the fallacy of "more mystery, more supernatural"

I've previously taken the time and effort to remind everyone that God isn't luck, God isn't weather, and God isn't (ever) absent. I'm continually flabbergasted by the striking discrepancy of Christians in attributing events to the supernatural. Some people give off the impression that God carefully orchestrates all good events, but does this mean that when horrible events occur then He must either be taking the day off or carrying out incredibly circuitous/unintuitive plans (the much-commented "mysterious ways" and "all things working together for the good")? There's a similar discrepancy in evaluating the deeds of people with free will: great acts merit no personal appreciation because God is "working through" someone but responsibility for despicable acts is solely personal. Hence, many believers' perception of the ongoing relationship between the natural and supernatural realms appears to be conceptually hazy at best and baldly self-interested at worst.

Recently I noticed another aspect of this mental assignment of natural or supernatural causes to events. The more mysterious something is, the likelier an observer will apply a supernatural interpretation. And in my opinion the strength of the correlation is undeniably devastating to the logic underlying the whole practice. In fact, its entire credibility is thrown into question.

Medicine has to be one of the best examples. Every day physicians and patients confirm that microscopic bacteria and viruses play a large role in disease, but for centuries few people had even guessed at that fact. Christians and unbelievers alike often used supernatural spirits or forces to explain the mystery of disease.

However, Christians in the present who're fully aware of the biological basis for disease continue to pray for divine prevention and healing as if a disease's cause and resolution are entirely supernatural. Really ponder the meaning of this prayer for healing: either the patient's immune system cells suddenly transform into more effective shapes or the disease-causing organisms just vanish. Would the same Christians pray that their car engines spontaneously have an additional cylinder or that a tree in the car's path blink out of existence? The only conclusion is that the difference is one of scale, and this is an instance of the general fallacy of explaining mysteries using supernatural causes. As long as an event's scale makes it more mysterious through being unobservable to the normal senses, people more readily place it into the "supernatural" column!

Further note that the same phenomenon of scale is at work in the previously covered categories of "luck" and "weather". Luck and weather occur at a huge scale involving many complex individual interactions, and it's a daunting task verging on impossible to collect and analyze enough data to accurately predict specific outcomes. Thus the scale makes luck and weather events more mysterious, and therefore likelier to be assigned supernatural causes according to the fallacy.

If a chance encounter happens at the local store between people who haven't talked in years, and as a final result they marry (or save from Hell the unbelieving person in the pair, etc.), a supernatural design/intervention certainly feels satisfying. Yet it's worthwhile once again to really ponder the detailed engineering effort this conclusion of design implies. If person "A" had to go to the store because he or she ran out of milk, then A must have bought and consumed the supply of milk in the exact quantities necessary - including buying a half-gallon instead of a gallon, not drinking milk at all one day, using a lot of it to prepare a recipe on a different day, etc. Also, for A to arrive at the store at the right time, A's usual schedule might have needed to shift, perhaps because A needed to work for an additional half-hour. Needing to work for an additional half-hour was caused by a customer making a complaint which in turn was caused by a slight manufacturing defect which in turn was caused during production by the normal wear-and-tear on the plastic-molding machine in the factory...

The list of details as well as each detail's cascading chains of causation could be continued, but the more relevant questions are simply at what point(s) in space and time the supernatural adjustments happened to "put the plan in motion", what the adjustments were, and observers' experiences of the adjustments (with the optional follow-up question of how often we personally witness similar adjustments). When person A originally opted to buy the half-gallon of milk, was that decision the result of a supernatural mental "nudge" or carrying too little cash? When the plastic-molding machine produced a defective product, was the machine's wear-and-tear a result of supernatural "tapping" on its atoms or the routine action of corrosive/frictional forces?

I believe such divine actions are possible but I still find it very curious that people happen to more eagerly apply supernatural reasoning to anything mysterious. Mystery is subjective since it depends on the observer's knowledge and understanding. Then why should mystery have any bearing on the objective question of whether the cause of an everyday event is supernatural?

My third example is the statement that prompted me to write this blog entry. Elsewhere on the Web, someone questioned if an economic downturn could be a judgment (or "discipline") from God. I think this is a strange question to ask. Fundamentally speaking an economy is a system of participants and resources. Therefore in order to cause a downturn in this system of participants and resources, God would need to somehow tweak the participants' actions or afflict the resources. That is, override a participant's decision from "buy" to "sell" or abruptly cut off the worldwide supply of a vital resource (via catastrophe?). If someone thinks it's far-fetched to blame God for a job firing, surely it's more not less far-fetched to blame God for an "economic downturn" of many job firings?

my personal stance on Christmas brouhaha

After opining about the futility and pointlessness of the effort to promote Christmas as a solely Christian holiday, I noticed that I didn't clearly state my own viewpoint.

• Christians and any Christian/church-based activities and services should of course strive to make Christmas 1) less materialistic and 2) more Christ-focused, simply because those two goals really apply year-round to every activity of Christians: imagine expanding the "Christmas spirit" beyond one-twelfth of each year.
  
• Businesses that interact with any willing customer (i.e. one person's $ is equivalent to anyone else's $) are likely to take one of two attitudes toward holidays: total inclusiveness or cautious vagueness, and cautious vagueness is more cost-effective than total inclusiveness. To be perceived as offending or excluding any customer, regardless of whether his or her religion is in the majority, would be unprofitable. Hence, it's unrealistic to expect profit-seeking businesses to cater just to customers who hold a particular set of beliefs, although within an unrestricted marketplace each business and customer will "vote" with their dollars exactly how much this "principle" is worth, similar to the way that they decide how much good customer-service is worth; how much marginal cost is a buyer willing to incur for the sake of "rewarding" a business for compliance?
  
• Events/pageants/displays intended for the general community (as opposed to Christian outreach) should in my opinion reject the cautious vagueness/secularism that businesses adopt. I'd rather have such things fairly embrace authentic expressions of all the cultural traditions that people in that specific community wish to be included. If one of the cultural traditions of people in that community includes songs that praise one or more deities, the songs should be sung as is. And the same goes for the rest of the community's cultural traditions. When people object to uniform unbelief forcibly imposed onto public life, they're naive in thinking that the alternative result will necessarily be uniform belief.
  
• Motives matter greatly in all these situations because people who don't acknowledge Christ as lord are watching. Is peevish defensiveness a good witness? Is a warlike attitude toward anyone who disagrees with us a likely way to introduce them to the Prince of Peace?
  

the eternal "battleground" for Christmas

Sigh. In considering the attempts by well-intentioned Christian commentators to continuously reiterate to America that "Christmas is the observance of the birth of Jesus Christ, and nothin' else!", it should be clear by now that this "battle" won't ever be "won". The fact is, each person falls into one of the following two fuzzily-defined groups.

• People who are devoted Christians during the rest of the year. This group hardly needs any reminding of the importance of the Lord and Spirit whom they willingly serve each day, do they? Moreover, to this group, Jesus is real and alive and active. Although the mere historical event of His incarnate birth is unquestionably worthy of celebration, it's just one part of a larger, continuing story of His interaction with humanity. The whole issue is relatively insignificant for this group, who don't need to be any more convinced.
  
• People who aren't devoted Christians during the rest of the year. Note that in addition to devotees of other religions (including the "anti-religions") this group includes people who attend church services only on holidays and people who self-identify as Christians or church-goers yet don't exhibit life-permeating faith in Christianity. For this group, the failure to acknowledge the Christian parts of Christmas is probably not one of the core reasons they aren't in the first group! Thus, they aren't likely to transform into year-round devoted Christians just by viewing nativity scenes instead of Christmas trees. Since Christianity isn't a central hub of their lives, it's odd and pretty pointless to expect any item of Christianity to be the central hub of their Christmas festivities. The modern holiday of Christmas in America has Christian roots among others (e.g. European paganism), but this doesn't imply that all Americans who participate must emphasize the bits that are discernibly Christian. One might as well try to insist that everyone who goes to a modern American Mardi Gras must observe Ash Wednesday.
  

The "battle for Christmas" is a distraction. The "popular perception" of Christmas doesn't matter to the church's actual mission. People grudgingly assenting that "true" Christmas is "Christ alone" aren't thereby any closer to salvation.

intrinsically holy word lengths?

I recently read yet another pithy plea for American Christians to stop cloaking their lukewarm unbelief in long theological words and instead come to God in simplistic surrender to his love. That is, stop talking at Him or about Him and start sincerely connecting with Him. As is often the case, I'm of two minds in my reaction to this encouragement.

• Yes, God is more than a concept to be picked apart and also more than a distant & indifferent godfather (hah, wordplay). This is partly what I meant by my list of the types of belief, which are certainly not exclusively intellectual. And the quest to achieve motivational verity, i.e. perceiving and modifying one's actual motivations, would be irrelevant if Christianity only consisted of acknowledgment of a short list of facts. The point is that at bottom Christianity's purpose is the reunion of a real God with real people who then draw real strength from Him to live as He really directs. Long words or intricate conceptual systems that distract from this purpose are harmful.
• But...I for one cannot accept that long Christian words are therefore evil. Nor can I accept the accusation that pondering or discussing God in-depth, using specialized words, is somehow less holy than always repeating the same short sentences suitable for newcomers. It's also excessive to claim without qualification that "words can't express God". Of course words are "merely" dead symbols. But at the same time, words are a medium for spreading wisdom. Similarly, the urge to have Christianity without doctrine overlooks the simple desire of someone to know his or her beloved. If I never try to learn anything about my "close friend", wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that we aren't close after all? Moreover, when someone says something false about my "close friend", isn't it expected that I defend him or her?

The maddening aspect of people who passionately reject long words is that they then immediately use many small words to communicate the same ideas but with less precision. Therefore, the clear inference is an intrinsically holy word length or limit. For instance, the single word "justification" must be less holy than the series of words "release from the penalty of sin". After all, according to some, to say the former is to be "caught up in intellectual games" while to say the latter is to "get back to the true meaning of being a Christian". And they also see no contradiction in asserting both "words don't matter because words are inadequate labels for reality" and "word choices and lengths are deeply significant (i.e. long formal theological words are inferior to short informal commonplace words)".

Postscript: I gladly concede that Christianity's message should be given in words that the particular audience understands, and if any words are unfamiliar then those words should be defined and explained well (don't use Latin or "King James language" either, although I know not all Christians would agree with me!) . What I do not concede is the thesis of the "intrinsically holy word length", which sets implicit limits on which words can further one's connection to God.

sophisticates of Christianity

Some Christians identify and then disparage or debunk the perception that no sophisticate can be a devout Christian. (Depending on the group of self-appointed sophisticates, the taboo might extend to all religions, all "organized" religions, or all unfashionable religions.) This perception is intellectually flimsy and contradicted by numerous examples, but the aspect to which some Christians most often object is the accompanying attitude. They complain that such anti-Christian sophisticates display, intentionally or not, a disrespect to practicing believers that verges on contempt (of course, those whose actual goal is to express unambiguous contempt are a narrower category). Since there's no shortage of coverage to this topic, no more than a short line of advice is necessary here: review the biblical sections on being hated and persecuted by the "world" and shift expectations and perspective accordingly.

Unfortunately, the antagonistic stance between Christians and some self-appointed sophisticates is mirrored by a division within Christianity between its own set of "sophisticates" and anyone whom they define to be "not-sophisticates". Like their anti-Christian counterparts, these sophisticates of Christianity pride (yes, pride) themselves on having achieved a level of enlightenment/achievement that marks them as having surpassed their lesser brethren. They likely have favorite ideological divergences from the not-sophisticates, differences which they will gladly explain on request. They tend to know exactly what mistakes are to blame for any way that Christianity is ineffective. They relish debating the definitions and practices of Christianity in clever ways, especially if the items under debate are traditional. They prefer to squeeze Christianity through the strainer of secular philosophy rather than consent to accepting it for what it claims to be.

Most of all, they must differ from the not-sophisticates. Whether they are doing something pretentiously creative and new or something that fell out of favor one hundred or more years ago, the point is that they certainly aren't doing what the not-sophisticates currently are. Moreover, they're eager to remind everyone, including each other, that they can and will name the multitudinous flaws of the not-sophisticates and mention that they're past those flaws.

To clarify, the problem with the sophisticates of Christianity isn't that they're reform-driven or independent-minded (no matter what the accuracy of those two self-applied descriptions may be). It's a matter of humility and empathy. A Christian who wants to entice other Christians into a "deeper walk" won't do that by relentlessly pointing out how and why sophisticates of Christianity are so special. Elevating oneself by endlessly criticizing others is a hopelessly negative strategy for real, lasting change. It also appears small-minded - and dare I say unsophisticated - to assume that someone who is a not-sophisticate according to a particular standard can't be consumed by God. If sophistication were that important, He selected the wrong apostles.

the "rain dance" worship approach

I wrote that God is ever-present, and thus it's superfluous to observe that "God is here" in the middle of a service or while camping or hurrying to a hospital after a sudden injury. A related issue is the approach to worship that might correspond to this sentiment: the modern Christian equivalent of a "rain dance".

The basic idea of a rain dance is that a prescribed series of perhaps-frenzied movements will convince the rainfall manager to disburse rain sooner rather than later. It seems to me that the modern Christian equivalent is the principle that God is more likely to "arrive" depending on what people do during a service. This is the God's-presence rain dance. One is left to ponder the effects of the musicians who messed up so completely that they stopped and restarted, the crying child who interrupted the speaker in the midst of the call for a tangible congregational response, the deacon who misread the church announcements in a spectacularly embarrassing way. After all, if by one's estimation God opted to stay "home", then the logical follow-up question is which step of the God's-presence rain dance went wrong, even by just a smidge.

Apart from interpreting the flops, a further consideration is how to improve the God's-presence rain dance. One technique is to import fancier steps from another Christian community that appears to be getting better results. Another is to repeat steps that have previously worked well, taking care that overuse doesn't result in decay of potency. Yet another is to experiment with a range of step variations to obtain a general sense of what makes each step good at inviting God.

Partly why the process is tricky is the detection of God's presence. What is the dividing line between a "positive" or "negative" diagnosis, and how is the measurement carried out? Assume God's presence is indicated by people's outward reactions; what people's reactions should be included in the sample and how to score each reaction? What's-her-name who sits front and center has a history of moving around a lot during every song, so maybe her reactions, even when done in broad motions, are less significant for careful presence detection. On the other hand, stoic-fellow on the right side of the sanctuary has a history of keeping still no matter what happens, so maybe overly-vigorous nods of his head are a clear sign.

In any case, a song that contains the words "let it rain", preferably with many repetitions, is an undoubtedly shrewd choice for the God's-presence rain dance.

Worldview Fragment: everything is political

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.

Few habits are more tiresome than relating every subject to politics. I'm fine with people expressing their political opinions, especially when politics is the topic under discussion. But it bothers me that some seem so steeped and invested in a worldview in which a ruthless battle is constantly raging: "It's us versus them! We're under siege! If you talk like that, then you must be one of them! How dare you question that and consider yourself one of us!"

More in general, I bristle when people appear to believe that politics and (sub-)culture and religion and morality must be intermixed and interdependent. It's ignorant and/or incurious to not ever consider that the pieces could fit together in myriad combinations. It leads to assumptions such as, "If you make moral decision X then your politics must be Y", or "If your politics is Q then your culture must be Z." People who seem similar on one dimension could hold much different opinions in the second, and people who seem dissimilar could agree on many things.

The basic problem in equating personal characteristics that are only indirectly related is that it leads to stereotypes and preconceptions, which are more likely to divide people and incite hate than to unite people and promote love. When a worldview separates people by a prevailing animosity, political or otherwise, there's little hope for reconciliation. Demonizing is demons' work.

looking up or in the mirror?

Anyone else out there ever ponder why God's presence (in typical Christian portrayals) is associated with "up" or "above"? This metaphorical association is quite biblical, but that still doesn't answer the question "Why?" Literally speaking, God doesn't inhabit every part of creation. Creation can't fully contain Him anyway, and to suggest that this fallen existence is equivalent to a perfectly holy God would be incredibly disrespectful/profane. Note that His place of total dominion and control, heaven, isn't located anywhere in creation (i.e. the normally visible universe). Well, not in the current ("old") creation but it will be in the future ("new") creation.

However, it's also biblical that one of God's facets or "persons", the Spirit, has and continues to dwell or abide in selected holy places such as the temple/tabernacle's Holy of Holies and believers who welcome Him in. In short, it seems to me that there's it's more reasonable for Christians to look for God "in the mirror" instead of looking "up".

I wish my meaning to be as clear as possible. God, i.e. his Spirit person, isn't equivalent to you the Christian any more than He is equivalent to a misshapen cloud of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere or the wooden cross decoration hanging on the church wall. He is "present within". As a Christian stands up in a worship service and lifts up his or her arms, the target of worship isn't hovering above those arms. He's much, much closer, closer than the surrounding people, closer than the air breathed in, closer than the very same lifted arms. Christians must forget the concept of having "personal space" between them and Him. According to common doctrine, Christians should never need to "seek" God. As many people have said, if God isn't close to you, guess who "moved"?

the types of belief

"Belief" is of the utmost importance in Christianity, without question. Belief is how we are saved (according to Peter in Acts). But in encouraging belief, we should recognize that belief comes in types. A Christian's belief is a combination of these types. It's a molecule in which the elements are types of belief. If a Christian's belief was plotted as a point on a graph like a mathematical function, that graph would have several axes or dimensions for each type of belief. In short, the types of belief occur together but can be analyzed and considered separately.

• Propositional. Belief in propositions. Propositional belief is language-based. It asserts truths about things and the relationships in-between. "God is good." "All people have sinned." "Jesus Christ is God incarnate who died but now lives forever." Propositional belief is a mental activity. It's categorization between true and false. It's acceptance that the gospel is more than a cleverly invented story. Theological belief is mostly propositional. This is the domain of reason. Christians believe in propositions with the "mind".
  
• Emotional. Belief that is felt and expressed in emotions. Emotional belief often takes the form of music. By loving God, Christians believe that He is worthy of their love. By hating their past sins, Christians believe that sin is shameful. Christians feel belief with the "heart".
  
• Intentional. Belief signified by intentions and actions. Intentional belief or its lack is much more noticeable than propositional and emotional belief. It's seen in Christians who reject God-displeasing actions and execute God-pleasing actions. It doesn't consist of "someone shoulds" but of "I shoulds". It teaches by example. Christians live belief with the "will".
  
• Foundational. Belief as a foundation of other beliefs. Foundational belief is closely related to propositional belief, because it arises in the tension between conflicting propositions. It's selecting Christianity as the primary foundation of one's thoughts, the measure which other beliefs are judged against. Foundational belief doesn't necessarily imply the absence of doubt or unhinged fanaticism. It means that Christians "frame" the world with their foundational Christian belief; Christianity isn't just another set of ideas.
  
• Communal. Belief reached through the aid of other Christians. Communal belief has been subjected to the scrutiny of multiple Christians. Proper humility of one's own limitations and fallibility leads to acknowledgment of the need for communal belief. It originates from one's peers and elders and the writings of church ancestors. Inescapably, Christians share responsibility for communal belief. When an individual's belief falls into error due to insufficient guidance and advice from the group, he or she is partially to blame for not seeking such help and everyone else in the group is partially to blame for not doing more to spread communal belief to the individual.
  
• Scriptural. Belief discovered through and in Scripture. Scriptural belief requires effort since so much of the age-old material is alien to a current reader and/or written in genres that demand significant interpretation in order to yield applications (e.g. narrative/poetic/prophetic and even letters written to other audiences need to be analyzed in context). Hence scriptural belief is tied in with the other types of belief; the text doesn't really stand alone, particularly the ambiguous and subtle sections that stymie the learned as well as the naive. It informs and constrains belief, not specifies Christian theory and practice in complete detail immediately suitable for Christians here and now. Scriptural belief is pivotal without being all-sufficient.
  
• Spiritual/Experiential. Belief mediated by experience of the Spirit of God. "Spirit-ual" belief is literally revelatory, springing out of connection to the living, present God. It's experienced in different degrees and in different ways, some of which have serious dangers of misinterpretation. Nevertheless, belief through the Spirit is a gift of grace much appreciated by Christians.
  

avoiding both the Christian mask and overreactions to it

the mask

Much has been said and written about Christians who have hypocrisy of action: unholy behavior that abruptly vanishes during official church events but dominates the rest of their lives. Hypocrisy of attitude is a close cousin that attracts less attention, yet long-time churchgoers often cite it as a common complaint or at worst a primary excuse for quitting attendance and membership. The typical description is "Christians bring their masks to church. They pretend to be stable, well-adjusted, and happy around other Christians because they're scared of looking like failures. As much as possible, they project the false impression that they're excellent Christians who are always tranquil. In effect, everyone is petrified of sullying an antiseptic atmosphere of safe perfection that by definition disqualifies all unworthy people and/or feelings."

Fortunately this posture of pretense has many obvious weaknesses that earnest, perceptive Christians should notice. 1) It's difficult and exhausting to maintain the fakery. 2) It's devastating to evangelistic efforts. 3) It's in direct contradiction to the Lord's acceptance of the lowly and despicable people of His time, the ones who, before meeting Him, neither aspired to be holy nor tried to appear as such. 4) It's pointedly overlooking each and every believer's undeniably pitiful condition before conversion. 5) It's ignorant of the pervasive biblical passages that mention sins committed by the righteous, and their sometimes ugly emotions like rage and lust. 6) It constricts the authentic spiritual growth that comes partly through others' cooperation and understanding. 7) It's an inadequate basis for practical Christian living since it's flimsy "wallpaper" over someone's sincere motivations rather than "overflow" from out of one's inner spiritual development.

overreaction to the mask

It should be clear that I'm in favor of authentic interactions between Christians. However, I worry about the possible consequences of the opposite excess, which seems to consist of encouraging total/unrestrained (public) honesty about everyone's sins, doubts, temptations, and angst.

• Egocentrism. There's definitely a time and place for discussing an individual's unique problems in living up to the lofty Christian standard. Yet placing too much focus on this topic has the danger of confirming the altogether natural tendency of egocentrism. That is, too many "I..." statements when weighed against too few "God..." or "We..." statements. For instance, selfishness is indeed a personal struggle, but surely it's astoundingly blind to not also acknowledge its detrimental effect to everyone around you? As we pursue God, our attention should progressively shift from off ourselves. Preoccupation with one's strengths is egocentric, but so is preoccupation with one's faults at the expense of other important ideas.
  
• Shock. One ostentatious method of emphasizing "openness" is for a speaker to select shocking concepts or presentations solely because of the provocativeness. Nothing else quite so effectively screams "this isn't your parents' church". Plus, shocking (and repelling) your listeners focuses them on bracing themselves for what may come next: what terrible thought will summarily assault them as they listen? Although shock may be a valuable rhetorical tool in some circumstances, shock shouldn't be an end in itself. "Pushing the envelope" doesn't impress God, and enjoyment of mere dreadfulness is childish. And unlike shock, other devices can capture your listeners' attention without repulsing them. (Of course, desensitization will blunt the effects of frequent shock in any case, and over time this desensitization to awfulness could lead to a destructive greater acceptance of it in daily life, too.)
• Inappropriateness. Closely related to shock is inappropriateness. Whereas shock is seeking to stun listeners with horrible/taboo admissions, inappropriateness is usually an oblivious harming of the relationship with listeners via specific "sensitive" vices or details about those vices. Children are well-known practitioners of such inappropriate truth-telling. Another example is people revealing graphic struggles with lust in a group that includes the opposite sex, needlessly sacrificing their comfort. Discreetness in general is a vital ingredient for communities of people, and simply because a sentence is true doesn't imply that everyone who hears it "should be willing and able to handle it". A whole truth can be partially or completely masked in some contexts while coming out as appropriate to its audience.
  
• Inaction. Exposing one's dark side to the light of day yields freedom and relief. Its power feels lessened. Everyone feels closer. The confessor perceives the enemies of his soul with greater clarity. The anxiety of rejection by fellow believers proves to be mistaken. For all these reasons and more, confession and honesty are beneficial. Nevertheless, a "realism" that consists of talk but not action betrays its superficiality. Talking about unpleasant/negative aspects should spur the talkers to repentance, forgiveness, retribution. An apology or a frank doubt should produce renewed efforts to avert sin and dispel unbelief. And since the church is His body, it should be active and out-facing in addition to its members ministering to one another with words. I've known excellent Christian counselors, but none of them have claimed to be the end-all of Christianity.
  
• Despair. It's commendable to commit to confronting oneself (and the world) as is, not in fictional terms. Still, relentless narrow-minded concentration on stating and/or hearing the flaws of existence erodes hope. Confession of the same old transgression is highly discouraging. Facing no more than a temporary temptation becomes a trial when the temptation has been gratified from time to time over a period of years and it hovers on the edge of awareness. Therefore, a Christian who refuses to protect himself with a mask of fake moral accomplishment must be wary of despair, especially when it's mixed with...
  
• Mundaneness. Similar to other supernatural belief systems, Christianity is an intermediary between the otherworldliness of the supernatural and the mundaneness of everyday practice. Some believers want more otherworldliness (ahem, "mystery") that's compelling and different from other options. Some believers want more mundaneness (ahem, "relevance") that's directly applicable to current concerns and experiences. As a church reform that's meant to address the actual state of believers' spirituality, explicit rejection of the Christian mask (of hypocrisy of attitude) tends toward the mundaneness pole. The hazard of too much mundaneness is losing track of the essential otherworldliness in biblical commands like "be ye perfect" and rejoicing in persecution. Admitting that one is depressed shouldn't prevent one from searching for joy or doubting its possibility. Mundane guilt over a failure to resist shouldn't prevent one from grasping for an otherworldly victory from the Lord. An honest appraisal of minimal progress shouldn't prevent one from embracing the concept of lasting change. An angsty, gritty, edgy Christian life may be preferable for artsy purposes, but if it's always that difficult for someone then he or she may be doing it wrong. A Christian mask with a frown permanently affixed is false as the mask with the smile.
  

ask the introvert

Some people have told me they don't understand how introverts can "lock up" around other people and have trouble carrying on a conversation, especially when it's perceived as high-pressure. It's just other people, and it's just talking; how could that be hard? Shouldn't something as simple and routine as "typical small talk" be easy?

It might help to consider a situation that seems analogous: test-taking anxiety (which I don't have in the least). This anxiety results in someone who, despite studying hard and learning all the answers beforehand, feels his or her mind "go blank" when the test is in front of them. The test-taker feels an undercurrent of panic, has trouble thinking of the answers, and keeps rereading the same question over and over rather than taking a moment to pause and quiet themselves mentally.

The experience I described above has similarities to what can happen when I'm confronted with a social situation (although I'm getting better at it). An open-ended, casual question gets my mind spinning with concerns such as "What am I expected to say?" or "How do I most easily explain ____?" or "If I say _____ then wouldn't I seem weird?" As I try to optimize my response out of the several candidates according to the criteria that I'm applying, the questioner's facial expression starts to indicate that he or she doesn't understand how complex the question was, and he or she may be starting to wonder at the apparent sluggishness of my mind. At that point I start to think "Say something! Now!" and I spit out something that turns out to be neither interesting nor expected.

The other possibility is that as soon as someone begins to ask the question, I think "I'm being put on the spot! This didn't turn out well the last time it happened! Oh no!", shift into the classic body state known as "fight or flight", and feel my thoughts freeze completely. Just as an anxious test-taker finds it difficult to write an answer when his or her mind is "clenched", so for the introvert who in similar straits finds it difficult to formulate coherent sentences.

In the past, people have advised me to relax in social situations and say something without "overanalyzing it". After saying something, then I can proceed to clarify as needed. While that's a sensible recommendation, I hope the people making it understand that it's a little like telling someone with a spider phobia "The next time one crawls onto your clothing, remember that the vast majority of the time it won't hurt you and you should respond by calmly pushing it off". Easy to say but not so easy for the hearer to put into practice.

some quick suggestions

If you're struggling with the question of "How can and how should I be serving God?", then check with the church to whom you've committed (you don't see church as a consumption activity, right?) as to what needs to be done. If you're struggling with the question of "The world is so huge and messed-up; what can I do?", then look around your community to identify the needs right in front of you and fill them. If you're struggling with the question of "There's no church ministry in which I can serve", then brainstorm some ideas and present them.

One of the spiritual disciplines is service. If you wish to begin the process of God replacing your selfishness with the virtue of charity, then this is an excellent way. Are you wiling to wash feet? Your role model is.

saving the "universe"

Someone has to say it: if people literally believe that the church's goal is to save the universe, then they have a HUGE task ahead of them. Moreover, they need to get crackin' soon, because the universe ain't gettin' any smaller - those faraway galaxies are running away. Any accusations that the notion of "saving the world" betrays an elevated self-importance are a million (well, more than that) times more applicable in this case.

Of course, to be charitable, their intended meaning might differ. By "universe" they might mean simply "all the bits of reality that I affect". Alternatively, maybe my bedrock assumptions don't match theirs. I assume that words mean things, have literal references to objective truth. Someone who doesn't assume that to be the case doesn't take words seriously anyway and therefore sees no value in precision or clarity of communication. He or she says "universe" because he or she feels like it, not because the word signifies anything.

In related news, intellectual haze is not profundity except to the weak-minded.

my present favorite definition of salvation

This isn't original, of course (nor would I wish it to be!). "Salvation" is: now and forever (continuous verb tense), the afterlife being merely one part of this period, all parts of the Trinity declaring "You are my son, returned home and accepted because my sacrifice for you covers your mistakes. You have an inheritance. We walk and talk together. You heed my words. I provide comfort, hope, and joy to you as you allow Me. I am beyond your understanding but together we can remedy this on an ongoing basis. For your own good, and the good of everyone you encounter, and the rest of fallen creation, I want to change your past habits and your inborn tendency to do whatever you want no matter how destructive or impure. My determination at this task will continue despite your temporary failures that occur when you take your eyes off me for a moment. You will need to sincerely confess and repent when this happens, but be reassured that no matter how much you wound Me with your disobedience, I will absorb it if you will cast it away and if you will honestly return to My arms once more. You live in a fallen creation for now, but within it you are My emissary and ambassador as one of the first evidences of the new creation for all My children."

Sorta blows away the old "salvation is for not going to Hell when you die" definition, doesn't it?

oversimplifying church service style

I won't delve too deeply into a discussion about style in church services. First, service style doesn't interest me since I'm more attracted to ideas than the "ideas' adornments", and second, I tend to appreciate strengths (and weaknesses) of each style, which makes me pretty useless in arguments.

However, apart from arguments between styles, one joint error is oversimplifying the styles' distinctive values. This is related to what I wrote before about Christians sometimes oversimplifying the role of tradition.

• A service element - whether object, song, ritual, liturgy, sermon - shouldn't be judged as unsympathetic/sacred/"mysterious"/heavenly merely because it is old and ponderous and cerebral. For instance, although such pomp emphasizes divine majesty and carefully-written doctrinal statements (i.e. accurate perceptions of God, self, and the relationship between), when people barely pay attention due to boredom and monotony then these elements are doing more harm than good as people feel detached from the proceedings and by extension God! (Have I mentioned that my personal preferences exclude self-important rote chanting?)
• A service element shouldn't be judged as relevant/frank/welcoming/earthy merely because it is novel (or "current") and exciting and visceral. For instance, selecting a song because it is contemporary and popular, especially when the song doesn't contain anything identifiably Christian, shouldn't be at the expense of checking the song's worth in reorienting people to God (whatever that means). Unless an element satisfies that purpose, its relatability amounts to nothing. And celebration/fun whose connection to spiritual matters is nonexistent is a frivolous waste of the precious time allocated to services.
  

jettison certainty?

I should start out by remarking that I don't "get" the purpose or reasoning behind abandoning certainty in Christianity.

I like to think that the way that I see the issue of certainty is straightforward and commonsensical. I consider it uncontroversial that generally speaking certainty has many shades similar to the range of grays between blackest black and whitest white. As supporting evidence piles up, certainty increases. As contradictory evidence piles up, certainty decreases. Last winter, when I had trouble starting my car, the truth "the battery must be replaced" became increasingly more certain while other "hypothetical truths" such as "the starter is broken" or "the battery just needs a 'jump' because of the temperature" became increasingly less certain. (Actually, I didn't have much cause to complain considering the car had ran on the factory battery for years and years without problems.)

While I was rather slowly figuring out the cause and solution of my car start-up travails, I didn't feel a need to precede or footnote my changing beliefs about the topic by routine reminders: "I'm uncertain, I'm uncertain, I'm uncertain" (maybe in the tone of a sing-song religious chant). Nor did I feel a need to explicitly characterize those beliefs as provisional: "I believe the battery terminals are dirty but only for the sake of a temporary basis for action"; listeners, at least ones who don't claim to be "postmodern auto mechanics" (when the car doesn't work just change your narrative), would likely assume that I wouldn't act as if the terminals are dirty if I didn't believe that the terminals were, in fact, dirty! Nor did I react to my own uncertainty by carefully circumscribing the "nature" of my battery truths in halfhearted terms: "From my perspective the most probable cause that appeals to me and partially originates in my subjective encounter with the ambiguous kaleidoscope which is reality's unfiltered whole..."

In short, truths lie on a continuum of certainty but this shouldn't mislead us into the erroneous claim that the truths themselves are this way. That is, the mere fact that we can't ascertain and measure the certainty of all truth doesn't imply that truth doesn't really exist. When someone estimates that contradictory "truths" A and B are each 50% probable, we shouldn't take the quite ridiculous step of describing the situation as "50% of A and 50% of B are simultaneously true". In reality only one of the two can be true at once; the failure to figure it out is a failing of ours. (As an aside, people enjoy pointing at the inherent probabilities of quantum mechanics to somehow illustrate that reality is fundamentally uncertain before observation. The flaw in this argument, as could be explained by any physicist, is that this uncertainty "collapses" into a single state long before it percolates up to a scale that matters to we macroscopic beings. This is why constructing a useful, functioning quantum computer is so blasted difficult.)

I'll repeat that I just don't "get" it. Given that truths are on a continuum of certainty, what is the point of calling attention to the uncertainty as opposed to the certainty when the two are by definition directly correlated? To be 95% certain is to be 5% uncertain. To measure a population by taking a randomized sample is to admit some theoretically-calculable sampling error (which entails assuming a particular distribution for the source population...), but this doesn't prevent people from stating the findings as well as the probability of error.

My guess is that redirecting focus to the uncertainty is at bottom an emotional not an intellectual phenomenon. By replacing the Good News with the Uncertain News, Christians can attempt to avoid the impressions of arrogance, weirdness, and close-mindedness that have plagued them for centuries. In essence, jettisoning all references to certainty is an excessive overreaction to the stereotype of the Christian who never changes his or her beliefs in response to thought, questions, and experiences. It's cultural.

My cultural recommendation for combating unflattering public images of Christians isn't to play around with philosophical sleight-of-hands in regard to Truth but to live humbly, compassionately, and thoughtfully. Easier said than done, and that's for certain.

yet another curious conflux

Some people have said that the character/integrity/"personal" beliefs of a public servant matter less than skill/capability/talent for the specific post (such as US president).

Some people have said that the religious character/integrity/"personal" beliefs of a public servant (such as Francis Collins) matter just as much if not more than skill/capability/talent for the specific post (such as heading NIH).

Worldview Fragment: motivational verity

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.

"Motivational verity" is the quality of discovering, understanding, and acknowledging one's own real motivations ("verity" originating from a thesaurus consultation on my part). As with the other worldview fragments, this isn't specific to Christianity. Unlike most of the rest, it's beneficial. Without motivational verity, a Christian is either acting without full knowledge or despite what knowledge he or she has. It contributes to charges of hypocrisy by others (which might lead to a movie exhibiting the effect for humor's sake).

Since a lack of motivational verity is partially responsible for many unfavorable outcomes, the methodical Christian shall try to increase his or hers. Although the primary and indispensable ingredient is penitent earnestness (i.e. just like any other lasting personal change one must sincerely want it and work for it), here are some suggestions and factors to consider.

• Unflinching confrontation. Much has been said and written about denial and avoidance. Motivational verity can't get far if the truth isn't perceived as is, regardless of desirability. What this implies is that possible motivations aren't disqualified without good reason. "Is it possible that I am motivated by..." Furthermore, someone should strive to not overemphasize the pleasant possibilities. "I feel like I might be doing this for personal glory, but anyways I do care, too..."
• Perceptual bias by self-concept. This factor is more subtle than outright denial or purposeful ignorance. The evidence, scientific and anecdotal alike, points to the influence of perceptual biases. In short, people tend to perceive/interpret relative to their expectations. They can see patterns where none exist and miss patterns that are obvious to a different individual. Self-concept is a strong bias. "Lately I've been getting angry about trivia. It doesn't reflect a worrying trend in my attitude; after all, I'm facing stressors G and H." "I deeply wish I could volunteer, but my schedule is so full and I can't clear it, especially my golf time, which is really a ministry to my non-Christian friends, right?" The bias is tricky to eliminate because it's invisible by nature. However, a productive route is to work backward from self-concept to potential biases. Probe the questions, "Given that my self-concept is ______ , how would I (or anyone similar) be most likely to interpret _____ so it fits? Of the interpretations available, are mine precisely those that would disturb my self-concept the least?"
  
• Review. The regular review of one's behavior and motivations can take a variety of forms: a journal, a free-ranging prayer session before sleeping, a comparison to a Bible reading. The point is collecting and synthesizing the minutiae to produce a timely and consistent overall perspective, instead of going about the task in an erratic, ad-hoc search for indications of a precooked conclusion. Don't "cherry-pick" the past month for proofs of developing virtue. Do "rewind" the day, impartially holding each significant moment to the glaring light and confessing or rejoicing in it. Guilt for confessed and repented sin is not the goal of this practice; a sensible way of measuring progress is!
  

The remaining three entail dangers and caveats. These require caution and care in usage.

• Others' opinions. Others' viewpoints aren't framed by the same prejudices as the subject, so their opinions can be immensely valuable for breaking through preconceptions. Yet they have their own set of prejudices, they differ greatly in the capability to correctly discern, and the most empathetic of observers could be as wrong about the subject's motivations as the subject. In addition, strictly speaking Christians aren't obligated to seek approval of their motivations by other Christians. Their inability to surely know the motivations behind an action is one important reason why they aren't (and can't be) the final judges. Finally, due to someone's motivations being a highly personal, private topic, trust and compassion are vital to prevent an incendiary result that can wreck weak relationships, leaving everyone worse off. Of course, an opinion of someone's motivations perhaps shouldn't be expressed at all unless it is supported by a range of identifiable examples that can be marshalled in response to the fair follow-up question "Why do you think that's what makes me tick?"
  
• Prioritization of action over statements. Commonly known as "talk is cheap", this is the strategy of measuring motivations through placing much more weight on deeds than on claims. In terms of a simplistic bluntness that borders on a vulgar degree of insensitivity, "results not excuses". If someone planned or merely intended to _____, but didn't, the failure to act may be a sign that the related motivations need adjustment and someone's awareness of his or her actual motivations is suspect. Piercing examination is necessary; there may be perfectly good reasons why someone didn't act, but on the other hand the inaction may have been a victory of ignoble motivations that need to be broken and given over to God. (In-)Consistency is a marker to watch. One broken promise is less symptomatic of hypothetical motivational problems than a promise broken so often its very existence is reasonably doubtful. The danger of correlating motivations so closely to actions is that it potentially binds someone to a "Law" that isn't mandatory, with accompanying discouragement and despair - better to try and do a little rather than give up completely after trying and not doing a lot. The questions are deceptively straightforward: "If you believe that your motivations are becoming more godly, are your actions also becoming more godly, whatever that means for you? If your actions aren't, then isn't that just cause to pause and question your belief in your changing motivations?"
  
• Immediate reactions and free associations. The most humbling and/or devastating step of all to achieve motivational verity is noting the raw, unembellished, unfiltered motivations that occur effortlessly in the face of anything. The Christian one isn't guaranteed to come first. Or second, third, fourth... An individual who acts Christian, on occasion, in a specialized context, isn't likely to have his or her proud beliefs about personal motivations to be confirmed in this way. Moreover, worrying about a lack of confirmation here is probably counterproductive, as it won't change through "willpower". It's more likely to happen over time, a side effect of old habits and ways of thinking replaced by new, "mind renewal". I've heard cases of people's former desires extinguishing and never returning, but it's not typical.
  

I can evision a reply to the preceding: "The quest for motivational verity seems to be a probing intrusion on my privacy, autonomy, and comfort. As an alternative, why couldn't I compile a to-do list of Christian-y stuff, and select items as I wish?" And someone could, and many do. Though I'd appreciate them not calling Jesus "Lord" or claiming divine forgiveness without repentance and rebirth.

a breathtaking quote

"We are as gods and might as well get good at it" (Whole Earth Catalog)

Yowza. It's a well-intentioned sentiment, repeating the point that with time humanity has unquestionably gained in the power and responsibility both to accomplish good or evil on a massive scale, but just...wow. Bald, provocative self-deification? Is that even necessary? Shouldn't we humbly recognize that our control of anything is at all times tenuous, we still can only manage to rearrange matter and energy, and "earthly authority" is solely deputized to us by God for achieving His aims?

what if one of us were God

One of my annoyances is when Christians reuse "What if God Was One of Us?" Listening closely to the lyrics seems to indicate the concept of God as "just this guy, you know?" God as a human, doing what humans do. In short, "Jesus" being indistinguishable from anyone else in the crowd. God cut down to size.

But Christian thought progressed beyond this point centuries ago! The Jesus of the Bible was fully God and fully man (not ghostly) similar to how the Trinity is fully three and one. Jesus' divinity is essential. He taught like no human. He reordered parts of creation in miracles. He knew temptation without sin.

Perhaps every rendition of "What if God Was One of Us?" should be immediately followed by "Mary Did You Know?" In the latter song, God has seen and done the unimaginable despite presently looking like a small, dependent infant in the mother's care.

God took a face, but always remember that if He hadn't, we'd be dazzled and humbled by his countenance.

a mishmash of reactions to watching Saved!

• I'm so tired of hearing people say "Hilary Faye". Can't they say "Hil" for short?

• I suppose the naivete of the main character is meant to be funny, but I also find it sad that innocence isn't a working strategy for life.
• Okay, the way the pastor uses "youth-speak" is great. Some forms and norms of communication are intended for differentiating social groups (e.g. by age). If someone is by definition excluded from a group, it doesn't matter how well he or she can adopt that group's language styles; he or she will just seem disturbing.
• If someone experiences a vision and/or is struggling with a moral dilemma, bringing in other believers to help advise or interpret should be a given. This is partly why isolating yourself is discouraged.
• Interesting choice in having one of the school's non-Christian outsiders also be a prickly rebel (and one who in actuality doesn't want to be expelled). For the movie to really portray judgmental attitudes as irrational, the outsider could have been a person who was in almost every way likable apart from being a non-Christian. But I suppose that making the outsider be defiant, mocking, etc. serves to underline just how much the outsider is "outside", and that this status is partly engineered by the outsider on purpose.
• I appreciate that it shows people smoking to rebel. I've always thought the extreme edge of adolescent rebellion, people doing something forbidden because it's forbidden, has tinges of absurdity. A rebel doing something stupid just to rebel thereby illustrates that his or her actions are still motivated and activated by rules. It turns out to be another subtle way of being controlled and not thinking for oneself.
• Good idea: evangelism to avert the eternal damnation of sinners like us. Bad idea: evangelism that isn't heartfelt, is by-the-numbers, and is so heavy-handed that it doesn't reach a person at a point of need.
• Y'know, private religious institutions, even schools, have the constitutional right to accept and reject participants for religious reasons. It's quite debatable whether the religious should remove themselves out of public society and instead isolate themselves into a self-selected alternative culture, but it's their right if they so choose. Sometimes I've heard Christians describe their childhoods as existing in a "Christian bubble" in which the "outside world" is kept safely at a distance. The undeniable problem is that the bubble prevents/dissaudes Christians from applying the gospel where it's needed most. It's notable that during his exceedling brief ministry, Jesus didn't "stay put" and wait for people to come to him.
• One of the more improbable aspects of the storyline is the fertility level involved.
• Oooo, the movie used some music from Jesus Christ Superstar. That'll now be in my head for a couple of weeks. I'm thankful it wasn't the "always thought that I'd be a disciple..."
• Tolerance is tolerance, and plain meanspiritedness is meanspiritedness. Yet it seems to me that it's at least partially a "two way street". Feuds escalate when people keep deciding to strike back instead of being the "bigger person" who defuses the situation by loving enemies and reaching out in a way that could be vulnerable.
• It can't be repeated enough: of faith, hope, and love, the greatest is love. The two summary commands are loving God and loving people. Christians who see their beliefs as a set of social customs - don't do this, do volunteer there - and not as a transforming of self into a mold out of which lovable actions "overflow", are living a deficient Christianity. To state the obvious, one of Hil's primary missteps is that she doesn't practice the habits of examining her own motives and of empathizing with those she encounters.
  
• The communal correction of a fellow brother or sister (for we are all adopted in) can appear harsh. However, it exposes the lie that deep love is continually pleasant or blind. Allowing someone you care for to self-destruct is indifference, not love.
• Odd how the movie shows someone immediately going through a full-blown crisis of belief at the first hint of confusion or dissatisfaction. The more common experience is people realizing that they must accept some of their questions going unanswered, and keep steady. As I've read somewhere, it makes no difference what you profess, atheist or not: you'll have moments of serious doubt.
• The scenes between the pastor and the mother are sooooo infuriating. Look at all the pretty red flags each of them ignores! And if there's no physical contact, there's no need to worry! Puh-leaze. Examine your emotions, you simpletons. How can we dare to face God until we understand and reveal our true face even to ourselves?
  
• The pastor facilely explaining his circumstances as a divine judgment, and the mother's priceless response, are well done. A major peeve of mine is Christians who twist all they see into an egocentric picture of divine intervention.
  
• Nice ending, although the attempts to bar people from the prom are strange since my impression of those functions is that they're generally pretty loose and open-ended. On the other hand, letting in the people who broke specific rules in order to attend is a clear-cut example of awarding bad behavior, no?
  

drop the negativity

Negativity as an overall stance on life is part of what I tried to describe in my entry about a symptom of real despair. Such people will retort that negative expectations are more often, and more likely, right. They could also claim, quite self-evidently, that looking out for problems, mistakes, and flaws is a much better tactic for good achievement than merely shrugging one's shoulders and "hoping for the best". I'm not arguing against those points.

Nevertheless, acknowledging the negatives in every part of life is distinct from treating negativity as an "axiom" or core ingredient of perspective. For the mature, a state which some never reach, attitude and response aren't controlled by external events. Two people in an identical negative situation will feel persecuted; this is only natural. What separates them is the pivotal question "Now what?" The person who structures their beliefs with negativity will answer "I expected this all along. I can try to do something about it, but it probably won't work." The person who has dropped negativity will answer "This is a setback. My reaction to it defines who I choose to be. I refuse to assent to this, because that would mean I'm complicit in it. Even if I fail, I will do something about it."

You can be realistic without being negative. You can be prudent and shrewd without being negative. You can be skeptical without being negative. You can find faults without being negative. Badness is out there, everywhere you care to search. The negativity lies in pretending that badness is all there is.

two unconditional loves

As you might expect, the first unconditional love is from God to fallen creation, including us.

The second unconditional love is the reciprocation of love from us to God regardless of Him not being reliable in the common ways we define reliability in our everyday lives.

honest, courteous debate is not an inquisition

A Christian who questions widespread Christian beliefs or openly probes the foundations of Christian doctrine shouldn't expect his or her own statements to go unquestioned. Someone who takes a stand for a viewpoint that is incompatible with the rock on which others have built their entire lives shouldn't expect them to be immediately convinced. Nor should they expect everyone in the "conversation" (that word has undeniably better style and PR-value than "debate" or "argument", doesn't it?) to claim that contradictory statements can both be correct and therefore nobody is ever "wrong". In fact, it's even true that when people are discussing issues whose resolution determines what the very definition of "heresy" is, one or more of them just is a "heretic". (Of course, it's still terribly insensitive and dismissive and nonconstructive to apply the label to a fellow Christian who happens to think differently.)

It's simply unrealistic to talk or blog about extremely important ideas in a casual or, worse, intellectually sloppy manner. I have no problem with continual review of the traditional, time-honored stances of Christian thought. My contention is that when it happens, passionate dialogue inevitably "comes with the territory", and also that it's unfair to only allow one "side" (we're all on the same one, ultimately...) to apply critical thinking to the other, as if one side's statements are all sincere seeking after the truth and the other's are all reflexive narrow-minded defensiveness.

a raspberry smoothie defeats existentialism every time

Earlier this week, I was standing in a long, slow line at a grocery store in the evening, and my mind wandered for a while since I had no other options. I began to question the way I spend my life and what I want my future to be and possible changes to align the two. I pondered what characteristics and actions had most likely produced my current circumstances and habits. Eventually I made it out to my car with the groceries, still feeling pensive and swallowed by ennui.

On the way back I bought a raspberry smoothie at a drive-thru (no, I don't do this regularly). After about four drawn-out sips, all my prior misgivings evaporated. The questions were still there, but I was now floating untouched above them: consumption and aimless enjoyment victorious.

Now just imagine if I'd had the latest cell phone model with me when I was standing in the checkout line. I could've played some game or gotten caught up on my twitters, and completely avoided a slough of teleological sinkholes.

God is not reliable

Before beginning, I must reiterate that my writing consists of my personal beliefs, thoughts, feelings, and ideals (but does not always match, as I anonymously admit, my actual behavior). Also, neither my experiences nor doctrines nor biblical interpretations are necessarily similar to other Christians. In any case, I'm compelled to state a conclusion that I'm sure many Christians would contest: God is not reliable.

My meaning rests on to what "reliable" refers. In this case, I don't intend to assert that God is disloyal, or uncaring, or untrustworthy, or implacable (or that He won't eliminate evil eventually). My point is that God simply cannot be relied upon in any of the obvious ways that humanity relies upon other things. My secondary point, which immediately follows, is that it's despicably dishonest to say and/or pretend otherwise.

For clarity, I shall enumerate.

• God is not reliable like a machine. A machine's reliability is that, assuming the machine is fully intact and functional, it will carry out the same purpose in the same way. A calculator will reach the same answer for the same calculation (it doesn't "think", by the way - it routes electrons). An engine will convert fuel into work. A ramp will transfer between vertical and horizontal motion. God does not exhibit mechanical reliability. Confronted with an identical situation, God cannot be relied upon to act identically. Confronted with an identical prayer, God cannot be relied upon to respond identically. And so forth.
• God is not reliable like a saint. A saint's reliability is that, assuming the saint has sufficient integrity and self-control, the saint will make a moral decision in a predictable way. God does not exhibit saintly reliability. Hypothetically, if a saint had to make the same "tough choices" as God, he or she wouldn't do what God does. For instance, if one of two people must die, and the first person is unashamedly selfish but the second is generous, an "all-powerful saint" would select the first to die (again, given the lousy requirement that one of the two will die). This is emphatically not the constant outcome in reality, where God is all-powerful and holy yet the universe doesn't unfold as if a saint was "running things". And this holds for the meting out of both punishments and rewards.
  
• God is not reliable like money. Money's reliability is that, assuming the currency retains sufficient value and acceptability, money will enable someone to meet needs and, with the remainder, wants. God does not exhibit monetary reliability. People's needs aren't always met, regardless of what they believe, do, and pray. Admittedly, to some degree the needs of a person are negotiable; we few who are fortunate to live in the rich part of the world don't realize how little is necessary for painful survival. But even if only considering needs to the extent of this minimal baseline, not everyone who trusts God to provide will fare as well as those who somehow have money (or indeed anything tradable).
  
• God is not reliable like health care. Health care's reliability is that, assuming the treatment is done well, health care relieves and sometimes cures sickness and injury. God does not exhibit medical reliability. He does not heal everyone nor prevent all accidents. Prayer is no guarantee that He will.
  
• God is not reliable like natural laws. The reliability of natural laws is that, assuming the laws are correctly understood and applied, reality proceeds along the same patterns as before. God does not exhibit predictability. His responses, much less His initiatives, don't follow well-worn paths. No matter how much we learn about Him, we cannot reduce Him to certainties.
  

I believe that honest Christians have no choice but to reject the notion that God is reliable. Having rejected the notion, they shouldn't proclaim it. There are a number of plausible reasons and theories for why God is perfect and powerful while not being reliable (e.g. He knows better than us, His goal isn't to make life easy, He is simultaneously just and merciful, etc.). Perhaps Christians should conscientiously cease to trumpet God's reliability and divert their focus to explaining why He is not.

replace not negate

Previously I identified and commented on the scapegoat everyone can agree on: "American culture". Since then, it has remained a convenient, popular, invincible, and vague nemesis. Christians invoke it so very often in sermons, bible studies, etc. (And if a Christian hankers for an additional ever-trendy target for criticism and/or a rationalization for church ineffectiveness, there's always the "Christian subculture".)

In case this isn't clear: I'm tired of hearing it. As supposed residents of a new upside-down kingdom, we should do more than continually point out that the prevailing culture is defective. Each accusation against "the culture" should precede a counterpoint, an alternative, perhaps adhering to the format: "You have heard it said...but I say..." The replacement must be unambiguous and specific and either meet approximately the same set of needs or contain an explanation for why not.

Don't bother to establish the failure of culture unless providing something better.

Which Faramir represents your response to temptation?

The book Two Towers by J.R.R. Tolkien was adapted into a hugely profitable movie some years ago. One of the changes that long-time readers easily spotted was a divergence in the character "Faramir". And this difference illustrates two responses to temptation, which in Tolkien's trilogy is clearly exemplified by the "attraction" of the One Ring.

• In the movie, Faramir sees the Ring and chooses to only consider the good that it might do, despite also seeing the manner in which the Ring twisted Gollum's mind. His mindset is "ends justify the means", and he willfully ignores the issue of the Ring's consequences. The extended edition of the movie includes other scenes that show a deep rift between Faramir and his father due to favoritism for his brother. Faramir allows this pain to control his reaction to the Ring's temptation, acting out of that instead of acting out of a clear-headed appreciation of the importance and danger of the Ring. He feels that he must earn love. Instead of turning away from the Ring immediately, he keeps it close to him for a while until later circumstances force him to observe the dark truth of what the Ring is.
• In the book, Faramir is highly-principled, perceptive, and wise. He recognizes that both the Ring and Frodo's quest are beyond his authority to control. Although he could take the Ring by force, he manages to learn from his brother's mistake rather than repeating it. He doesn't need to entertain the thought of the Ring's power for very long before rejecting it. He lets it go.

Temptation is as strong as the One Ring's "pull", especially when someone has allowed it to rule him or her. When it speaks to you and you could easily reach out your hand to grasp it, will you respond like movie Faramir or book Faramir? Will you act out of past pain and fear and confusion and selfishness, ponder the temptation in your mind, and close your eyes to the likely outcomes, then give in? Or will you act out of integrity and humility, eject the temptation from your mind, and consider a full view of the likely outcomes, then turn away?

(I have listened to the commentary and interviews about the movie. I realize that the book version would have reduced the seductive power of the Ring in the eyes of the audience, and the detour to Osgiliath furnished an effective and exciting climax to Frodo's storyline in the second movie. It raises a secondary question that's also interesting: like the movie's portrayal of the Ring, do you see temptation as close to irresistible for any mere man? Or closer to the book's portrayal of the Ring, do you see temptation as conquerable by any mere man, so long as he refuses to give it a foothold in his mind? To be fair, it's notable that in the first movie, both Aragorn and Gandalf succeed in leaving the Ring with Frodo when he offers it willingly.)

"words cannot express God"

Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8 NKJV)

I understand the thrust of the sentiment "words cannot express God". The related set of beloved and trite sayings includes: a picture is worth more than a thousand words, we currently see through a glass darkly, mysterious ways, etc. And just as nobody knows me completely, e.g. the actual breadth and depth of my thoughts and motivations, still fewer could claim the same for God. While we in our finiteness are yet unpredictable, God is beyond us in every way. So God is inescapably unknown and more holy and mysterious than we can comprehend.

However, there is a definite "flip side" to this coin in Christianity, and to say or act otherwise is excessive.

• For all the failure of words to express God, He has selected words and spoken to humanity, about Himself and other topics (including minute details of temple architecture), time after time. To be sure, Yahweh (YHWH, "I am") is clear about how He cannot and shall not be literally portrayed as anything lesser than a simply-infinite unity (hence, no idols), but He does use a range of metaphors like father and king and so forth. The metaphors are by definition fallible; God chose them anyway as expressions of Himself.
• Christianity obviously professes that one of God's forms, that of a human, lived on Earth and went by the name Jesus ("Yeshua" depending on whether you suffer from hyper-pretension). Why would God do this, if He was trying to maintain an "image" of being remote and exalted and unknowable? Moreover, why would Jesus have then spent so much time teaching, offering up so many words to reveal secrets that are "hidden from the wise"? We can hardly expect the Creator Lord of the universe to be more forthcoming with expressive words.

It's true that words cannot express God, His ways are not our ways, and we need no longer settle for a mediator to make contact with Him. Don't extrapolate those truths to mean that the deepest wells of Christian faith and knowledge are somehow nonverbal, or that its essence consists of tingly goosebumps during protracted prayer sessions. As God is there and not silent (hmm, sounds like a book title), we His followers shouldn't disengage from reality nor remain silent about Him.

avoiding politics through politics

Don't expect much discussion about politics by me. Not as long as 1) the topic is often focused on the tedious and trivial and temporary, 2) other websites cover it from as many angles as anyone could want, 3) the primary value of arguments about it appears to be recreational "full-contact debate" rather than successful attempts to influence opinions. (The third issue also sometimes applies to arguments about apologetics...)

I'm not even momentarily breaking political silence in order to comment on anything specific. I just wanted to mention that I've noticed that those writers who state that they wish to depoliticize Christianity more often than not are vocal about politics - as if the way to stop linking Christianity to explicit political causes is to link it to different political causes than usual.

Don't misunderstand. I'm definitely not arguing that Christians need to withdraw entirely from the realm of politics (given that we're blessed with the privilege of accomplishing so much good through democracy, it'd border on foolish to not participate). Nor am I arguing that Christians shouldn't civilly discuss how and when to apply their deepest beliefs to politics. Nor (and I want to ensure this is clear above all else) am I expressing a political "side".

I'm simply perplexed by an observed combination of unabashed politicking and complaints about Christianity being too "political". Doesn't the one seriously undercut the other?

"How do you explain this?"

The title question is what someone often asks after calling attention to an event that appears to contradict one of the responder's beliefs. Its implied meaning is "If you can't fit this actual occurrence into your perspective convincingly, why do you continue to think that your foundational assumptions are right?"

However, this line of argument generally isn't persuasive...for any side. Since nobody can cause the event in question to recur nor investigate it more exhaustively after-the-fact, nobody should expect to have the event be perfectly explained...by anyone. Hence, events of this type fall partially or completely into the realm of the unknown. And the way that someone explains or understands the unknown is just his or her own preexisting assumptions.

1. "Horrible event X happened. But you say that your god is good. How do you explain this, Christian?" One of the rather standard Christian stances is that an omniscient God is to some degree unknowable (well, "unfathomable") in His thoughts and actions in relation to the "big picture" of the whole of creation in time. So the true, full morality and/or purpose of an event is unknown to all but God. Therefore, all that we can honestly say about how we explain a specific event is that we continue to believe that God is good (or bad, or nonexistent, etc.).

2. "We prayed earnestly on behalf of X's health, and a few days later the sickness is almost gone. But you say that based on the evidence of the universe, God must be either nonexistent, morally ambiguous, or even evil. How do you explain this, atheist?" An atheist might retort that a specific regression of illness is impossible to analyze completely, and in any case medical knowledge isn't absolutely complete. So the true, full physical cause of an event is unknown. Therefore, all that we can honestly say is that we continue to believe that a god wasn't involved (or that He was, etc.).

The upshot is that people can usually find sufficient "wriggle room" within any evidence to support what they already believe. They answer "How do you explain this?" with "I can't examine the evidence as much as I would like, to remove all doubt; nevertheless, I still assume _______."

color me baffled by...

...Christians who are stridently vocal about avoiding "legalistic", "ritualistic", "systematic" Christian practices and express their iconoclastic impulses through...the usage of very old, very traditional, rituals.

Moralistic Therapeutic Deism

Color me behind-the-times, but somewhere in the Web commentary about USA Today's American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) I learned about a cogent label and description of the religious (i.e. "spiritual") beliefs held by many people in the U.S.: Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. "Moralistic" refers to the common-sense notion that people should be good and nice, and to the assumption that good people will experience a good afterlife. "Therapeutic" refers to the purpose of spirituality, which is enabling people to live better and more pleasant lives, through learning to love oneself and others enough to carry out constructive, beneficial actions like forgiveness. "Deism" refers to the perceived remoteness and intangibility of the Creator God, whom people acknowledge and beseech from time to time but mostly isn't involved in one's life. The actual perspectives of people I've met are so well captured by this set of ideas that it hurts.

As I've written before on many occassions, I consider Moralistic Therapeutic Deism to be incomplete rather than starkly wrong (although parts of it unmistakably are). God is holy, and it would be great if people followed His lead, so Christianity has its moralistic side. God is overflowing with the power and desire to mend people, so Christianity has its therapeutic side. God is mysterious and perfect in His actions and plans, so Christianity has its deist side. However, it's also true that righteousness is by faith and grace, no person nor the universe itself will be completely restored until the End, and the Spirit who is God's own person is as close and intimate as anyone wishes.

I'd also note that Moralistic Therapeutic Deism isn't necessarily Christian. When God and morality are sufficiently vague, doctrinal distinctions are quite pointless (and impossible). For some, mushy doctrine is part of the allure.

A sampling of the past entries that pertain to the topic:

• cultural accomodation through appeasement
• middling morality
• just be yourself
• all you need is love
• pursuit of happiness
• why a Holy God?

looking for a new spiritual experience?

No, I don't mean trying out incense or chants. I'd be far more impressed if you try fasting (responsibly, following guidelines).

wholes in Christian thought

My increasing belief is that the best intellectual approach for Christianity is a collection of wholes. Controversy and infighting partially result from a failure to appreciate these wholes. To elaborate:

• Faith. Wherever people profess beliefs, other people who think similarly but differently might choose to respond indirectly (i.e. creatively/laterally) with the "pragmatic parry". The pragmatic parry consists of refusing to raise or attack a point of contention, and instead insisting that endless debate over ideas and "semantics" is pointless on principle because actions and attitudes are what affect reality (it's possible to view the history of philosophy as a series of cycles of returning its subject matter to relevance). Among Christians, the pragmatic parry expresses a reaction to established theology, especially the excessively academic kind that seems to spin round and round on conceptual definitions and ignores issues in the surrounding society. The Christian's pragmatic parry to all doctrines is "Faith is what you do and are; the Pharisees of the Gospels were laser-focused on mapping out the parameters of the Law and its various prohibitions but our Lord's focus was on the inner condition of hearts, exemplified by overflowing love to all people". And this assertion is clearly biblical! The danger is treating this as a justification for overlooking the whole of faith. For faith is right belief translated into right actions. Consider the epistle of James, and the Lord's teaching that a man's actions (and speech) flow out of his heart - in modern language, follow the evidence. Only right belief will consistently produce right actions, and of course right actions are fruitless if we haven't been born again as new creations who are sons of God, known personally by Him. Whole Christian faith assumes a whole "model" of human actions: people ascertain or know what reality is, then they respond to this understanding. This is neither "do whatever you want if your spirit is pure" nor "results are infinitely more valuable than intentions". As others have said, since human relationships experience love as both affection/intimacy and generous gestures, to understand saving faith as a relationship is to also require both.
  
• Interpretation. It's hard to overstate the importance of sacred texts such as the Bible. Thus, the questions that naturally arise from reading it are also of great importance. How trustworthy is it, and in what sense is it of divine authorship? What is the intent and style of the human writers? What is it communicating, and where can this content be reapplied to contemporary concerns? Moreover, who answers these interpretative questions and on what (whose) authority? Christian history bursts (not always proudly) with distinct answers to the aforementioned questions. Aside from the well-known guideline of interpreting the Bible as a contextual whole rather than ripping out isolated verses, viewing interpretation as a whole involves the now-somewhat-trite observation that any occurrence of Bible reading or study, like all communication, involves multiple "participants" such as the writer, the writer's (historical, social) context, the actual text, the translator, the reader, the reader's context, past interpretations and commentaries, numerous biases, etc., etc. It's far, far overreaching to claim that each occurrence of Bible reading "creates" a new Bible, yet it's also plainly ridiculous to claim that the writers of a centuries-old text aren't separated from the present readers of the text by gaps in thought. For one thing, language itself is continually changing - this fact doesn't at all invalidate Bible translations but it does warn Christians of the need to bridge that gap through good (intense) scholarship. A whole view of interpretation negates the false dilemma that either the writer or text is all-powerful - "the Bible speaks for itself for God did not stutter" - or the reader is all-powerful - "the Bible contains nothing more than what the reader or Spirit-mediated revelation brings to it". Communication is admittedly imperfect but it still works well enough. The Lord commented that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Can't the Church comprehend and communicate the meaning of this sentence to an audience that doesn't know about camels or needles?
  
• Grace. Unbalanced notions about grace in Christianity bedevil too many, and judging by the letters in the Bible this temptation has been present since early on ("Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?" wrote Paul to Rome). Just as faith is more than right personal beliefs/doctrines, grace is more than the assurance that sins don't and won't separate the devoted from God. Grace is freely offered, but Christians exhibit coarse misunderstanding when they take this to mean that it's free. Perhaps it's more accurate to state that grace doesn't cost anything "up-front". As anyone will repeat, nobody earns grace, by first definitions. However, grace is applied through faith, the whole faith previously explained. The Lord never promised that grace alone would save everyone (look up the metaphor of the wide and narrow gates and compare the quantity of people for each). He forgave sins everywhere He went, but in addition He instructed the forgiven to stop sinning and in His discourses He set up changed-heart rules stricter than the Law! The whole perspective on grace is not merely "God excuses every sin" and not merely "Christians must never sin again after conversion, once they know better". The deeper someone's awareness of sin, the clearer someone's perception of grace, which is God's merciful response. Such a person will find it almost literally unthinkable to repeat a confessed and forgiven sin (although he or she may in fact stumble later due to not dwelling and relying fully enough on God). After being reminded that sin is reprehensible yet rooted deep within, the very preciousness of grace will deter the sinner from treating it cheaply. People cannot presume that they in their sin can please God apart from His loving grace; why would they presume to "stretch" this grace any further and thereby displease their merciful savior?
  

subtle arrogance

If someone preemptively emphasizes that he or she is "just a person" or "doesn't know much", then perhaps this is a subtle arrogance: why would one feel the need to do this when precisely nobody, in point of fact, has yet made those mistakes?

"I might be wrong", "don't put any blind trust in me", and so on. Well, yeah. Who said we were in the first place, buddy? Thank you so much for being so careful in your anxiety that people around you will fall into the trap of exalting you more than they should. Yeesh. Such ostentatious, overdone humility is strikingly similar to what the Lord spoke of when condemning loud, public displays of giving or fasting, wouldn't you say?