Lindsay funny story two
Roy Clemens Carney has been in, what the medical field calls, a breech position for the last couple of weeks. This is not real call for alarm because Dr. Sawyer reports many babies are in a breech position at this point in the pregnancy and as long as he flips by week 36 we are o.k.
Last night we were in bed and Lindsay who has an uncanny sense of motherly things and is usually correct, pointed out to me that she thought that Roy’s head had moved down indicating that he flipped. I responded in my Southern Baptist voice, “that’s because I prayed.” This is in part to express two things. 1. my own arrogance in belief that God is my cosmic vending machine and is just waiting to answer my prayers and 2. The sarcasm of the first motif was cover up the truth of the second--namely the fact that be I a good post modern progressive emergent—indeed believe God is really in the business of answering heartfelt prayers and that prayer makes a genuine difference.
Anyhow, so the whole of my response was, “that’s because I prayed, and when I pray God moves,” to which my wife wittingly responded, “apparently Roy does too.”
She kills me.
6 comments:
This is great. The substance of this whole situation is stuff Kyle and I talked about a lot. We discussed about moving back into the direction of belief-- of believing and embracing all the wonderful things our faith tradition has taught us to, well believe in. Yet at the same time we lamented the fact that it's hard to go back without always expressing a little sarcasm.
Belief and cynicism reside in the same neighborhood, and that's not always bad.
oh lindsey lindsey :) tell her i said what up! boy roy holler! josh josh, this problems of divine goodness class is going to drive me nuts. a whole lot of anselm and aquinas are about to be assigned in a class where all the kids are crazy about their philosophy. i can handle small doses because intro is the only class i've taken. jumping into a 4000 level is rough. i'm greatly lacking in the philosophical knowledge department. we are about to discuss divine simplicity....and can we describe God in a positive way or can we only describe God in the negative?....and how can there be a perfectly good, omnipotent, creator God in a world where evil exists....can we call God good and if so how do we reconcile other areas?.....these kinds of questions and concepts. i don't know who all we cover but anselm's proslogion and monologion are on deck for next week then aquinas' summa takes up a couple weeks. anyway, thats an update. my other two classes are going to be spectacular! i just feel a little inadequate for this philosophy class. hope all is well. i'm praying for you guys. i read an article by george macdonald that was brilliant! it was about the function and culture of the imagination. anyway, if you have any small tidbits of advice for me to keep in mind when reading anselm and aquinas i'd appreciate it. live the dream :) Shea
Shea,
don't be wooed by the paganism of the Augustinian import. anthropomorphisms and other language about God are positive statements that are written by Jewish guys who knew Yahweh better than Plato. ;) Simple my ass. God is both complex and relational.
Drink some scotch for the both of us.
Carney
will do :) thanks josh
Josh,
Is it really true that simplicity needs to understood as anti-relational and simple in the popular sense of non-complex, or does simplicity rather mean something like non-composite? Couldn't we hold to a qualified sense of simplicity, that might include God's relationality as part of God's eternal decision to be God-for-us? In other words, do you think there's a better way to maintain simplicity with the tradition over against the rather silly notions of simplicity put forth by some theologians (e.g. Erickson, Grudem, etc.)?
Erik,
A qualified simplicity maybe, but as far as I know, it seems to be a term that properly belongs to the camp of those you mentioned. If you could find me a creative qualified definition that I might be able to digest, I'd be willing to rethink this one.
As far as what you offer, I can't really say that I know entirely what that would entail. I get nervous around the language of "eternal decision," but I really don't understand the version of reformed that Barth puts forth. As you could probably imagine, my main concern is that our understanding of God allows for his maximal freedom in the now. Even freedom to decide to do something other than what may have seemed fixed in the past.
I have an atonement question I'm going to post for you in the near future on the board. Are you done with your semester?
miss you guys,
Carney
Post a Comment