember that culture includes crucial items other than mass (crass) media. Human relationships, for instance. "Unplugging" oneself from electronic noise (this blog excepted!) is a fine way to become reacquainted with, well, reality, which Christians are called to beneficially engage in.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Christianity without doctrine
Doctrine is divisive. This effect is intentional. To believe in doctrinal truth is also to believe in the possibility of doctrinal falsehoods. If doctrines delineate true and false, then the proponents of doctrines are similarly delineated into groups that each believe the others to be mistaken. Why can't Christians, for the sake of unity, toss all that stuff out the window?
Picture what that would mean. When a church, a body of disciples, has no doctrines, then everybody has nothing to disagree over (that's the ideal, anyway). The beliefs of individuals don't matter, because they can be neither right nor wrong. So no doctrine leads to each person holding to any doctrine. But if disciples can pick and choose their doctrines (passing over the question of what basis they use), then what is Christianity's distinction in the sea of ideas? Truth can't be chosen; truth is. Christianity without truth isn't a Christianity worthy of martyrs.
Nevertheless, the necessity of doctrine in order to uphold the very concept of solid spiritual truth doesn't (and shouldn't) prevent Christians from cooperating to accomplish good. In many causes agreeable to the Christian faith, they can also cooperate with other religions and secularists. Frankly, doctrinal differences aren't relevant to every action.
Yet doctrinal differences are inescapably relevant to Christian practice: sermons, governance, sacraments. Churches that profess no doctrine really do have doctrines, demonstrated by their words and actions. Faith isn't the same as "works", but works "prove" faith. Doctrines are analogous.
Picture what that would mean. When a church, a body of disciples, has no doctrines, then everybody has nothing to disagree over (that's the ideal, anyway). The beliefs of individuals don't matter, because they can be neither right nor wrong. So no doctrine leads to each person holding to any doctrine. But if disciples can pick and choose their doctrines (passing over the question of what basis they use), then what is Christianity's distinction in the sea of ideas? Truth can't be chosen; truth is. Christianity without truth isn't a Christianity worthy of martyrs.
Nevertheless, the necessity of doctrine in order to uphold the very concept of solid spiritual truth doesn't (and shouldn't) prevent Christians from cooperating to accomplish good. In many causes agreeable to the Christian faith, they can also cooperate with other religions and secularists. Frankly, doctrinal differences aren't relevant to every action.
Yet doctrinal differences are inescapably relevant to Christian practice: sermons, governance, sacraments. Churches that profess no doctrine really do have doctrines, demonstrated by their words and actions. Faith isn't the same as "works", but works "prove" faith. Doctrines are analogous.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
a question of terminology
Is an enjoyable experience described as: 1) sinful, 2) heavenly? In either case, I hope the adjective is only being used playfully. But does the choice between these two words, trivial or not, indicate a deeper opinion about the very idea of righteousness? Does it reflect the actual level of belief in the benefits of living well? Which side is "fun" (no matter how shallowly it be defined), good or evil? Is heaven considered boring?
Just something to ponder the next time a "sinful" dessert is presented or a "heavenly" singer performs.
Just something to ponder the next time a "sinful" dessert is presented or a "heavenly" singer performs.
Friday, July 25, 2008
2 Timothy 3:16
2nd Timothy 3:16 is a popular verse for illustrating the importance of the Bible, and also in support of sola scriptura.
But am I the only one to have wondered if and how it can possibly be referring to itself? At the time it was written, the New Testament hadn't taken final shape, naturally (though I imagine that one or more of the Gospels and/or the Gospel source document(s) may have been around in some form). And it's far-fetched indeed to suppose that 2nd Timothy's writer included 2nd Timothy as Scripture, anyway.
That doesn't mean that 2nd Timothy isn't part of Christianity's biblical canon. Being actually written by an apostle is a good basis to trust it (all the shaky, disreputable other "gospels" don't have that basis).
But am I the only one to have wondered if and how it can possibly be referring to itself? At the time it was written, the New Testament hadn't taken final shape, naturally (though I imagine that one or more of the Gospels and/or the Gospel source document(s) may have been around in some form). And it's far-fetched indeed to suppose that 2nd Timothy's writer included 2nd Timothy as Scripture, anyway.
That doesn't mean that 2nd Timothy isn't part of Christianity's biblical canon. Being actually written by an apostle is a good basis to trust it (all the shaky, disreputable other "gospels" don't have that basis).
Thursday, July 17, 2008
one obvious reason why raising a child takes a village
No, I don't mean to knock the observation that other people than the parents, the "village", are involved in a child's upbringing. They are, and that is normal and dare I say healthy. Generally (not absolutely), an insular childhood fails to adequately prepare someone to be part of the larger society. (That's merely one of the reasons why I personally wouldn't choose home-schooling.) Frankly, people will need to interact with citizens other than relatives, so shouldn't they get some practice while still under the supervision of parents who are fulfilling their proper roles of protection, guidance, and support?
But one obvious reason why raising a child takes a village in the current culture is because the parents sure aren't doing it. I just read an interview with a successful actress who recently became a mother (I don't know whether the pregnancy was "intentional" or not), and the sheer scale of ignorance and selfishness exhibited about the family unit is astounding. She mentions her surprise at how strong her desire to be with her child is (ever hear of a mother bear and her cubs before?). She says that her feelings for the father have increased in intensity since the birth, because she sees that when a child enters the picture then the parents are thereby linked forever in their sharing of it (gee, do you suppose marriage isn't solely a decadent short-lived expression of romance but also for the sake of, say, the most vulnerable members of the resulting family, the children?). She says that she's fine if they marry or don't (after all, why should a father be obligated to take responsibility for the offspring he's, well, partly responsible for? Why should he be obligated to do his part in raising the child?). She says that as the child grows, marriage might become more important later (as opposed to now during the most formative years, when the child will be raised by a hireling much of the time?).
I'm all for understanding, unity, and compromise, but sometimes I can't stop myself from getting the impression that some people think so differently that they may as well be living on another planet. Admittedly, despite my comments her child does have a couple significant advantages that will probably allow him to turn out all right, if a lack of boundaries and a drive to find real selfless love don't cause him to enter the orbit of myriad detrimental influences. He will benefit from a quite comfortable amount of wealth and a mother who does indeed experience maternal impulses for him.
The sad truth is that not all children with similar, uh, non-family-oriented parents have those compensations. Want a recipe for a drug dealer, in general terms? Combine the rough life of poverty with the no-hope perspective of nonexistent opportunities with the no-rules moral vacuum engendered by absent or skewed-priority parents. People always make choices, but their environment predisposes them to viewpoints and their viewpoints predispose them to evaluate choices differently. Even if someone held to the fatalistic view that individuals ("sheeple") just "do what they're taught, what they know", doesn't that mean that it would be all the more important for them to be taught/raised in stable, supportive family units that demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt what love is?
But one obvious reason why raising a child takes a village in the current culture is because the parents sure aren't doing it. I just read an interview with a successful actress who recently became a mother (I don't know whether the pregnancy was "intentional" or not), and the sheer scale of ignorance and selfishness exhibited about the family unit is astounding. She mentions her surprise at how strong her desire to be with her child is (ever hear of a mother bear and her cubs before?). She says that her feelings for the father have increased in intensity since the birth, because she sees that when a child enters the picture then the parents are thereby linked forever in their sharing of it (gee, do you suppose marriage isn't solely a decadent short-lived expression of romance but also for the sake of, say, the most vulnerable members of the resulting family, the children?). She says that she's fine if they marry or don't (after all, why should a father be obligated to take responsibility for the offspring he's, well, partly responsible for? Why should he be obligated to do his part in raising the child?). She says that as the child grows, marriage might become more important later (as opposed to now during the most formative years, when the child will be raised by a hireling much of the time?).
I'm all for understanding, unity, and compromise, but sometimes I can't stop myself from getting the impression that some people think so differently that they may as well be living on another planet. Admittedly, despite my comments her child does have a couple significant advantages that will probably allow him to turn out all right, if a lack of boundaries and a drive to find real selfless love don't cause him to enter the orbit of myriad detrimental influences. He will benefit from a quite comfortable amount of wealth and a mother who does indeed experience maternal impulses for him.
The sad truth is that not all children with similar, uh, non-family-oriented parents have those compensations. Want a recipe for a drug dealer, in general terms? Combine the rough life of poverty with the no-hope perspective of nonexistent opportunities with the no-rules moral vacuum engendered by absent or skewed-priority parents. People always make choices, but their environment predisposes them to viewpoints and their viewpoints predispose them to evaluate choices differently. Even if someone held to the fatalistic view that individuals ("sheeple") just "do what they're taught, what they know", doesn't that mean that it would be all the more important for them to be taught/raised in stable, supportive family units that demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt what love is?
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Pascal's Wager flipped
Pascal's Wager is that belief in Christianity, and behavior based on that belief, potentially have eternal, heavenly consequences that far outweigh the corresponding consequences of disbelief in Christianity (if death is just death, then one's beliefs simply wouldn't matter).
However, consider situations which involve certain death if someone acts as if Christianity is true. This has been the case for many individuals. Now, a believer would proceed to make the decision that results in shuffling off this mortal coil, thereby going on to grander things. He or she probably wouldn't need to think twice.
To an unbeliever, the mortal dilemma looks much different. Pascal's Wager looks less promising because the scales hang between eternal life and earthly life, and of the two earthly life is clearly the safer "bet". For him or her, one choice is to take a chance that Christianity is true, so that earthly life is traded for the incomparably richer eternal life. The other choice is to take the chance that Christianity is false, so that eternal life is nothing more than pretty fiction and therefore earthly life is infinitely better than death.
When someone's life is on the line, Christianity's veracity cuts both ways. Christianity being true would imply that Christian behavior is infinitely more rewarding; yet Christianity being false would imply that Christian behavior is infinitely less rewarding (because then it would be cutting precious life short for precisely Nothing).
However, consider situations which involve certain death if someone acts as if Christianity is true. This has been the case for many individuals. Now, a believer would proceed to make the decision that results in shuffling off this mortal coil, thereby going on to grander things. He or she probably wouldn't need to think twice.
To an unbeliever, the mortal dilemma looks much different. Pascal's Wager looks less promising because the scales hang between eternal life and earthly life, and of the two earthly life is clearly the safer "bet". For him or her, one choice is to take a chance that Christianity is true, so that earthly life is traded for the incomparably richer eternal life. The other choice is to take the chance that Christianity is false, so that eternal life is nothing more than pretty fiction and therefore earthly life is infinitely better than death.
When someone's life is on the line, Christianity's veracity cuts both ways. Christianity being true would imply that Christian behavior is infinitely more rewarding; yet Christianity being false would imply that Christian behavior is infinitely less rewarding (because then it would be cutting precious life short for precisely Nothing).
Saturday, May 24, 2008
a symptom of real despair
Despair must have become endemic to someone for him or her to be amused and patronizing toward a lack of cynicism or an outpouring of contentment. When the mere concept of innocence is a hilarious joke, and the enjoyment of life is a sign of immaturity, real despair is what remains. People in this state quite naturally fall into habits for dulling their minds and altering their moods. They don't pursue happiness; they dehumanize themselves to the bestial point at which happiness has a simpler, faker definition.
Who's escapist?
Who's escapist?
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
one obvious reason that cohabitation is on the rise
By "cohabitation" I mean an intimate, long-term, at-least-mostly monogamous arrangement between unmarried people, regardless of whether it's taking place under one roof. Children may or may not be involved. It seems to be most prevalent among those who are affluent, unconventional, and mutually independent (e.g., rich entertainers).
I just realized one obvious reason why this practice is considered preferable to the marriage bond: cohabitation makes divorce much less of a hassle. The commitments, responsibilities, and benefits conferred on marriage by law simply don't mix well with casual, ephemeral interactions between fiercely egocentric individuals. In view of this, the dismal statistical record of cohabiting couples isn't surprising because it's engineered at the outset. It's one of cohabitation's most salient "pros".
I just realized one obvious reason why this practice is considered preferable to the marriage bond: cohabitation makes divorce much less of a hassle. The commitments, responsibilities, and benefits conferred on marriage by law simply don't mix well with casual, ephemeral interactions between fiercely egocentric individuals. In view of this, the dismal statistical record of cohabiting couples isn't surprising because it's engineered at the outset. It's one of cohabitation's most salient "pros".
Sunday, May 4, 2008
a dissection of the lyric "the Earth is filled with His glory"
When I sing during a church service I strive to ponder the lyrics. I firmly believe that mindless worship is a self-contradiction. I keep silent during the lines and stanzas that I can't state honestly. One short assertion in that category is, if I'm repeating it faithfully, "the Earth is filled with His glory". It's more problematic than it may seem:
- If the lyric means that the Earth is a strong representation of God's goodness, then it's false. I count my blessings like any other grateful being (it's always more than we deserve), but surely that matter of the Fall is a stumbling block to thinking the Earth is Good? Not only is there a dizzying array of ways to experience pain but there is an even greater number of ways that one inhabitant of Earth can inflict that pain on its counterparts. Consider another good quality, fairness. Aside from the difficulty of arriving at a definition that everyone will accept, any regime to enforce fairness will sooner or later fail because people are simply too clever.
- If the lyric means that the Earth is a strong representation of God's power and majesty and creativity, then it's false. Infinite is infinite. Absolute is absolute. Merely from the standpoint of the rest of the solar system, Earth isn't terribly distinctive...apart from supporting life, a task at which it hasn't been perpetually successful. Sometimes people will speak of natural disasters and catastrophes that supposedly illustrate God's might. As if. Perhaps a greater sign is the very existence of the Earth and universe. Something from nothing is the true miracle.
- If the lyric means that the Earth is filled with God, then it's false. God is separate. God's full force would flatten it. God's presence would crush our minds. Also remember that many things on Earth injure and kill indiscriminately. And annoy. Is it respectful to imply that "Jack Frost nipping at your nose" should be "Yahweh nipping at your nose"? Please, be thankful when everything seems to be favoring your happiness. Yet what should the response be when everything seems to be spiting your happiness? What about the beautiful sunshine...before and after it burns you? I admit to not being someone who sees God in everything. My intent is to provoke thought, not to challenge anyone's faith.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
False Amorality redux
False Amorality made the point that accusations of amorality don't help either side of any moral conflict. One example of this is the assumption (sometimes proven right, sometimes not) by some Christians that people who don't believe in the supernatural or at the very least objective morality must not have high standards of behavior or a basis for humane, altruistic actions. The following quote simply expresses a perspective that combines compassion with pessimism about ultimate meaning.
...If there's no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. 'Cause that's all there is. What we do, now, today...All I wanna do is help. I wanna help because I don't think people should suffer as they do. Because, if there's no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
two categories of hypocrisy
The common definition of hypocrisy is someone not doing what they say.
One well-publicized category of it is that of Christians, or any other person who doesn't keep quiet about morality, not living their lives as perfectly as they say they should.
But there's also a second category. In this category, people don't claim at all to live in accordance with their religious "beliefs" or even to "take them seriously" (literal Hell, anyone?). Yet they attend services, sing songs, feign prayers, and always expect the other guy to volunteer. They silently dismiss any mutterings they hear about taking up crosses.
In the first category, well-meaning people make mistakes like everyone else as they struggle to put their difficult beliefs into practice. In the second category, people openly do as they like while telling bald lies to themselves and others about their feelings, commitments, and loyalties. Which is worse?
One well-publicized category of it is that of Christians, or any other person who doesn't keep quiet about morality, not living their lives as perfectly as they say they should.
But there's also a second category. In this category, people don't claim at all to live in accordance with their religious "beliefs" or even to "take them seriously" (literal Hell, anyone?). Yet they attend services, sing songs, feign prayers, and always expect the other guy to volunteer. They silently dismiss any mutterings they hear about taking up crosses.
In the first category, well-meaning people make mistakes like everyone else as they struggle to put their difficult beliefs into practice. In the second category, people openly do as they like while telling bald lies to themselves and others about their feelings, commitments, and loyalties. Which is worse?
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
spontaneous not random acts of kindness
Go ahead, perform acts of kindness, but not randomly. Acts of kindness should be motivated. Help an unknown person not out of obligation to the "randomness edict" but out of compassion and sympathy for flawed humanity. Let your "light" shine before men always, but do this in full conscious awareness. Aim to do the most good to the most drastic need. Unthinking, unfeeling, randomized behavior is beneath the dignity of our responsibility to represent God on Earth.
The virtuous person spontaneously gives to everyone around him or her from a bottomless divine supply, but do not compare these gifts to a die roll.
The virtuous person spontaneously gives to everyone around him or her from a bottomless divine supply, but do not compare these gifts to a die roll.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
another quick hint on opening constructive dialogs with Christians
Don't blame Christianity for every dark point in the history of Western Civilization. Don't pretend that the obvious hypocrites were sincere Christians. Don't attempt to maintain that the sole efforts of the church were to exert thought control through force. Look, some awful people did some awful actions, no question. But how is that different from every other place and time on Earth?
Consider what would most likely have happened if Christianity, like other world religions, hadn't largely replaced the original belief systems. No religions worse than Christianity? Do some more research, this time with the objectivity.
Consider what would most likely have happened if Christianity, like other world religions, hadn't largely replaced the original belief systems. No religions worse than Christianity? Do some more research, this time with the objectivity.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
a quick hint on opening constructive dialogs with Christians
Don't label Christian communities with the words "tribe" or "tribal", or else be careful to reapply the same words to other communities, too. Insinuating that people can't think for themselves but rather that they have "tribal" beliefs that they defend as members of a "tribe" is simply not an effective way to reach them. Any social group usually has shared beliefs that are intrinsic to the group's very existence. One may as well state that the American Dental Association tribe has zealous beliefs about oral hygiene. People with that "tribal affiliation" will take a stand against those who question the "tribal laws" for combating tooth decay.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
secular metaphors
"Secular values" pointed out that since values and religion are so intertwined, and values are so important for individuals of a society to make good decisions, the marginalization or elimination of religion from culture must also include secular substitutes for values. In a similar way, the metaphors of a culture both intertwine with religion and serve important cultural functions. Therefore, secular metaphors must be introduced along with secular values.
Examples of cultural metaphors from Christianity are David and Goliath, Noah, Adam, Lazarus, Samson, Moses, Solomon, and Jesus, of course. Turns of phrase from Christianity include "let he who is without sin", "lamb to the slaughter", "go the extra mile", "feet of clay", "wolf in sheep's clothing", "wheat from the chaff", "wash my hands of", "turn the other cheek", "straight and narrow", "scapegoat", "salt of the earth". Some concepts from Christianity commonly alluded to include the Apocalypse and all the associated symbols like the Four Horsemen, numerous stories like Babel and the Ark and the battle of Jericho, parables or teachings like the Good Shepherd. Moreover, cultural metaphors from other religions also abound. Consider "herculean", "sisyphean", "Midas touch", "titanic", "tantalizing", "procrustean", "Achilles heel".
The official or inclusive stance on religious metaphors usually seems to be that these metaphors are really metaphors from influential literature that happened to be religious in nature. It's true that metaphorical uses of the above elements jettison the important theological meanings of the originals. For instance, David's victory over Goliath was a divine work or gift, as was Samson's strength and Solomon's wisdom. But merely placing the metaphors in the same category as "lilliputian" and "something is rotten in Denmark" doesn't change the fact that the metaphors originate from the exact "dangerously deranged religions" that some wish would just go away or become irrelevant or benign. If supernatural belief is a metaphorical millstone around the neck (oops, the Bible mentions that too) of humanity, wouldn't it at least be more satisfactory for the irredeemably-flawed associated metaphors to be replaced by secular metaphors? Or am I opening Pandora's Box, so to speak, by mentioning this challenge?
In any case, it seems rather hypocritical when people who loudly cry against supernatural beliefs continue to mine those beliefs for artistic metaphors. You have your own set of anti-theistic beliefs, which you are proud of (and why not be proud of your beliefs when everyone else is proud of theirs?). Why not use metaphors from beliefs you hold?
Examples of cultural metaphors from Christianity are David and Goliath, Noah, Adam, Lazarus, Samson, Moses, Solomon, and Jesus, of course. Turns of phrase from Christianity include "let he who is without sin", "lamb to the slaughter", "go the extra mile", "feet of clay", "wolf in sheep's clothing", "wheat from the chaff", "wash my hands of", "turn the other cheek", "straight and narrow", "scapegoat", "salt of the earth". Some concepts from Christianity commonly alluded to include the Apocalypse and all the associated symbols like the Four Horsemen, numerous stories like Babel and the Ark and the battle of Jericho, parables or teachings like the Good Shepherd. Moreover, cultural metaphors from other religions also abound. Consider "herculean", "sisyphean", "Midas touch", "titanic", "tantalizing", "procrustean", "Achilles heel".
The official or inclusive stance on religious metaphors usually seems to be that these metaphors are really metaphors from influential literature that happened to be religious in nature. It's true that metaphorical uses of the above elements jettison the important theological meanings of the originals. For instance, David's victory over Goliath was a divine work or gift, as was Samson's strength and Solomon's wisdom. But merely placing the metaphors in the same category as "lilliputian" and "something is rotten in Denmark" doesn't change the fact that the metaphors originate from the exact "dangerously deranged religions" that some wish would just go away or become irrelevant or benign. If supernatural belief is a metaphorical millstone around the neck (oops, the Bible mentions that too) of humanity, wouldn't it at least be more satisfactory for the irredeemably-flawed associated metaphors to be replaced by secular metaphors? Or am I opening Pandora's Box, so to speak, by mentioning this challenge?
In any case, it seems rather hypocritical when people who loudly cry against supernatural beliefs continue to mine those beliefs for artistic metaphors. You have your own set of anti-theistic beliefs, which you are proud of (and why not be proud of your beliefs when everyone else is proud of theirs?). Why not use metaphors from beliefs you hold?
Sunday, March 9, 2008
seeing isn't believing, double blindness is
One tactic of persuasion often put forth in favor of the supernatural is a (deeply sincere) report of someone's own past experiences; appropriately, this category of evidence is called anecdotal. A confession of an occurrence--an anecdote--may seem quite convincing to the witness. After all, it's not a tangle of philosophical premises or an admonition to "just trust", but an observation of reality. "Seeing is believing."
However, scientific studies of complicated phenomena that are tied to human experience, such as medicine, use different standards. First, if at all possible, the observer or subject shouldn't be notified that he or she is expected to report a positive result. That is, the observers should be placed without their knowledge in one of two groups. One group is the "experimental" group, which is expected to give a real report. The second group is the "control" group, which is not really undergoing the same test but is nevertheless under that impression (in some cases with a placebo). This way, the effect of observer bias is "controlled for": the observations of everyone in the control group are only based on bias. Their incorrect assumption is that they are giving a real report. The observers or subjects don't have awareness of what they are "expected" to say, so they're "blind". This method is "single-blind".
Yet bias could still be creeping into the study. What if the conductors/interviewers of the study, due to their own awareness of which group each observer is in, influence what the observers say, no matter how subtly? The conductors of the study have their own stake or bias, after all. They want a cleanly definitive set of observations that match the reality of what is under study. Those in the control group should report negative results and those in the experimental group should report positive results. A better way is to also "blind" the conductors of the study such that nobody involved knows who is in which group until the analysis afterward. During the study, that information is stored separately. Since both sides aren't aware of whether a particular observation really supports what is under study, the method is "double-blind".
Data that supports the existence of the supernatural is either measurable or not. If the data isn't measurable, then it must consist of human observations. But if the data is human observations, then the data collection should be double-blind in order to eliminate bias as much as possible. If the data collection can't be double-blind, then it should be single-blind. If the data collection can't be single-blind, then its level of relative credibility is indeed low. The inherent inability to systematically eliminate bias from observations of the supernatural is partly why some people are skeptical.
However, scientific studies of complicated phenomena that are tied to human experience, such as medicine, use different standards. First, if at all possible, the observer or subject shouldn't be notified that he or she is expected to report a positive result. That is, the observers should be placed without their knowledge in one of two groups. One group is the "experimental" group, which is expected to give a real report. The second group is the "control" group, which is not really undergoing the same test but is nevertheless under that impression (in some cases with a placebo). This way, the effect of observer bias is "controlled for": the observations of everyone in the control group are only based on bias. Their incorrect assumption is that they are giving a real report. The observers or subjects don't have awareness of what they are "expected" to say, so they're "blind". This method is "single-blind".
Yet bias could still be creeping into the study. What if the conductors/interviewers of the study, due to their own awareness of which group each observer is in, influence what the observers say, no matter how subtly? The conductors of the study have their own stake or bias, after all. They want a cleanly definitive set of observations that match the reality of what is under study. Those in the control group should report negative results and those in the experimental group should report positive results. A better way is to also "blind" the conductors of the study such that nobody involved knows who is in which group until the analysis afterward. During the study, that information is stored separately. Since both sides aren't aware of whether a particular observation really supports what is under study, the method is "double-blind".
Data that supports the existence of the supernatural is either measurable or not. If the data isn't measurable, then it must consist of human observations. But if the data is human observations, then the data collection should be double-blind in order to eliminate bias as much as possible. If the data collection can't be double-blind, then it should be single-blind. If the data collection can't be single-blind, then its level of relative credibility is indeed low. The inherent inability to systematically eliminate bias from observations of the supernatural is partly why some people are skeptical.
Friday, March 7, 2008
secular values
For most people, and through much of history, their values (i.e., the qualities they value) have been intertwined with their religion. This isn't surprising because values and religion are parts of a culture, which is a connected whole. Values, especially the relative priority of each, form the starting point for the free moral decisions made by each individual. Values are therefore vital to a society.
If someone works to reduce the influence of religion on a culture, or eliminate religion altogether (based on the quaint notion that godlessness produces utopia), then he or she must also ensure that the resulting culture will have the values people need to make good decisions. With religion no longer playing a role, secular values are the only option. "Secular" in this context doesn't mean anti-religious, just non-religious. What are secular values, and what is the basis and/or the justification of those values? The issue must be addressed convincingly by people who wish to sweep religion out of culture. A culture must contain livable and functional values to be viable.
If someone works to reduce the influence of religion on a culture, or eliminate religion altogether (based on the quaint notion that godlessness produces utopia), then he or she must also ensure that the resulting culture will have the values people need to make good decisions. With religion no longer playing a role, secular values are the only option. "Secular" in this context doesn't mean anti-religious, just non-religious. What are secular values, and what is the basis and/or the justification of those values? The issue must be addressed convincingly by people who wish to sweep religion out of culture. A culture must contain livable and functional values to be viable.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
case of the nonexistent brain
No, the title doesn't refer to a particularly vicious insult. It refers to a misleading story I've received numerous times via email. To summarize, a teacher/professor tells a student that since God can't be directly observed God must not exist. Then the student retorts that since the teacher/professor's brain can't be directly observed his/her brain must not exist, either. Not nearly as poetic as comparing God to the wind, but much more incisive. (It also superficially resembles another gambit: if all human thoughts originate from lumps of matter called "brains", then how can someone trust any of his or her own conclusions?)
The story's moral is certainly valid: not everything that exists can be directly sensed. However, any readers of the story (and there are many) should not be misled into applying this childish moral to the actual philosophical clash between belief systems that include the supernatural and belief systems that deny it. The problem isn't that the moral is inapplicable to the clash; the problem is that the moral offers no "ammunition" for either side, because everybody believes it. To represent the opposing point of view as being so crippled is dishonest.
In fact, very few human endeavors of significance can happen without assuming the truth of this moral. When someone shakes a closed, opaque container or weighs it to determine how much is inside the container, the inability to directly sense the contents doesn't result in someone assuming the contents don't exist. When a hurtling object is momentarily blocked from view by a tree or pole, the inability to directly sense the object for an instant doesn't result in someone assuming the object blinked out of existence. The inability to see germs or atoms with the unaided eye doesn't result in someone assuming such things don't exist. The inability to directly sense thermodynamic energy (we only see evidence of energy when it's transferred by doing something) doesn't result in someone assuming it spontaneously appears and vanishes.
Unlike the teacher caricature in the story, people who say there's no proof for the supernatural can then say they have brains without contradicting themselves. They would do this by patiently enumerating the "brain evidence": over time many observations have consistently shown that humans have brains, and over time many other observations have consistently shown that the body under consideration, exhibit "Me", is indeed a human just like the rest. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that exhibit "Me" has a brain. They would then go on to state that a similar chain of evidence doesn't hold for evaluating statements about the supernatural.
One last important point is that the moral doesn't act as a persuasive point for the existence of any given supernatural entity. In short, the truth that some things that exist are nonphysical does not mean that anything that is nonphysical exists. Don't accidentally place God in the same category as leprechauns and fairies.
The story's moral is certainly valid: not everything that exists can be directly sensed. However, any readers of the story (and there are many) should not be misled into applying this childish moral to the actual philosophical clash between belief systems that include the supernatural and belief systems that deny it. The problem isn't that the moral is inapplicable to the clash; the problem is that the moral offers no "ammunition" for either side, because everybody believes it. To represent the opposing point of view as being so crippled is dishonest.
In fact, very few human endeavors of significance can happen without assuming the truth of this moral. When someone shakes a closed, opaque container or weighs it to determine how much is inside the container, the inability to directly sense the contents doesn't result in someone assuming the contents don't exist. When a hurtling object is momentarily blocked from view by a tree or pole, the inability to directly sense the object for an instant doesn't result in someone assuming the object blinked out of existence. The inability to see germs or atoms with the unaided eye doesn't result in someone assuming such things don't exist. The inability to directly sense thermodynamic energy (we only see evidence of energy when it's transferred by doing something) doesn't result in someone assuming it spontaneously appears and vanishes.
Unlike the teacher caricature in the story, people who say there's no proof for the supernatural can then say they have brains without contradicting themselves. They would do this by patiently enumerating the "brain evidence": over time many observations have consistently shown that humans have brains, and over time many other observations have consistently shown that the body under consideration, exhibit "Me", is indeed a human just like the rest. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that exhibit "Me" has a brain. They would then go on to state that a similar chain of evidence doesn't hold for evaluating statements about the supernatural.
One last important point is that the moral doesn't act as a persuasive point for the existence of any given supernatural entity. In short, the truth that some things that exist are nonphysical does not mean that anything that is nonphysical exists. Don't accidentally place God in the same category as leprechauns and fairies.
Friday, February 29, 2008
please stop using the word "covenant"
Please. I understand that as a Christian you feel obligated to start calling a promise or pledge a "covenant", much the same way you call any gathering of Christians "fellowship", particularly when they're eating. But unless you're sacrificing an animal or two, choose another word than "covenant". Remember, speaking in King James English doesn't earn you additional divine consideration. Not only because it would be incredibly unfair to anyone whose first language isn't any form of English, but also because it's not even close to the language actually spoken by the Lord anyway...
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Worldview Fragment: faith as its own justification
Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.
Before proceeding, the definition of "faith" in this worldview fragment must be clarified, because "faith" has many rich meanings, some of which have occupied Christian thinkers for years. In this fragment, however, the meaning of "faith" is uncomplicated. A quote from Miracle on 34th Street, a movie which is teeming over with this worldview fragment, expresses it well:
In short, faith is the broad category of thought that disregards the accepted standards of evidential truth, epitomized by scientific methods and procedures. An editorial like "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" advances its suppositions about Santa Claus, fairies, the unknown, the unseen, the sublime, and a raft of Platonic Ideals explicitly NOT on the basis of actual verification but on the observation that the effect of those beliefs is good--in fact, the effect of life being worthwhile! A top theme of Miracle on 34th Street is the same mismatch or dichotomy, personified by the conflicts between Fred Gailey and Doris Walker, and it comes to a similar conclusion:
Obviously, the problem here is not the mere defense of the existence of and need for love, joy, hope, compassion, imagination, etc. Christianity asserts and defends the same! The problem lies in acknowledging the existence of the dilemma and therefore mounting a defense at all. For Christians (and others), "leap of 'faith' " is not an apt description of the way they think. God exists and is good. Humanity has value not because we say it does nor because we have highly-advanced herd-animal empathy for one another's genes, but because God created humanity to exhibit a divine spiritual spark. Faith no longer has to be its own justification, as a wish-fulfillment escape hatch from soul-crushing reality. Rather, faith is a Christian virtue, the strength-giving virtue of confidently trusting God in all of life's details.
Some would have us think that, in a universe whose mysteries are not mysterious and whose purpose is nonexistent, the only path to meaning is elaborate fantasies that must be taken on "faith". (Creatively clever writers have noticed that even stories containing blatantly unrealistic, perhaps nonsensical, elements can avoid the obvious question "Doesn't this mean that the story presumes the existence of the supernatural, and therefore a supernatural Source, God?" simply by explicitly or implicitly framing those elements in the "have faith, not questions or truth" mode of illusionists.) That faith is not Christianity. It's not why Christ died. The intangibles are actually tangibles. Good is backed by Someone, while Evil is rebellion against Him.
Before proceeding, the definition of "faith" in this worldview fragment must be clarified, because "faith" has many rich meanings, some of which have occupied Christian thinkers for years. In this fragment, however, the meaning of "faith" is uncomplicated. A quote from Miracle on 34th Street, a movie which is teeming over with this worldview fragment, expresses it well:
Faith is believing when common sense tells you not to. Don't you see? It's not just Kris that's on trial, it's everything he stands for. It's kindness and joy and love and all the other intangibles.Then faith, according to this fragment, is the opposite of reason. It's the opposite of sensory experience. It's the opposite of systematic inquiry. It's belief grounded in nothing. It's commitment to a disembodied idea. It's a mental leap into a void. It's warping something tangible to better fit something intangible.
In short, faith is the broad category of thought that disregards the accepted standards of evidential truth, epitomized by scientific methods and procedures. An editorial like "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" advances its suppositions about Santa Claus, fairies, the unknown, the unseen, the sublime, and a raft of Platonic Ideals explicitly NOT on the basis of actual verification but on the observation that the effect of those beliefs is good--in fact, the effect of life being worthwhile! A top theme of Miracle on 34th Street is the same mismatch or dichotomy, personified by the conflicts between Fred Gailey and Doris Walker, and it comes to a similar conclusion:
Look Doris, someday you're going to find that your way of facing this realistic world just doesn't work. And when you do, don't overlook those lovely intangibles. You'll discover those are the only things that are worthwhile.In other words, everything real (i.e., tangible) is determined by observation and experimentation, but everything that matters most is believable solely by furiously shutting one's eyes against the exact same standards and pretending. Faith is pretending pretty things, not seeing. Is it any wonder that "people of faith" (a fascinating label in itself) don't feel flattered when "people of science" (another fascinating label) interview them, debate them, or portray them like this? Some people will say they "wish they could believe like you do". If anyone wants a prime example of damning with faint praise, that would be it. "I wish I held to your beliefs just as I wish I held to other fictional beliefs, like Santa Claus and fairies and objective, transcendent morality."
Obviously, the problem here is not the mere defense of the existence of and need for love, joy, hope, compassion, imagination, etc. Christianity asserts and defends the same! The problem lies in acknowledging the existence of the dilemma and therefore mounting a defense at all. For Christians (and others), "leap of 'faith' " is not an apt description of the way they think. God exists and is good. Humanity has value not because we say it does nor because we have highly-advanced herd-animal empathy for one another's genes, but because God created humanity to exhibit a divine spiritual spark. Faith no longer has to be its own justification, as a wish-fulfillment escape hatch from soul-crushing reality. Rather, faith is a Christian virtue, the strength-giving virtue of confidently trusting God in all of life's details.
Some would have us think that, in a universe whose mysteries are not mysterious and whose purpose is nonexistent, the only path to meaning is elaborate fantasies that must be taken on "faith". (Creatively clever writers have noticed that even stories containing blatantly unrealistic, perhaps nonsensical, elements can avoid the obvious question "Doesn't this mean that the story presumes the existence of the supernatural, and therefore a supernatural Source, God?" simply by explicitly or implicitly framing those elements in the "have faith, not questions or truth" mode of illusionists.) That faith is not Christianity. It's not why Christ died. The intangibles are actually tangibles. Good is backed by Someone, while Evil is rebellion against Him.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Worldview Fragment: cultural accommodation through appeasement
Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.
The basic, introductory outline of Christianity is simple, and people often express it as a handful of steps or tenets. It's also highly adaptable. One of the factors of its longevity and ubiquity is the effective repackaging people have done to extend the Gospel to those who deeply need it yet don't or can't comprehend their own need because the unpackaged form of it seems irrelevant. The adjective "Christianized" arose for good reason. A top theme of Acts is the spreading of Christianity, which was founded by God in the guise of a Jew, from one people group to other, drastically-different people groups. This long and distinguished tradition could be referred to as cultural accommodation because it consists of taking the whole Gospel and integrating or transplanting it into a previously foreign culture.
Any honest Christian will tell you that this integration is never perfect nor easy. However, for Christians the essential mismatch between Christianity and culture does have a straightforward explanation: culture comes from people, while Christianity comes from God. The sinful components of a culture don't and shouldn't mix well with the holiness components of Christianity. Plainly, just as some parts of the presentation of Christianity are subject to cultural accommodation, some parts of the accommodated culture are subject to rejection by Christianity. To use the Bible's metaphors, the salt must keep being salty to be useful; Christianity must have an observable, statistical effect on Christians (regardless of culture) to be Christianity.
In contrast, some well-meaning people who have a commendable level of enthusiasm for the Lost fall into the error of "solving" the real conflict of ideas between Christianity and culture by taking cultural accommodation to such an extreme that Christianity ceases to be Christianity in any meaningful and/or significant sense. When a participant in a conflict concedes too much for the sake of peace, this is appeasement. Christian appeasers could operate in a variety of different ways; boiled down to the most fundamental form these are recanting or abandoning, if not in so many words, the Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, or the reliability of the Bible.
Of course, the appeasement can be so subtle that it escapes notice. Christian appeasers sound a lot like other Christians. They may also agree on many points. A Christian appeaser might not have started out that way, and might yet stop jettisoning the central concepts of Christianity in response to culture. (He or she could have drifted into becoming an appeaser simply out of unreflective exposure to culture.) Here and now, some of the Christian concepts commonly sacrificed on an individual or group basis to appease culture are:
The basic, introductory outline of Christianity is simple, and people often express it as a handful of steps or tenets. It's also highly adaptable. One of the factors of its longevity and ubiquity is the effective repackaging people have done to extend the Gospel to those who deeply need it yet don't or can't comprehend their own need because the unpackaged form of it seems irrelevant. The adjective "Christianized" arose for good reason. A top theme of Acts is the spreading of Christianity, which was founded by God in the guise of a Jew, from one people group to other, drastically-different people groups. This long and distinguished tradition could be referred to as cultural accommodation because it consists of taking the whole Gospel and integrating or transplanting it into a previously foreign culture.
Any honest Christian will tell you that this integration is never perfect nor easy. However, for Christians the essential mismatch between Christianity and culture does have a straightforward explanation: culture comes from people, while Christianity comes from God. The sinful components of a culture don't and shouldn't mix well with the holiness components of Christianity. Plainly, just as some parts of the presentation of Christianity are subject to cultural accommodation, some parts of the accommodated culture are subject to rejection by Christianity. To use the Bible's metaphors, the salt must keep being salty to be useful; Christianity must have an observable, statistical effect on Christians (regardless of culture) to be Christianity.
In contrast, some well-meaning people who have a commendable level of enthusiasm for the Lost fall into the error of "solving" the real conflict of ideas between Christianity and culture by taking cultural accommodation to such an extreme that Christianity ceases to be Christianity in any meaningful and/or significant sense. When a participant in a conflict concedes too much for the sake of peace, this is appeasement. Christian appeasers could operate in a variety of different ways; boiled down to the most fundamental form these are recanting or abandoning, if not in so many words, the Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, or the reliability of the Bible.
Of course, the appeasement can be so subtle that it escapes notice. Christian appeasers sound a lot like other Christians. They may also agree on many points. A Christian appeaser might not have started out that way, and might yet stop jettisoning the central concepts of Christianity in response to culture. (He or she could have drifted into becoming an appeaser simply out of unreflective exposure to culture.) Here and now, some of the Christian concepts commonly sacrificed on an individual or group basis to appease culture are:
- Truth. As courage is a basic ingredient of other virtues, the claim to truth is a basic ingredient of authentic Christian beliefs. To put it bluntly (in a definition philosophers will mock you for), truth is "all statements which correspond to reality". True Christianity is more than a "metanarrative", a "religion", a "belief system", or a "doctrine". It is. God isn't an analogy, a label for some inborn archetype, or a manifestation of the Divine Oneness of Being. God is. If a culture or someone inhabiting that culture doesn't believe in this kind of truth, particularly applied to the supernatural realm, then Christianity is so much nonsense and wasted energy--although it would still be excellent inspirational fiction.
- Sin/guilt. Morality confronts each individual with two facts: 1) some actions should be done while some actions should not be done, 2) on a more or less daily basis he or she doesn't do what he or she should and/or he or she does what he or she shouldn't. Christianity comprehensively addresses those two facts, and in fact is centered on them: the causes, the effects, the temporary cure, the ultimate cure, etc. Thus, each Christian believer must start out by recognizing that he or she is a sinner--an EVIL person. Isn't this an awful marketing challenge? Appeasers relinquish sin and divine judgment in favor of a self-improvement program whose net result is blessings for now and forever. When Christians (verbally) "convert" with the understanding that sin is just "the reallllly bad stuff I do occasionally", not "the despicable condition of my soul, fully deserving eternal punishment apart from mercy", why should onlookers be surprised that this appeasing version of Christianity leads to ineffective and hypocritical "Christians"?
- Hell. Christian appeasement to culture is almost as old as Christianity. And Hell is likely among both the oldest and most consistent victims of appeasement. "I can't believe in a good God who could send people to Hell." Hell's overwhelming unattractiveness makes that statement overwhelmingly attractive. Yet it also happens to be an oddly childish statement refuted by elementary points. 1) How could Good be Good and tolerate Evil indefinitely? 2) How could Heaven be Heaven if Evil is there? 3) If God's forgiveness really is that cheap, why did Jesus come and die? 4) Do the damned want to be with God (obeying, worshiping) anyway? 5) Most obviously, God HAS provided a freely-offered and fully-functioning escape from Hell--how is He therefore contradicting His "goodness credentials"?
- Blood. The Bible has plenty of sex and violence, which is a point people relish using against Christians when they actively campaign to restrict the distribution of prurient and/or violent media. (What really makes specific media unacceptable is the glorification and incitement of sex and violence--by portraying the desirable aspects while not portraying the real-world devastating consequences.) Christians can take some solace in rationalizing that much of it, and certainly the more disagreeable portions like slaughters and affairs, is pre-Christ. However, the topic of blood cannot be similarly avoided (if you don't like the word "blood", don't read Hebrews!). Throughout the Bible, blood is the atonement for sin. Hence the Christian songs which rhapsodize about Christ's blood, for it's how sinners can be reunited to God. And the ritual of Holy Communion, which seems to have cannibalistic overtones to people who don't grasp the concept and symbolism. Blood is still another concept which underscores the seriousness of Christianity (but that seriousness is coupled to the joy and hope of forgiveness, new life of repentance, and the Spirit). To appease a culture by denying blood's importance in Christianity is to sever ties to one of the long-standing pillars of historical understanding.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
agnostics don't celebrate agnosticmas
If someone uses the term "agnosticmas", then that person isn't an agnostic. Agnostics believe the "God question" is forever unanswerable. Therefore, the term "Christmas" (in the religious sense, celebration of the nativity) is neither true nor false. This means the term is also neither worthy of saying nor distorting into a shrill one-word commentary like "agnosticmas".
Agnostics don't celebrate Christmas, but by definition they also don't conclusively believe that Christmas is incorrect. An agnostic who twists a term to make a point is taking a definite stand...for atheism. There's no such thing as agnosticmas.
Agnostics don't celebrate Christmas, but by definition they also don't conclusively believe that Christmas is incorrect. An agnostic who twists a term to make a point is taking a definite stand...for atheism. There's no such thing as agnosticmas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)