My Gary Fisher Bike
Coke
Shiner
Wendy's Dollar Menu
David Letterman
Jeopardy
Grey's Anatomy
D. Housewives
Blogs
the printer in the lounge next to our apartment
wireless internet
Tivo
having two cars
my i-pod
our dishwasher and garbage disposal
surround sound
cameron park
Penland's breakfast burrito
ultimate frisbee
my chaplain job
my fishing rod
my laptop
notice
Jesus, Lindsay and u2 didn't make the list. They all fall under the necessary category.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Monday, February 27, 2006
forgive
I once heard the smartest man in the world, Greg Boyd, say that forgiveness is simply letting go. That makes so much sense to me. In the past when I let go of something it was like the moment when you are finally done crying after a good cry and you just fall back into a really cushy couch and stare blankly at the wall because it is finally all out. Your body is exhausted and your mind is exhausted. You are finally just able to simply be. You can stop thinking about the person who offended you and stop thinking about what you wish you would have said and just forget about it. Those are some of the best moments. Those are the moments when you give it up and in return are freed up.
Jesus said that God wouldn’t forgive us until we forgive others (Matt 6:14). I always thought that was cruel. That doesn’t sound a whole lot like unconditional love to me. Rather it is, “I’ll love you unconditionally as long as you follow this one condition.” But maybe I’ve been missing something. Maybe it’s not so much about God “won’t” forgive me as much as it is about God “can’t” forgive me and here is why.
Boyd shares a story about a woman in “Letters from a Skeptic” whose sister ran off with her fiancé the day before the wedding. For her whole life this lady was bitter at both her sister and her fiancé. She never forgave them. She continually chose to hang on to her bitterness and resentment. It took its toll on her. She died decrepit and angry. Boyd’s point is that if we persist in our choices we become a solidified being of our choices, both good and bad.
Maybe the reason God can’t forgive us, that is let go of it and move on, is because when we don’t forgive, we don’t let go and move on and thus we become this solidified being of resentment and bitterness. We become unlovable. Not in the sense that God does not persist in trying to woo us into His freedom, but rather because we are becoming beings of solidified resentment, we keep God from loving and forgiving us…we don’t let Him in.
Jesus said that God wouldn’t forgive us until we forgive others (Matt 6:14). I always thought that was cruel. That doesn’t sound a whole lot like unconditional love to me. Rather it is, “I’ll love you unconditionally as long as you follow this one condition.” But maybe I’ve been missing something. Maybe it’s not so much about God “won’t” forgive me as much as it is about God “can’t” forgive me and here is why.
Boyd shares a story about a woman in “Letters from a Skeptic” whose sister ran off with her fiancé the day before the wedding. For her whole life this lady was bitter at both her sister and her fiancé. She never forgave them. She continually chose to hang on to her bitterness and resentment. It took its toll on her. She died decrepit and angry. Boyd’s point is that if we persist in our choices we become a solidified being of our choices, both good and bad.
Maybe the reason God can’t forgive us, that is let go of it and move on, is because when we don’t forgive, we don’t let go and move on and thus we become this solidified being of resentment and bitterness. We become unlovable. Not in the sense that God does not persist in trying to woo us into His freedom, but rather because we are becoming beings of solidified resentment, we keep God from loving and forgiving us…we don’t let Him in.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Learning How to Spend Money
Note: this has nothing to do with my post. I have a question. Should I rent North Country for $4 because it is not worth owning, but should still be seen? Or should I spend $8 because you can guarantee me I’m going to love it or it is at least worth owning?
o.k. now for my post
I’ve learned a lot about life being married. Probably the area that has been most difficult for me to adjust to is money management. If you ask me, I would say that I’m the bad guy in the marriage that has to say no to buying the luxury items. My wife might take issue with this comment. In the end, we spend about the same on unnecessary items each month. Her with her scrap booking, stamping, knitting habits and me with my D.V.D. collecting, mountain biking, reading habits. I like to save as much as possible and I suppose it is true that my wife does too, but I argue that she just doesn’t see the budget in her head when making fiscal decisions.
Here is one invaluable lesson I’ve learned from her on spending money. If it is about people, it is worth it. Before we got married, I hated buying wedding presents for people. What a waste of money. Then I got married. Perspective changes! Since I’ve gotten married, that has become a bigger priority. Here’s another one. Saturday night the Dugans, Craig, Harris, Singlteton and us, all went out to eat at La Fiesta. Lindsay and I got pre-dinner drinks that came to $10.00 with a tip and dinner was $26.00 after the tip. Now, in the olden days that would have disgruntled me. “What a waste of money,” I would have said to myself. My wife has taught me that, that time with those people is worth more than all the D.V.D.’s and knitting needles money can buy. Some day we will move away and be gone and the possibility of eating with those particular people will be gone forever. So what I have learned is to not go home fire up the computer and visit wellsfargo.com, but rather to enjoy every ounce of friendship because it is most definitely a gift.
o.k. now for my post
I’ve learned a lot about life being married. Probably the area that has been most difficult for me to adjust to is money management. If you ask me, I would say that I’m the bad guy in the marriage that has to say no to buying the luxury items. My wife might take issue with this comment. In the end, we spend about the same on unnecessary items each month. Her with her scrap booking, stamping, knitting habits and me with my D.V.D. collecting, mountain biking, reading habits. I like to save as much as possible and I suppose it is true that my wife does too, but I argue that she just doesn’t see the budget in her head when making fiscal decisions.
Here is one invaluable lesson I’ve learned from her on spending money. If it is about people, it is worth it. Before we got married, I hated buying wedding presents for people. What a waste of money. Then I got married. Perspective changes! Since I’ve gotten married, that has become a bigger priority. Here’s another one. Saturday night the Dugans, Craig, Harris, Singlteton and us, all went out to eat at La Fiesta. Lindsay and I got pre-dinner drinks that came to $10.00 with a tip and dinner was $26.00 after the tip. Now, in the olden days that would have disgruntled me. “What a waste of money,” I would have said to myself. My wife has taught me that, that time with those people is worth more than all the D.V.D.’s and knitting needles money can buy. Some day we will move away and be gone and the possibility of eating with those particular people will be gone forever. So what I have learned is to not go home fire up the computer and visit wellsfargo.com, but rather to enjoy every ounce of friendship because it is most definitely a gift.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Ontology and Epistemology
For some time I’ve been thinking about the relationship between epistemology and ontology. The words are fluid. I see them applied different ways all the time. I suppose this is a gross oversimplification, but I think the phrase “walk the talk” speaks to the nature of the relationship. Talk of course here being the metaphor knowledge and perception and ontology alluding to the “guts” of an experience.
I usually favor ontology. Contrary to the Germans, I don’t think knowing and being coincide. I think being always precedes knowing. I’ll leave aside the a priori and a posteriori discussion for now though. I think most of us inherently favor ontology. Who doesn’t trust their experience? I think questions of evangelism highlight the importance of this discussion. Rather than give people propositions, we are now encouraged to live a life style that creates question asking. Then we if they care enough to know, we are supposed to give them the answers. In other words, in the po-mo world, you’ve got to earn the right to speak into people’s lives.
On the other hand I’m reminded of how powerful epistemology can be. I remember a conversation I had my junior year of college that highlighted this. I was on a committee that put together a leadership weekend retreat for all campus leaders. As part of the retreat’s activity schedule, students participated in something called--the race.
This is the truncated version. Everyone starts on the starting line. Then the person conducting the race reads a list of about 50-75 statements. Statements like, “If you’re parents went to college take one step forward,” “If you’ve a white male take one step forward,” etc. After all the questions have been asked the race begins, which is a sprint to several people standing at the finish line holding prizes like $5 and candy bars. The point of the exercise was to demonstrate inequality.
After the exercise was over we had small group discussions. We had two fairly underprivileged females in our group. As the discussion progressed, the tension heightened until finally it was asked of them in so many words, “what do you want from us [privileged folk]?”
Here’s what was amazing. They didn’t want our money or our support or for their load to be lifted. What they wanted is for us to realize how difficult their journey had been. They wanted from us a deep sense of understanding. They wanted us to know their story.
I suppose that if we were ever going to understand their story, ontology would be needed. We would have to go experience what they went through, but that wasn’t possible. Thus, at times we have to utilize epistemology as best as possible.
If you think about it the gospel works both ways. Lived experience and then belief. After you believe, you need to keep believing so that you can live the experience. At some points it all about epistemology for Paul. Romans 12:2, transform your mind. Well…I guess I didn’t really set out to solve this riddle, only to highlight where I’m at in the thought process. Sorry for an inconclusive post.
I usually favor ontology. Contrary to the Germans, I don’t think knowing and being coincide. I think being always precedes knowing. I’ll leave aside the a priori and a posteriori discussion for now though. I think most of us inherently favor ontology. Who doesn’t trust their experience? I think questions of evangelism highlight the importance of this discussion. Rather than give people propositions, we are now encouraged to live a life style that creates question asking. Then we if they care enough to know, we are supposed to give them the answers. In other words, in the po-mo world, you’ve got to earn the right to speak into people’s lives.
On the other hand I’m reminded of how powerful epistemology can be. I remember a conversation I had my junior year of college that highlighted this. I was on a committee that put together a leadership weekend retreat for all campus leaders. As part of the retreat’s activity schedule, students participated in something called--the race.
This is the truncated version. Everyone starts on the starting line. Then the person conducting the race reads a list of about 50-75 statements. Statements like, “If you’re parents went to college take one step forward,” “If you’ve a white male take one step forward,” etc. After all the questions have been asked the race begins, which is a sprint to several people standing at the finish line holding prizes like $5 and candy bars. The point of the exercise was to demonstrate inequality.
After the exercise was over we had small group discussions. We had two fairly underprivileged females in our group. As the discussion progressed, the tension heightened until finally it was asked of them in so many words, “what do you want from us [privileged folk]?”
Here’s what was amazing. They didn’t want our money or our support or for their load to be lifted. What they wanted is for us to realize how difficult their journey had been. They wanted from us a deep sense of understanding. They wanted us to know their story.
I suppose that if we were ever going to understand their story, ontology would be needed. We would have to go experience what they went through, but that wasn’t possible. Thus, at times we have to utilize epistemology as best as possible.
If you think about it the gospel works both ways. Lived experience and then belief. After you believe, you need to keep believing so that you can live the experience. At some points it all about epistemology for Paul. Romans 12:2, transform your mind. Well…I guess I didn’t really set out to solve this riddle, only to highlight where I’m at in the thought process. Sorry for an inconclusive post.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
the old and new
Some days I really have problems with the Old Testament. Here is my newest one. Ezra/Nehemiah is supposed to mark a high point in Israel’s history. Post exilic/2nd temple Judaism has just made some critical reforms. Ezra instituted the law so that those who retuned were going to be “people of the book.” All the exilic prophets point this way too. Israel is being purged of their sins, but when they return, things are going to be good. And so they are. Israel rebuilds a wall, their temple, re-institutes religious practices and even loosens up on where the religion can be practices (seems as though exilic life taught em’ something about God’s presence being able to move outside the temple).
Because they’ve been exiled there’s a bit of confusion about who really constitutes Israel. Is it those who were exiled as Ezra, Haggai, and others imply or is those who were left in Israel during the exile and the foreigners like Isaiah 56 implies? Well to help settle matters, Ezra decides that marriages to all foreign women need to be annulled or however they dealt with that sort of thing back then. Now there’s real grace.
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13). Jesus is the full revelation of God (John ??:??)…Mark’s portrayal of Jesus interests in the redefinition of insiders/outsiders, Luke’s outrageous attitude of inclusivity towards the Samaritans…Israel’s reformed and supposed Yahwistic honoring attitude towards the gentiles. It all fits together nicely.
I never really believed in inerrancy. I settled in infallibility in college…by that I meant that I trusted the Bible is infallible in communicating what it means to. I guess that’s still what I think, but some days…most days I really don’t know how to piece it all together. Some might respond that, “I’m trying to use my modern paradigm to fit it all together, but I do think we have a genuine problem here that can’t be explained away that easily.” Why is Jesus so idiosyncratic in his attitude towards the Law in Matthew? How can Jesus say “you have heard it said, but I say on the one hand,” and use the psalms, prophets, and Pentateuch to corroborate his claims on the other.
I hate the paradoxes. I just really wish someone would come out with a book that says, “Israel got it wrong again and again. The only thing to take away form the Old Testament is God’s radical inclusivity, and His patience in working with a nation He preferred. The Old Testament seems to stand in opposition to the New Testament because it in fact does. Israel got it wrong all the time, good thing we have the incarnation to correct this poor theology.”
Well…maybe those of you who read this could add me to your “be sure to pray out of purgatory list.” I think Dante’s got heretics in ring six? So pray hard and for a while. For those of you who don’t pray for me, well I’ll let people know where you are as I’m coming out.
Because they’ve been exiled there’s a bit of confusion about who really constitutes Israel. Is it those who were exiled as Ezra, Haggai, and others imply or is those who were left in Israel during the exile and the foreigners like Isaiah 56 implies? Well to help settle matters, Ezra decides that marriages to all foreign women need to be annulled or however they dealt with that sort of thing back then. Now there’s real grace.
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13). Jesus is the full revelation of God (John ??:??)…Mark’s portrayal of Jesus interests in the redefinition of insiders/outsiders, Luke’s outrageous attitude of inclusivity towards the Samaritans…Israel’s reformed and supposed Yahwistic honoring attitude towards the gentiles. It all fits together nicely.
I never really believed in inerrancy. I settled in infallibility in college…by that I meant that I trusted the Bible is infallible in communicating what it means to. I guess that’s still what I think, but some days…most days I really don’t know how to piece it all together. Some might respond that, “I’m trying to use my modern paradigm to fit it all together, but I do think we have a genuine problem here that can’t be explained away that easily.” Why is Jesus so idiosyncratic in his attitude towards the Law in Matthew? How can Jesus say “you have heard it said, but I say on the one hand,” and use the psalms, prophets, and Pentateuch to corroborate his claims on the other.
I hate the paradoxes. I just really wish someone would come out with a book that says, “Israel got it wrong again and again. The only thing to take away form the Old Testament is God’s radical inclusivity, and His patience in working with a nation He preferred. The Old Testament seems to stand in opposition to the New Testament because it in fact does. Israel got it wrong all the time, good thing we have the incarnation to correct this poor theology.”
Well…maybe those of you who read this could add me to your “be sure to pray out of purgatory list.” I think Dante’s got heretics in ring six? So pray hard and for a while. For those of you who don’t pray for me, well I’ll let people know where you are as I’m coming out.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Edward's Trinity
This weekend Lindsay and I went to the dollar theatre to see, “Walk the Line.” Because the seasons and interests of my life change as quickly as channels do when I have the remote, I’ve recently decided that I heard wrong. I’m supposed to be a rock star. So naturally, I’ve decided that even though every one who has ever known me has told me I can’t sing to save my life, I’m really awesome at it and that they are a poor judge of musical taste.
To prove everyone wrong I decided to run a self-diagnostic test. I got out the video camera, loaded my i-pod with Johnny Cash songs, hit play and sang along. Well…needless to say, humility set in fast. It turns out everyone was right. My singing career has officially ended. Then I decided to try my hand at public speaking since I already had the video camera. I pulled the best speech I know of the wall right above my computer. I began, “Live and live well.” It turns out public speaking isn’t much easier.
This got me thinking about how I perceive myself juxtaposed to who I actually am. Jonathon Edwards offers an interesting model for understanding the trinity. He proposes we understand the trinity as self (Father), self-image (son), and the relationship between the two (spirit). Think about that. This is the one guy in the universe that could actually make Himself exactly the way he wanted. I don’t know a lot about the historical Jesus. I suppose he could have been an amazing athlete, strapping looks, maybe even a David Hasselhoff build. Yet it seems God’s primary interest lay elsewhere. The one thing I know is that His perfect image of Himself was on a cross dying to redeem his skanky bride. That’s crazy. That’s scandalous.
Maybe it’s o.k. that I’ll never be Johnny Cash.
To prove everyone wrong I decided to run a self-diagnostic test. I got out the video camera, loaded my i-pod with Johnny Cash songs, hit play and sang along. Well…needless to say, humility set in fast. It turns out everyone was right. My singing career has officially ended. Then I decided to try my hand at public speaking since I already had the video camera. I pulled the best speech I know of the wall right above my computer. I began, “Live and live well.” It turns out public speaking isn’t much easier.
This got me thinking about how I perceive myself juxtaposed to who I actually am. Jonathon Edwards offers an interesting model for understanding the trinity. He proposes we understand the trinity as self (Father), self-image (son), and the relationship between the two (spirit). Think about that. This is the one guy in the universe that could actually make Himself exactly the way he wanted. I don’t know a lot about the historical Jesus. I suppose he could have been an amazing athlete, strapping looks, maybe even a David Hasselhoff build. Yet it seems God’s primary interest lay elsewhere. The one thing I know is that His perfect image of Himself was on a cross dying to redeem his skanky bride. That’s crazy. That’s scandalous.
Maybe it’s o.k. that I’ll never be Johnny Cash.
Monday, February 20, 2006
the imperfect
The Greek has two forms of past tense verbs, the aorist and the imperfect. The imperfect is defined as “a continuous action usually in the past.” Some might say it’s an action that was completed in the past, but the effects of it can still be felt today. For example, I have already eaten dinner, so I’m not hungry right now.
I never gave the imperfect much thought. Recently though it has helped me understand something that occurs from time to time. Every once in a while I’ll be doing something and then it happens, like John Lynch lighting up receivers on a slant pattern, I’m stopped dead in my tracks. I think the first time it happened to me I was in line for popcorn at the dollar theatre and I looked over on the wall to see the “coming soon” movie posters. Lord of War, starring Nicholas Cage, coming soon. Then the memory, bitter sweet, sets in. The last time I had thought about that movie was talking with Kyle. We were at Johnny Carino’s with a group of about ten people. It was a Friday night, and Jen was out of town with the Kids. Kyle told me he was going to use his night alone to go see the movie later with Blair. What movie I asked? Lord of War, he replied.
Here’s another one. We finally got our Tivo working, thanks to Baylor phone services. While setting it up I see the Tivo guy come to the screen. Then the memory begins. We were at the Lakes last year for the couple’s ice-cream social. It was only the 2nd or 3rd time I’d met Kyle. I was playing my cards just right. Trying to say something impressive so he’d remember who I was. As we were talking he hits a button on his remote and the live Redskin/Cowboy’s game starts fast-forwarding. Bewildered, I ask what is going on. Kyle replied with the enthusiasm that you know if you’ve talked to Kyle even once, “You don’t know what Tivo is?!? Oh, man you are missing out. This is the best thing ever!”
Or there are the more simple ones. I’m looking for a past sent e-mail and there, it is in the sent items box. re: Sunday, to: kyle@ubc.org, I just sit and stare at the screen for a minute and half. I think to myself “it can’t be real.” Or the other week when I was when I was cleaning out my cell phone of numbers I never call anymore. Through the H’s, I’s, J’s, then the K’s. I don’t even want to delete it. I’m not sure why. I guess in a selfish way it helps me ignore reality. So though I’ll never call that number again, I leave it in my phone.
I’m sure we all have these moments. These moments when an action brought to completion in the past is felt, and felt deeply in present. These moments seem so imperfect.
I never gave the imperfect much thought. Recently though it has helped me understand something that occurs from time to time. Every once in a while I’ll be doing something and then it happens, like John Lynch lighting up receivers on a slant pattern, I’m stopped dead in my tracks. I think the first time it happened to me I was in line for popcorn at the dollar theatre and I looked over on the wall to see the “coming soon” movie posters. Lord of War, starring Nicholas Cage, coming soon. Then the memory, bitter sweet, sets in. The last time I had thought about that movie was talking with Kyle. We were at Johnny Carino’s with a group of about ten people. It was a Friday night, and Jen was out of town with the Kids. Kyle told me he was going to use his night alone to go see the movie later with Blair. What movie I asked? Lord of War, he replied.
Here’s another one. We finally got our Tivo working, thanks to Baylor phone services. While setting it up I see the Tivo guy come to the screen. Then the memory begins. We were at the Lakes last year for the couple’s ice-cream social. It was only the 2nd or 3rd time I’d met Kyle. I was playing my cards just right. Trying to say something impressive so he’d remember who I was. As we were talking he hits a button on his remote and the live Redskin/Cowboy’s game starts fast-forwarding. Bewildered, I ask what is going on. Kyle replied with the enthusiasm that you know if you’ve talked to Kyle even once, “You don’t know what Tivo is?!? Oh, man you are missing out. This is the best thing ever!”
Or there are the more simple ones. I’m looking for a past sent e-mail and there, it is in the sent items box. re: Sunday, to: kyle@ubc.org, I just sit and stare at the screen for a minute and half. I think to myself “it can’t be real.” Or the other week when I was when I was cleaning out my cell phone of numbers I never call anymore. Through the H’s, I’s, J’s, then the K’s. I don’t even want to delete it. I’m not sure why. I guess in a selfish way it helps me ignore reality. So though I’ll never call that number again, I leave it in my phone.
I’m sure we all have these moments. These moments when an action brought to completion in the past is felt, and felt deeply in present. These moments seem so imperfect.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Marginal Diminishing Utility and Mystery
Marginal Diminishing Utility and Mystery…
Today’s post actually came from a conversation we had with the Dugans in their car after church. Pondering a topic from Sunday school this morning, the notion of “God as mystery,” was brought to the forefront of the discussion. Lindsay, commented that “maybe the reason God has so much mystery in the Bible, is because if She didn’t we would quickly become board with Her.” Lindsay even applied the language marginal diminishing utility to the concept. I first learned the phrase in high school from my economics teacher who explained like this: “If you go to Burger King on Monday and order a Whooper, it probably will taste great. If you do the same everyday of the week, by Friday you probably won’t enjoy the Whooper very much anymore.” Hence the idea is that you appreciate something less and less each time you use or consume it.
Could this be applied to God and mystery? Lindsay continued by citing several examples. Yesterday we watched Discovery specials on both Big Foot and America’s Lochness Monster, supposedly located in Lake Champlain in New York. By the end of both programs we were convinced of their existences, though they both be enigmatic and elusive. She then pointed out a program we watched this last November on Kennedy’s assassination. The program examined the major evidence from several different angles: the open microphone on the motorcycle using acoustics, the famous photo with new photo software, the Zappuder film using new software, and lastly they recreated Oswald’s shots with some fancy Kennedy/Connelly models that tested the ballistic probability of the magic bullet. By the end of this program we were both convinced it was unfortunately, not a conspiracy.
See the difference here. Once we figured out the mystery had been solved in the Kennedy case we lost interest. Conversely the enigma of the Big Foot/Lochness cases heightened our interest. The more I think about it the more I think she may indeed be right. There is something mysterious about God that keeps us enamored with Her. It is precisely because we are unable to comprehend the deep mysteries of God that our experience with Her does not diminish marginally. She is the wellspring of life, the first and the last. She is the alpha and the omega, and She is who She is. She is She whom can’t be comprehended. She is mystery.
Today’s post actually came from a conversation we had with the Dugans in their car after church. Pondering a topic from Sunday school this morning, the notion of “God as mystery,” was brought to the forefront of the discussion. Lindsay, commented that “maybe the reason God has so much mystery in the Bible, is because if She didn’t we would quickly become board with Her.” Lindsay even applied the language marginal diminishing utility to the concept. I first learned the phrase in high school from my economics teacher who explained like this: “If you go to Burger King on Monday and order a Whooper, it probably will taste great. If you do the same everyday of the week, by Friday you probably won’t enjoy the Whooper very much anymore.” Hence the idea is that you appreciate something less and less each time you use or consume it.
Could this be applied to God and mystery? Lindsay continued by citing several examples. Yesterday we watched Discovery specials on both Big Foot and America’s Lochness Monster, supposedly located in Lake Champlain in New York. By the end of both programs we were convinced of their existences, though they both be enigmatic and elusive. She then pointed out a program we watched this last November on Kennedy’s assassination. The program examined the major evidence from several different angles: the open microphone on the motorcycle using acoustics, the famous photo with new photo software, the Zappuder film using new software, and lastly they recreated Oswald’s shots with some fancy Kennedy/Connelly models that tested the ballistic probability of the magic bullet. By the end of this program we were both convinced it was unfortunately, not a conspiracy.
See the difference here. Once we figured out the mystery had been solved in the Kennedy case we lost interest. Conversely the enigma of the Big Foot/Lochness cases heightened our interest. The more I think about it the more I think she may indeed be right. There is something mysterious about God that keeps us enamored with Her. It is precisely because we are unable to comprehend the deep mysteries of God that our experience with Her does not diminish marginally. She is the wellspring of life, the first and the last. She is the alpha and the omega, and She is who She is. She is She whom can’t be comprehended. She is mystery.
In a perfect World
Today has been dedicated to analyzing Barth's preaching method, commenting on Boethian vs. Manichean evil, and writing a paper on Helmut Thielicke, thus today’s blog is going to be my intellectual break and perhaps a bit of fun.
I've always thought a good dissertation idea would be the ethics and economy of the Eschaton. (The use of alliteration was not intentional) Well please don't take what follows that seriously, but there might be some secret hopes in what follows.
Monday- Using my time machine, Brett Favre and I would travel to the greatest athletic events in sports history and watch them live. At the end of the day I would come home and have unlimited Leinenkugel's creamy dark waiting for me, and Lindsay and I would watch Braveheart.
Tuesday- C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkein and I would go to the Eagle and Child pub and talk about our ideas for stories we were working on. Lewis and Tolkein would frequently comment to me, "oooh, that is better than everything I've ever thought of." I would come home and have an unlimited amount of Fat Tire waiting for me and Lindsay and I would watch the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.
Wednesday- Bono and I would go to Hollywood and make guest appearances on the major production company set's. We would be guess stars in great movies. We would then go home and of course drink an unlimited amount of Guinness. Lindsay and I would watch the Matrix trilogy.
Thursday- Greg Boyd and I would go fishing. I wouldn't matter what time of the year it was. We would go regular fishing, ice fishing, or fly-fishing. Then I would come home and have an unlimited supply of Shiner and Lindsay and I would watch Gladiator.
Friday- MLK Jr. and I would go to wherever Johnny Cash, U2, Coldplay, Simon and Garfunkel, David Crowder Band, and James were playing. That would always be the bands that played too. Then since it was the weekend we would all go to Cricket's and drink a variety of things. Lindsay and I would watch Narnia.
Saturday- all the people that were in my wedding and any other cool people that I wanted to bring, would visit some new place in the world we had never been. When we got there, there would always be a waterfall that was of course flowing with 1554. We'd all watch the Potter movies.
Sunday we'd all go to church and repent. God's grace would be the only thing flowing like a river on this day.
Some other key items
I'd have an endless wardrobe of Patagonia, Columbia, L.L. Bean and North Face
Every car would be a hybrid
I would own a couple of Gary Fisher mountain bikes
I could eat as much chocolate cake as I wanted and it wouldn’t affect my cholesterol
I would have unlimited spending ability at R.E.I., Uncommon Grounds, Crickets, Best Buy, and Rudy's
I would smoke a pipe and it wouldn't cause mouth cancer
The earth wouldn't be polluted.
Green Bay Wisconsin would be the nations capital
Beef stroganoff every night
I'd own a solar energy efficient house on Lake Tomahawk
I'd be a professor who only had to talk with students when I wanted to and we would only talk about what I was currently pondering
Poverty would stop....No one would be hungry ever again
War would stop
Cancer would be gone
Aids would be gone
Kyle would have preached that sermon
I've always thought a good dissertation idea would be the ethics and economy of the Eschaton. (The use of alliteration was not intentional) Well please don't take what follows that seriously, but there might be some secret hopes in what follows.
Monday- Using my time machine, Brett Favre and I would travel to the greatest athletic events in sports history and watch them live. At the end of the day I would come home and have unlimited Leinenkugel's creamy dark waiting for me, and Lindsay and I would watch Braveheart.
Tuesday- C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkein and I would go to the Eagle and Child pub and talk about our ideas for stories we were working on. Lewis and Tolkein would frequently comment to me, "oooh, that is better than everything I've ever thought of." I would come home and have an unlimited amount of Fat Tire waiting for me and Lindsay and I would watch the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.
Wednesday- Bono and I would go to Hollywood and make guest appearances on the major production company set's. We would be guess stars in great movies. We would then go home and of course drink an unlimited amount of Guinness. Lindsay and I would watch the Matrix trilogy.
Thursday- Greg Boyd and I would go fishing. I wouldn't matter what time of the year it was. We would go regular fishing, ice fishing, or fly-fishing. Then I would come home and have an unlimited supply of Shiner and Lindsay and I would watch Gladiator.
Friday- MLK Jr. and I would go to wherever Johnny Cash, U2, Coldplay, Simon and Garfunkel, David Crowder Band, and James were playing. That would always be the bands that played too. Then since it was the weekend we would all go to Cricket's and drink a variety of things. Lindsay and I would watch Narnia.
Saturday- all the people that were in my wedding and any other cool people that I wanted to bring, would visit some new place in the world we had never been. When we got there, there would always be a waterfall that was of course flowing with 1554. We'd all watch the Potter movies.
Sunday we'd all go to church and repent. God's grace would be the only thing flowing like a river on this day.
Some other key items
I'd have an endless wardrobe of Patagonia, Columbia, L.L. Bean and North Face
Every car would be a hybrid
I would own a couple of Gary Fisher mountain bikes
I could eat as much chocolate cake as I wanted and it wouldn’t affect my cholesterol
I would have unlimited spending ability at R.E.I., Uncommon Grounds, Crickets, Best Buy, and Rudy's
I would smoke a pipe and it wouldn't cause mouth cancer
The earth wouldn't be polluted.
Green Bay Wisconsin would be the nations capital
Beef stroganoff every night
I'd own a solar energy efficient house on Lake Tomahawk
I'd be a professor who only had to talk with students when I wanted to and we would only talk about what I was currently pondering
Poverty would stop....No one would be hungry ever again
War would stop
Cancer would be gone
Aids would be gone
Kyle would have preached that sermon
Friday, February 17, 2006
the Berkeley kid*
I’ve gotten to know a small percentage of the students that I work with. A few of them, I would actually call friend. You know the kind of people that you might actually play Scrabble or a game of chess with.
There is this one kid, who I’ll leave anonymous, that I run into frequently because consequently the overhang/porch that our door exits to, is also a popular place for the smokers to hang out. The smokers, and this kid in particular, happen to be some of the nicest people in the building. Over the course of the semester we’ve had some dialogue. I initially met him over lunch because he responded to one of the bi-weekly devotionals, I send to all the residents, in a negative way. The subject was “Christ in the Midst of Tragedy,” something last semester knew all about.
Come to find out, this kid has had a difficult background. In a recent conversation he was talking to me about his two mothers. Just to clarify, yes you did read that right, his mothers are lesbians. This kid fits all the prerequisites for not belonging to Baylor. I’d expect to find him somewhere like, Berkeley (that’s for you Robert), but not Baylor. He knows the tenets of the Gospel, but has long rejected church because, surprisingly, the church rejected his mom.
So here’s my real problem. He’s not a jerk. How much easier life would be if people like him were jerks. Last night I saw him with a flashlight shining it down on something in the bed of his truck. Today when I was leaving for lunch, he was out there on the bench smoking, and so we began our typical small talk greeting and then I saw a tail of some small creature coming out of the large front pocket of his sweatshirt. “Know what that is,” he asked? I guessed correctly that it was a squirrel. With curiosity at a pinnacle, he began to explain the short story.
Apparently two kids from Martin Hall shot the squirrel with a bb gun. Stunned, but not dead the squirrel jumped of the roof of a building and flew downwards for fifteen feet before hitting the ground. The squirrel was now in pain, but not dead. My friend headed towards the squirrel to pick it up. When I saw him the night before he was feeding it nuts and giving it water in the back of his truck. Now the squirrel was curled up in his lap occasionally moving around in circles without use of the right side of it’s body, yet somehow finding comfort in it’s rescuers lap. My friend explained that he couldn’t just leave it there and let the two students torture it or kick it around like a hockey puck. He was trying to find a time in the day when he could go to the vet and see how much it would cost to have the squirrel put to sleep because he didn’t have the means (or the will in my opinion) to do it himself.
As I was walking away I thought, wow what compassion! That’s the sort of tedious attention to the seemingly insignificant that, that crazy Galilean Guy gave to marginalized.
Damn it! If only this kid was a jerk it would make judging the masses a lot easier. Now I’ve got to admit that I’ve learned something about my faith from the Berkeley kid.
*to understand my connotation of Berkeley, check out the Homecoming edtion of "The Noze" The article is something like "Baylor, Berkeley on the Brazos." Pretty funny stuff.
There is this one kid, who I’ll leave anonymous, that I run into frequently because consequently the overhang/porch that our door exits to, is also a popular place for the smokers to hang out. The smokers, and this kid in particular, happen to be some of the nicest people in the building. Over the course of the semester we’ve had some dialogue. I initially met him over lunch because he responded to one of the bi-weekly devotionals, I send to all the residents, in a negative way. The subject was “Christ in the Midst of Tragedy,” something last semester knew all about.
Come to find out, this kid has had a difficult background. In a recent conversation he was talking to me about his two mothers. Just to clarify, yes you did read that right, his mothers are lesbians. This kid fits all the prerequisites for not belonging to Baylor. I’d expect to find him somewhere like, Berkeley (that’s for you Robert), but not Baylor. He knows the tenets of the Gospel, but has long rejected church because, surprisingly, the church rejected his mom.
So here’s my real problem. He’s not a jerk. How much easier life would be if people like him were jerks. Last night I saw him with a flashlight shining it down on something in the bed of his truck. Today when I was leaving for lunch, he was out there on the bench smoking, and so we began our typical small talk greeting and then I saw a tail of some small creature coming out of the large front pocket of his sweatshirt. “Know what that is,” he asked? I guessed correctly that it was a squirrel. With curiosity at a pinnacle, he began to explain the short story.
Apparently two kids from Martin Hall shot the squirrel with a bb gun. Stunned, but not dead the squirrel jumped of the roof of a building and flew downwards for fifteen feet before hitting the ground. The squirrel was now in pain, but not dead. My friend headed towards the squirrel to pick it up. When I saw him the night before he was feeding it nuts and giving it water in the back of his truck. Now the squirrel was curled up in his lap occasionally moving around in circles without use of the right side of it’s body, yet somehow finding comfort in it’s rescuers lap. My friend explained that he couldn’t just leave it there and let the two students torture it or kick it around like a hockey puck. He was trying to find a time in the day when he could go to the vet and see how much it would cost to have the squirrel put to sleep because he didn’t have the means (or the will in my opinion) to do it himself.
As I was walking away I thought, wow what compassion! That’s the sort of tedious attention to the seemingly insignificant that, that crazy Galilean Guy gave to marginalized.
Damn it! If only this kid was a jerk it would make judging the masses a lot easier. Now I’ve got to admit that I’ve learned something about my faith from the Berkeley kid.
*to understand my connotation of Berkeley, check out the Homecoming edtion of "The Noze" The article is something like "Baylor, Berkeley on the Brazos." Pretty funny stuff.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
the problem with knowing the gospel
I’m tired. I just spent the last 40 minutes thinking about and answering a question on a discussion board. Because I’m lazy and efficient it will also serve as my blog post. I’m responding to the question, “what happens when two people have the same experience but different reactions?” I’ve given the context a specific form that applies to the discussion at large…the propositional nature of the gospel.
XXXX,
You had to ask that question. Why couldn't you just let this discussion be easy like Christianity is?
Well I'll take a stab, but my caveat is that it is precisely that...a stab (in the dark no less as I think the saying goes).
I would start here. Why do they have different reactions? Well, following the work of one of my all time favorite theologians, Greg Boyd, I submit that people fundamentally think in concrete pictures. So when two people experience something they immediately let a number of passed experiences both consciously and unconsciously inform the connotations that they develop in relation to the experience.
Let's say, for the sake of argument that the event the two people witnessed was God and undisputedly so. One person fixes the connotation correctly on one person of the trinity and thus gets their epistemology correct in this case. Now lets say the other person has this same experience, but fixes the connotations developed from the experience on Buddha. We (as the majority of evangelicals) would say they have messed up the epistemological portion of the experience.
Now in what follows I'm going to do something rare for a discussion like this in a semi-public forum and give my real opinion.
C.S. Lewis, at the end of The Last Battle, has this amazing encounter between Aslan and Emeth the Tarkan, Tarkan being our Buddhist in this case. The scene takes place in what we might call judgment day or end of time. Emeth, comes before Aslan with the assumed epistemology of the Narnian-Evangelicals concerning soteriology. Thus, he is quite sure that he will be disqualified and thus ineligible for salvation. But here, we are surprised by Aslan, who tells Emeth that he received all Emeth's worship, even though it was directed at Tash. Why? Because Aslan receives all true worship. Now some might object here, but might I quote Hebrews 4:12, "The word of God is living and active dividing joints and marrow, soul and spirit, and thoughts from intentions of the heart." I looked up word here and it is logos, so I'm going to go ahead and say we can talk about logos as God himself. God then, divides thoughts from intentions of the heart as Lewis implies in the above passage.
What Lewis does here is important. Not only does he point out that in this case ontology (who Emeth was and what he was really trying to do) was more important than epistemology (the propositional nature of Emeth's expression of worship), but he also forces us to think about just how difficult it is to draw the lines of salvation.
For example. It's one thing to say that ”the Hindu in the 4th century will be saved because of God's big grace and the Hindu never had the chance to accept the propositional form of the gospel.” But how about a more complicated example? What about the teenage female who grew up in America and happened to have the technical propositions of the gospel presented to her by a televangelist on TV, only to have him request her money two minutes later. She's probably turned off. To complicate the matter she is not only turned off because of the fact that he was a televangelist, but in the process of explaining the gospel he also mentioned the part about how the loving father sent his only son to die for us. Well did I mention that this girl is 17 living on the street because her father and brother sexually abused her for the last five years? Thus the idea of God the father and son nauseates her. She hates this God. He must be like the only concrete expression of father she knew. Ergo, she rejects God. She had the knowledge though. She should have just accepted it. Right? Unfortunately, she never did. She committed suicide out of depression and self-hatred.
It's a miracle my friends, a miracle. I'm not trying to make constitutive inclusivists out of all of us only to, in the spirit of Tony Jones, elicit complex answers to complex questions.
Thanks for the thought provoking question XXXX. What do ya'll think?
Carney
XXXX,
You had to ask that question. Why couldn't you just let this discussion be easy like Christianity is?
Well I'll take a stab, but my caveat is that it is precisely that...a stab (in the dark no less as I think the saying goes).
I would start here. Why do they have different reactions? Well, following the work of one of my all time favorite theologians, Greg Boyd, I submit that people fundamentally think in concrete pictures. So when two people experience something they immediately let a number of passed experiences both consciously and unconsciously inform the connotations that they develop in relation to the experience.
Let's say, for the sake of argument that the event the two people witnessed was God and undisputedly so. One person fixes the connotation correctly on one person of the trinity and thus gets their epistemology correct in this case. Now lets say the other person has this same experience, but fixes the connotations developed from the experience on Buddha. We (as the majority of evangelicals) would say they have messed up the epistemological portion of the experience.
Now in what follows I'm going to do something rare for a discussion like this in a semi-public forum and give my real opinion.
C.S. Lewis, at the end of The Last Battle, has this amazing encounter between Aslan and Emeth the Tarkan, Tarkan being our Buddhist in this case. The scene takes place in what we might call judgment day or end of time. Emeth, comes before Aslan with the assumed epistemology of the Narnian-Evangelicals concerning soteriology. Thus, he is quite sure that he will be disqualified and thus ineligible for salvation. But here, we are surprised by Aslan, who tells Emeth that he received all Emeth's worship, even though it was directed at Tash. Why? Because Aslan receives all true worship. Now some might object here, but might I quote Hebrews 4:12, "The word of God is living and active dividing joints and marrow, soul and spirit, and thoughts from intentions of the heart." I looked up word here and it is logos, so I'm going to go ahead and say we can talk about logos as God himself. God then, divides thoughts from intentions of the heart as Lewis implies in the above passage.
What Lewis does here is important. Not only does he point out that in this case ontology (who Emeth was and what he was really trying to do) was more important than epistemology (the propositional nature of Emeth's expression of worship), but he also forces us to think about just how difficult it is to draw the lines of salvation.
For example. It's one thing to say that ”the Hindu in the 4th century will be saved because of God's big grace and the Hindu never had the chance to accept the propositional form of the gospel.” But how about a more complicated example? What about the teenage female who grew up in America and happened to have the technical propositions of the gospel presented to her by a televangelist on TV, only to have him request her money two minutes later. She's probably turned off. To complicate the matter she is not only turned off because of the fact that he was a televangelist, but in the process of explaining the gospel he also mentioned the part about how the loving father sent his only son to die for us. Well did I mention that this girl is 17 living on the street because her father and brother sexually abused her for the last five years? Thus the idea of God the father and son nauseates her. She hates this God. He must be like the only concrete expression of father she knew. Ergo, she rejects God. She had the knowledge though. She should have just accepted it. Right? Unfortunately, she never did. She committed suicide out of depression and self-hatred.
It's a miracle my friends, a miracle. I'm not trying to make constitutive inclusivists out of all of us only to, in the spirit of Tony Jones, elicit complex answers to complex questions.
Thanks for the thought provoking question XXXX. What do ya'll think?
Carney
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Wally Rauschenbusch
2-14
Happy Valentines Day!
Just came from chapel, where I heard Tony Campolo for the second day in a row. We joked about the fact that he is a modern day prophet this morning my scriptures 2 class. Last night he was bold enough to say that you can’t be a New Testament Christian and own a B.M.W. The remark was followed up with some explanation. He said that you can’t spend $80 grand on a car when you can go to the local used guy and buy one for $8-9 grand. I suppose that puts me a in bit of a predicament. He also notes that as evangelicals we should care about environment. Suppose now that I heed the second call as well as the first. Is it ethical for me to spend $38 grand…say on a Toyota Highlander hybrid.
I really do consider Campolo a modern Walter Rauschenbusch, with one important caveat. He has an objective view of Christ and his efficacious act on the cross, which empowers his view of the Kingdom of God. I think this is where Rauschenbusch, Ritschl, and Von Harnack… and well …most of protestant liberal Christology fails. Campolo did an eloquent job (I wonder if you can really call anything he does eloquent) of offering Fukuyama’s neo-Hegelian hypothesis as a contrapuntal. If capitalistic democracy really is the greatest thing ever, then ouch!!!
But then there is this thing. There is this parousia. There is this moment when creation will all say an existential “yes” in harmony. The season of hanging in Elie Wiesel’s gallows is over. The song of song text 2:10-12, will finally be embodied
“ 10"My beloved responded and said to me,
Arise, my darling, my beautiful one,
And come along.
11'For behold, the winter is past,
The rain is over and gone.
12'The flowers have already appeared in the land;
The time has arrived for pruning the vines,
And the voice of the turtledove has been heard in our land
Gee I sure hope that this is the best and last idea.
Happy Valentines Day!
Just came from chapel, where I heard Tony Campolo for the second day in a row. We joked about the fact that he is a modern day prophet this morning my scriptures 2 class. Last night he was bold enough to say that you can’t be a New Testament Christian and own a B.M.W. The remark was followed up with some explanation. He said that you can’t spend $80 grand on a car when you can go to the local used guy and buy one for $8-9 grand. I suppose that puts me a in bit of a predicament. He also notes that as evangelicals we should care about environment. Suppose now that I heed the second call as well as the first. Is it ethical for me to spend $38 grand…say on a Toyota Highlander hybrid.
I really do consider Campolo a modern Walter Rauschenbusch, with one important caveat. He has an objective view of Christ and his efficacious act on the cross, which empowers his view of the Kingdom of God. I think this is where Rauschenbusch, Ritschl, and Von Harnack… and well …most of protestant liberal Christology fails. Campolo did an eloquent job (I wonder if you can really call anything he does eloquent) of offering Fukuyama’s neo-Hegelian hypothesis as a contrapuntal. If capitalistic democracy really is the greatest thing ever, then ouch!!!
But then there is this thing. There is this parousia. There is this moment when creation will all say an existential “yes” in harmony. The season of hanging in Elie Wiesel’s gallows is over. The song of song text 2:10-12, will finally be embodied
“ 10"My beloved responded and said to me,
Arise, my darling, my beautiful one,
And come along.
11'For behold, the winter is past,
The rain is over and gone.
12'The flowers have already appeared in the land;
The time has arrived for pruning the vines,
And the voice of the turtledove has been heard in our land
Gee I sure hope that this is the best and last idea.
Monday, February 13, 2006
testing one, two, three
First I became subject to the face-book craze...now this. O, well...that's what happens when you are post-post modern
Carn-Dog
Carn-Dog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
