Death

One of the most interesting topics for me to write on is death. I heard a movie director say that the reason he puts so much death in his movies is that there is nothing more dramatic than death. As long as there are novels, plays, screenplays, etc.; as long as there is art, an artist will find a way to deal with this subject. An irony in death is that it is a part of life. Another irony in death is that life as we know it is inconceivable without it, for meaning is measured against it. We have a unknown, but nonetheless given amount of time to "live", so what is the best use of it? What would we do with ourselves if we believed that we were going to live forever? Would we be... perfect? Could it be that sin is as much a result of death as death the result of sin? Surely, the symbol of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represents mankind's corporate decision to trade life for knowledge, and ignorance for death. But now we're in too deep to return to ignorance for we know the difference between good and evil, and we're not the gods we supposed we would be. We're not the holy God of the universe, with all of the elements, including time under our control. (Maybe we can be, or maybe our attempts to control are nibbles of the fruit, and the more knowledge we gain of good, the more knowledge we gain of evil, and thus with every bit of progress comes a tiny death in the soul, until we have progressed so far that the soul just dies.) But we can't be God, we can at best be Zeus, and at worst be a poor insignificant slave. So we can't just choose to be ignorant, as screenwriter Charlie Kaufmann so vividly and sharply conveys in his great work "The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind". When you know, you know, whether you know that you know in that moment or not. Innocence cannot be regained. The tree of life is guarded by flaming angels with huge swords. But redemption and forgiveness, atonement and justification are available. There is no such thing as the Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" (of the human being in this life), but the Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Soul whose sin has been erased from the memory of the one Holy God, there is such a thing. It's why Jesus matters, why his death and resurrection matters. True life is inconceivable without death, and people who want to live authentically should not live as if they are not going to die. But resurrection changes the playing field dramatically, because it assures us that this life is not all there is, that this life with its good and evil, this life with its breathing and with its dying, has meaning. And that meaning is found in embracing life for all that it is, and trusting God that he has provided a most unexpected, but beautiful way to a different kind of life, a better kind of life, a life that has passed through fire and come forth as gold.

Positivity

Is the preference of negativity over positivity to be considered insane? Some people are happily unhappy. Does this seem weird to anyone? However, I find myself having a succinct disdain for happy people because I assume that they're being fake. How miserable? Is not happiness basically pleasurable, and is it not natural to want to be happy, by virtue that it feels good? But not at the expense of authenticity. I never feel fake when I'm happy, because I am truly happy. Still, I have come to see that my disdain for happiness is not really based on a false assumption, but on a form of selfishness in which I am feeling out of sink with the happy person. And this is selfish, because it is my feelings, not his, which concern me. It would be just as selfish to maintain exuberance when someone needs comfort for the same reason that I am requiring someone to be feeling the same as me. However, I do believe it is possible to be pleased and also displeased at the same time, to love and to hate, to be joyful and sympathetic. I also believe that the good human being not only knows how to act, but knows how to feel. And is in control of not only his actions, but also his feelings, still more his thoughts. The three may also not be as dependant, as it at first appears, although connected. (Actions, feelings, and thoughts) We should see first that actions are based on principles. That feelings by the employment of right actions are to eventually succumb to good feelings about right actions. And also that disciplined thoughts produce good feelings, which makes it easier to produce good actions which makes it easier to have good feelings. This is all.

Speaking of New Zealand...

If you fly from the place where the sun sets to the place where the sun rises, where does all the time go? New Zealand is perpetually 16 hours ahead of us here in the eastern time zone. 13 hours ahead of the airport in LA. If you left LA at say, noon, on Saturday, you would touch down in New Zealand at 5pm on Sunday. Although you will have been in a plane for 16 hours, the time that elapsed from the time you left LA will have been 29 hours. Where did your thirteen hours go? They are like thirteen hours of your life that just didn't happen. You can redeem them on the return trip; if you make a return trip. But they are gone if you don't. How is that possible?
Speaking of "How is that possible?" My friend has an option on his laptop where he can delete a file forever? Forever? Where does this information go? Has technology figured out a way to make something actually disappear? Two questions: 1) Can something immaterial disappear? We know something material cannot just spontaneously vanish, but what about immaterial objects. For that matter, can they appear, or is the term "appear" confined only to material objects? If immaterial objects can disappear, then deleting something forever is not amazing. If they, like material objects cannot disappear, if they are subject to the first law of thermodynamics, then this is quite incredible. 2)Is information immaterial? If it is, and immaterial objects can disappear then this is quite incredible. If it is not (material) then it is also incredible since material objects cannot disappear. The only scenario in which a file being deleted is not incredible is if information is immaterial and immaterial means it can disappear. Seeing that this isn't entirely implausible, but finding it presumptuous, it seems to me that either the my friend's computer is lying, that his file has not been sent to oblivion, but to some place human beings cannot yet go, or that technology is now capable of performing miracles!

Speaking of Funks...

Speaking of funks, my friend is in a serious indy movie funk right now. He routinely watches movies. Every night after work he wathces some new movie he bought on ebay that nobody, but some art festival in Arizona, has ever heard of. I kind of like it though. He's not afraid to be critical, even though he's only 21, just because he's not a professional actor. But the remarkable thing is that he's not pretentious. He just knows what he likes. And he likes to talk about theology too.
I actually was just having a surprisingly fascinating conversation this morning with another friend about another friend who frequently gets into funks. I guess they are more like innocent obsessions. At one point, he was completley engrossed in "American Beauty", the movie. I guess at one point he was obsessed with "Pooty Tang". Among his vast array of innocent obsessions are DDR, and a hip-hop machine which he wanted to purchase in order to create a rap album. Already hilarious, this would be less hilarious if he wasn't a large Anglo-Saxon with admirably half-dignified, half lumbering way about himself. I hope he doesn't read this and think that I am making fun of him. I am not. If anything I am admiring his uniqueness. Same goes for the other friend.
And while I'm at it. I have another friend who was so obsessed with New Zealand that he went. He left this morning.

I know I've been on this theology kick for a while. Sorry to anyone who is not into theology. I did not mean to alienate you. I don't know, you ever just get into a funk, and there's just one thing you can think of worth writing about. Yeah, that's what I am in right now. But I had this thought today while I was having lunch at the seminary (a seminary is a place where people study to go into vocational ministry). All of these guys are theology guys. They eat, drink, sleep, talk, and meditate on theology. You'd think, that lunch would be a break from it all. I mean, they've been teaching, and writing all day, and now they have a chance to just be normal, and they can't do it. They spent the entire lunch period, professors and students, talking about theology. I don't want to be that guy. I want to be able to talk about other stuff. I want women to think I'm interesting. (That was a joke Rachel), (sort of). I just haven't had any other post-worthy topics on my mind lately.

The Holiness of Coffee

To say that anything or anyone besides God is holy is technically blasphemy. That is why I have opted to use the word holy in the loose sense in this most sacred essay. But seriously, I believe that the word holy can only be used to describe the defining characteristic of God. Another way of saying “God is holy” is to say that “God is other”. Pun intended, God is wholly other. He is such an otherness that the way in which he is other is completely unspecific. No one else can claim to have this attribute. To delve into discussion about what one should make of God’s calling his people to be holy, (in light of my somewhat arbitrary definition of “holy”) would be mostly off topic. For now it would suffice to say that God’s people can be other in so far as the term holy is used in our looser sense. People cannot be holy the way that God is holy. If they could then we could say that people can be God, and they most clearly cannot. But although they may not be able to dress up in God’s most distinguishing attribute, they may be able to wear a suitable imitation brand. In other words, people can be holy in the sense that they can be different, and separate, in the sense that they stand out, and in the particular case of God’s people they stand out for a variety of moral reasons. The way that I’m using holiness as it pertains to coffee is mostly in that way. But I shall tweak it slightly even now. Let the reader from here on in comprehend that for the rest of the essay the term “holy” will mean: set apart for an anointed purpose. I believe that any object can be imbued with a meaning that gives it this quality of holiness. I also believe that an object can be used for holy purposes. As missionaries to a materialistic, egomaniacal, selfish, gluttonous, people (we missionaries are not exempt from these descriptions), to know what objects can be used for holy purposes are of great advantage. With that stated, coffee is holy. May we not let it go to waste?Water is the beverage of choice for survival, and coincidentally it is not very often the beverage of choice. Alcohol is the beverage of choice for people who’d like to forget. Coffee (among many uses) is the beverage of choice for people who want to talk. How often to people really want to talk in this country? How beneficial is it when people talk to each other, as they say, heart to heart? And how often do they do it over a cup of coffee? I say that coffee is holy because coffee makes people take a break from the illusion of progress that motors their schedules, and has them sitting down talking with other beings made in the image of God. Doesn’t the New Testament propound a keen emphasis on community? What would become of Paul’s ecclesiology if community were not an emphasis? In fact, elsewhere cases have been made that community is the heart of Pauline theology. In working upon this assumption, and the empirical evidence suggesting that coffee brings people together, we can confidently deduce that coffee is a holy object that is a big help in the fulfillment of the Pauline vision for the church. If the church wants to create community, they must facilitate conversation, if they want to facilitate conversation, they must serve coffee. If they want to serve coffee, it must not be Folgers or Maxwell House. Not to mention that coffee tastes gloriously like motor oil, while at the same time fueling it’s partakers for hours. Also, anything that comes from a bean is fun. Not to mention the rituals that accompanies coffee. For most people coffee is more than a nasty beverage, coffee is a sensual experience. Think of all that goes into the coffee experience, the smell of the beans, the sound of the grinder, the sound of it brewing, the sound of it pouring into your mug, the feel of ceramic on your hands, and on your mouth, the smell of the newly brewed coffee, the reddish, brownish, black glow of the liquid. The inability to get the tune, “the best part of waking up” out of your head… yeah… There truly is nothing like coffee.Coffee is one of three things that the Coal Mine Café’ wants to sanctify for the kingdom of God. The other two are music, and action. So if you liked this little essay, you’re in luck because there are more to come. There will finally be serious attempts to unfold the theology of community as well as the philosophy of holy objects which will serve as the foundation of everything that the Coal Mine Café will be.

Guilty

This a list of things I think people should feel guilty about. Everything else they shouldn't, even if they do.
-Murder
-Rape
-Malice physical or emotional
-Stealing
- Conscious and purposeful neglect of the helpless
-adultery
Of course this list is way too general. But.. I do believe that people feel guilty about really silly things most of time. Of course, people are not often feeling guilty about an action but about a feeling. Not to mention that I believe Jesus spoke a true word when we said that "it's not what goes into a man that defiles him (such as unkosher foods) but what comes out". (paraphrase). The problem with guilt, though it may be justified is, that it is a sham for a motivator. For when you begin to do good out of the need to get rid of the icky feeling of guilt you simply reap another reason to feel guilty, and that is your own lurking unfaithfulness to yourself. It's a vicious cycle. What we all need is to be freed from guilt alltogether. You cannot, some people think they can, just stop feeling guilty, or beat sin head on, or become enlightened to the holiness of everything, in order to get rid of the feeling of guilt. You must realize that in Jesus' death on the cross, not only was freedom from the feeling of guilt accomplished, but in reality guilt itself was removed from the equasion, and that faith in that fact along with his resurrection is freedom from not the mere feeling of guilt, but also freedom from actual guilt, so that "guilt" becomes motivation because "condemnation", the real feeling that we call "guilt", is not a reality. In Jesus, we are free to live in the spirit, free to do what's right, free to fall off the horse and get back up again, free from final condemnation, motivated to press on without ever despairing.

Thoughts on Eschatology

Eschatology. I am biased against the premillenial dispensational hermeneutic; not for hermeneutical reasons, but for applicational deficiencies. The only applications I see from that point of view are bad or distasteful. Am I being subjective? Yes. But I believe that I see the problem in a rather different light, and that my perspective can help further the discussion. However, I trap myself because I do not like discussion in this category. In fact one of the reason that I hate this category, that is eschatology, the study of end times, is that is frivolous discussion, and distracts us from why we're here. I don't care what it is, even if its true, if it distracts us from our purpose as humans, I'm against it. There I said it. I am already inconsistent because I am talking about it. Let's declare today National Honesty Day.
I have heard it argued explicitly by many premillenial dispensationalists that they are premillenial dispensationalists because the apply the literal grammatical hermeneutic to the Scripture consistently. In other words, if you truly apply the literal grammatical hermeneutic consitently, if you in essence put your interpretation of Scripture through the literal grammatical machine, you will automatically and always get premillenial dispensationalism. When asked how the literal grammatical hermeneutic applies to poetic language that uses figures of speech, they retort invariably that the literal grammatical hermeneutic means that you interpret every genre according to its genre. This is wise and acceptable. But when it comes to eschatology and prophecy which also makes grand use of hyperbole, metaphor, and what the NT calls mystery, they insist that things like the 1000 years be taken literally. They insist that the Abrahamic Covenant be literally referring to land, ignoring the fact that the writer of Hebrews makes clear that the new covenant is better than the old, whether it be the Abrahamic or Levitic, (the writer of Hebrews is talking about the Levitic) the principle applies, that the New Covenant is built on better promises. Paul compares covenants as well by pointing out that Abraham was saved not by faith in the law (the levitic covenant), but by faith in the Abrahamic promise, that is by employing faith in the best covenant at the time.
But that makes a different point. The point I was originally trying to make was this: If other things in Scripture are "obviously" figurative, why not prophetic and covenental language? How does the literal grammatical hermeneutic apply then? On top of this, as I was saying, applying the literal grammatical hermeneutic allows us to see that God rates his promises, keeps them, but not always the way we expect, "that not all who are Israel are Israel". There are two Israels? Isn't is the most logical course to assume that these two Israel's are spiritual and physical. If this is so which Israel is which in this case? Who is Israel? true Israel, a phrase Paul uses, is the covenant people of God. The nation of Israel however the receivers of the promise originally, and therefore are desired greatly by God to be part of the covenant. God wants Israel to be Israel.
What I really don't like about premillenialism though is that if you insist that the 1000 years are literally1000 years because the Bible says so. Isn't it unavoidable for you to say that people who deny the thousand years are twisting Scripture, and if so, how can they be Christians at all since, the Bible is the authoritative source of thier theology? A literal grammatical hermeneutic makes this a very serious issue. Working on the assumption that 1000 years must be taken literally, it makes it most imperative to figure out the timetable of the end times. To neglect to do so, would be in effect to ignore the word of God. This is why people become consumed with figuring out the timetable of the end times. Their commitment to rendering arbitrarily portions of prophecy to be taken literally is taken to its consistent end, and you have people spending their entire lives dedicated to figuring out something that perhaps was intended to remain a mystery, at least in the specifics, and their focus on detail, at the expense of the whole, causes them to miss the main point of all eschatological literature, which is that the nations may rage, and people may be deluded into thinking that either the world is chaotic, or they they can control it, (a painful irony), but that God is in control, and to understand this does not requre one to be able to understand a timetable. In fact, it allows the believer to relax, and makes the non-believer reconsider. And also allows the believer to be busy about doing the work of the Lord, knowing that justice is in God's hand, and so is he. Amen.