Judaism: How Can I Make God's Revelation in the Old Testament Less Jewish and More Greek?

My hypothesis is this. Christianity, in worldview, not necessarily in theology is inextricably attached as child is to parent to Judaism. This means that if my understanding of Judaism is correct that modern Christianity has to take a harder look at itself and change when necessary. The obvious disagreement is over the identity of the Messiah. And Paul’s understanding of Jesus as set forth in the New Testament doesn’t merely mean that God is giving the Jews time to figure out that Jesus is Messiah but that the Resurrection of Jesus has jump started the Messianic Age, and thus Judaism itself looks different. It is my opinion that an out of balanced and dare I say a medieval anti-Semitic attitude has hindered better interpretation of important Pauline epistles like Galatians and Romans. Today’s evangelical theologians take for granted that Paul’s polemic in Galatians is against a Pelagian works-based legalism. It can be easily detected by skillful and objective exegetes that the brilliant, prolific, and limited, if not overly introverted Martin Luther perhaps saw too much of his 16th century European self in the 1st century Asian Judaizers in Galatians. A polemic on top of a polemic was wrought by such an interpretation, and now while we evangelicals rightly throw out Pelagian Soteriology, we throw Judaism out with it supposing that Augustine’s famous 5th century opponent was simply rehashing the old Pharisaical legalism. And so following this misunderstanding is the misguided dismissal of the whole of Judaism, whether this dismissal shows up in the replacement theology of the Reformers or the awkward historical categorizations of the Dispensationalists.
In my opinion the truth is that Paul’s conversion to Christianity was not a move away from Jewish Pelagianism to Christian Calvinism. But was a move from Pharisaical (semi-pelagian; the Jews were not Platonists. They were not determinists) Judaism to Messianic Judaism. It wasn’t until after the Romans ransacked Jerusalem that the Apostles’ movement (Paul included) was anything more than a Jewish sect, even to the Jews. (Acts 7). There were Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah and Jews who believed that He was not. Paul’s task was to explain how Jesus was the Messiah and how the message that would go out to the nations, i.e. the Gentiles, as prophesied in the prophet Isaiah, was commissioned by Messiah’s atoning death and Resurrection. His theology was absolutely dependant on a Judaic worldview. It’s redundant to say that Christianity is different than Judaism. Of course it is. 2012 is not the same year as 2013, although you don’t have 2013 without 2012. Christianity’s theology must be different qualitatively that Judaism’s precisely because Christianity accepts Jesus as the Messiah, but the way that Christianity thinks about God, the way it forms a worldview, the way it tells its story, the way it relates to the world, in its essence, not in its particulars is nothing if not dependant on the way Judaism thinks about God, forms a worldview, tells its story, and relates to the world.
Of course, the truth of my hypothesis depends on whether Paul’s conversion was a conversion within Judaism, or an essential conversion of worldview. Did Paul see Jesus on the road to Damascus and find in that conversion a kind of enlightenment into the deterministic world of Plato? Did he make a clean break with his Pharisaic Judaism? I doubt it. I stand on the shoulders of better exegetes, critical-historical/textual scholars, who differ greatly on Paul, some saying he was thoroughly a Jew, and some saying he was a bitter antagonist to the Jews and invented a palatable anti-Jewish theology for the Gentiles. But as an amateur self-taught Bible College graduate, it seems most likely to me that Paul’s thought was held together by Jewish presuppositions and formed by faith in Jesus as Messiah and occasionally put in Westernish terms for the sake of evangelizing Westerners. I have argued for this in my statements above and I have argued from my understanding of the text that I am reading. In short I find it highly unlikely that God would preserve the canon of Scripture for the Church with Old and New Testaments and give us an Old Testament that has no real continuing narrative theme all the way through Revelation. Here’s a 600 page story about the Jews and how pitiful they are. Now here is the solution… Greek philosophy. Is the story of Israel the story of how totally depraved human beings really are, so that we see our need for the Gospel as revealed in Romans? This seems like a rather tedious way to go about proving the point, especially since the Bible speaks as if God really expects righteousness and rewards actual righteousness and punishes actual wickedness. Or is the story so nuanced and tangled because it takes a story like that to furnish a faith in Creator God? The Bible conceived as an intricate story is the only way to make sense of its own versatility and constant speaking out of three sides of its own mouth due to its relational nature, and it’s blatant disregard for man’s felt need for materialistic rationalism.
Finally if one accepts that there is a distinctly Judaic string from Genesis to Revelation, the following parallels (next post) will be so illuminating so as to make one wonder how he could have even missed the Old Testament. If I can show the parallels, I can show that at the very least that it’s possible that Christianity is very Jewish in worldview by showing the unlikelihood that the parallels are coincidences.

Judaism: A Branch's Attempt At Understanding the Root

Introduction
If you have had a theological conversation with me of depth, and especially if you have listened to my preaching, you might have picked up that Judaism is a fascination of mine. There are two main reasons for this. One, Judaism feels no obligation to rationalism. In other words, for Judaism to exist, Jews have to accept that the most important things are things that cannot be comprehended by the faculty of the mind, such as God’s pure essence, or Torah’s essence, or God’s election of the Jewish people. I have at times been accused of being an absurdist. I’d rather be called “Kierkegaardian” I think, but I wouldn’t say that my beef with rationalism constitutes me as an “irrationalist” or an absurdist. Neither should Judaism have to endure this criticism; for to say that there are things that one can know and that one cannot know is a perfectly rational philosophical presupposition. But to claim that the most important things are things we cannot know with the faculty of our mind, is not a rational claim, it is a religious claim, but is not automatically absurd. It is from what I can tell a definition of faith. Nothing I have read from any orthodox Rabbis, despite major theological differences between them, hints any other view of faith; faith as the beginning of the Jews’ religious epistemological presuppositions. And if you know me, you know why that appeals to me.
It is not at all inconvenient that the faith which I profess is historically and theologically attached to Judaism. Therefore the second reason for my fascination with Judaism has to do with Christianity’s dependency on it. They (Jewish folk) may view us (Christians) as the annoying toddler who they just cannot shake off their leg. But we’re there, and we both know it. Regardless of Christianity’s deviation from Judaism, which is frankly more significant than many postmodern theologians might lead you to believe it is, we do share the Old Testament, and we both see it as Scripture. The Christian Messiah is a Jew who claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, and the greatest apostle of Christianity (Paul) is also a Jew who claimed that Jesus’ Messiahship extended to Gentiles as well and that that was part of the plan all along. As divergent as Christianity may be from Judaism (ironically Christianity’s whole claim is that “Judaism” is divergent from true Judaism/Christianity), it still owes its worldview and way of approaching life to the Jewish worldview and Jewish history.
Believing in and holding to everything I have said thus far absolutely compelled me to study Judaism for myself; not Judeo-Christianity which can only mean one of two things: either it’s a synonym for “monotheism”, and in that case you might as well include Islam, or it’s the brand of Christianity which is somewhat educated in the Old Testament. Still, the latter is so blatantly biased in its research of Judaism. Therefore, I have endeavored to study Judaism itself without Christian presuppositions about the identity of the Messiah with a hope to gain from this a template which I can compare and contrast to the teachings and worldview of Jesus and the Apostles. The posts which follow highlight those comparisons and contrasts.
There are other things I’m reading right now, such as “The Early Church” and comparing to my appreciated but theologically limited Bible (Baptist) education. These things will also be a part of upcoming blog posts, and I may intentionally or unintentionally mix them with the other stuff I’ve been reading about Judaism or philosophy or the Bible itself. I think that this can be profitable for both you the reader and I the blogger; if I am able to untangle the mixed up pieces by the time that my fingers hit the keyboard. So as to avoid confusion, I will be sure to be very clear and possibly clever with the title of my posts, as well as with the purpose of them; making distinctions between ones that follow particular lines such as “Early Church” or “Judaism” and posts that are hodge-podgy or ruff attempts at synthesis.
As it pertains to Judaism, what I have done in the past regarding Hebraic studies has been either tainted with overblown New Testament ideas, or too heavily guided by subjective Rabbinical commentary of which I am usually ignorant of to what particular school the Rabbi I am reading belongs. Because of the disadvantages of this sort of approach, particularly the latter, I decided to start with the basics and I bought this book written by an Hasidic Orthodox Rabbi named Naftali Brawer. It is called “A Brief Guide To Judaism: Theology, History, and Practice.” It is from this book that I will be making the particular observations in the following post. Although his Hasidic biases come to surface sometimes, he’s up front about them, and reiterates compellingly that the purpose of the book is to inform non-Jews about Judaism. Plain and simple. One of the things I’ve learned in reading is that although I have a hodge-podge of ideas from randomly selected Rabbinical readings from various schools of thought and mixed in with my Christian background, there is a lot I don’t know about Judaism. Also, I would’ve thought going in that I would find more convergence with Christianity and Judaism, and have my faith strengthened thusly. Actually, I have been surprised to discover that Judaism and Christianity have major differences. So much so that I’m embarrassed at having told my friend Dan on a few occasions that one has to be a Jew before they are a Christian. I still believe in some senses that this is true, qualifications necessary, but I think if I can trust Rabbi Brawer’s “guide”, a Christian is someone very different than a Jew, even if Yahweh is who we both claim as God! However, comparisons are as helpful as contrasts in this study, because it helps us see that what the New Testament presents in Christianity is not a new religion, but to a Jew, an overblown Messiah cult, and to a Christian, a true, but totally different Judaism.
So welcome to my brain.

God is Odd

Reformed theologian Walter Brueggemann has a great quote. In reference to God's displeasure and active punishing of the socially unjust Israelites as portrayed in the prophet Isaiah he says,

"It's easy in our secularized time to find such a Yahweh reference more than a little naive, and surely life can be well imagined and well understood without reference to Yahweh. But it must have been equally easy to do so in that ancient context. It is easier to perceive reality in terms of practical politics than it is to situate a decisive Yahweh at its center. According to the prophetic tradition, however, such a construal of reality is deeply misguided and will never bring security, well-being, or joy. Yahweh is the inescapable character at the center of things. Yahweh is, insists the poet, (Isaiah), deeply offended and mobilized to wound. All this from Yahweh can be avoided, but the requirement for such avoidance is taken by Judah to be too heavy. For that reason the hand of Yahweh remains vigorously and hostilely stretched out. Such poetry is an odd rendering of reality. But Bible believers do indeed operate with such an odd sense of reality as the only version of reality that makes sense of the whole world."

One might question exactly how "odd" this view of reality is. But it doesn't need to be too "odd" for Brueggemann's point to be grasped. For the prophetic perspective is in any age, as Brueggemann points out, conter-cultural. It certainly is odd in a secular age. And in mentioning secularism at all Brueggemann may have dug himself into a hole, but despite his vagueness, one like myself who shares many of his presuppositions can appreciate what's being said here, which is very relevant. We rarely put ourselves in the situations of the subjects who are receiving these prophecies. We get to see it all from God's objective point of view, and we sometimes in the prophets get a glimpse of God's personal feelings. But suppose that we were receiving the prophecies, let alone as secular people, but as ancients, it's relationship to our experience, our reality would certainly be difficult to detect, unless we have already decided to look at things from God's point of view. If there is indeed a difference between God's perspective of our experience and ours, and God is of the opinion that our refusal to hear his perspective is the cause of our rebellion, then we are doomed unless we choose to hear it from God's perspective, because there are two realities, and ours is not really reality. An Israelite might say for example that the reason Assyria is an Empire is that they have the biggest and best army in the whole world, the prophets would say that God has granted Assyria the biggest and best army in the world so that He can bring punishment upon disobedient Israel. So for an Israelite the correct perspective is one which is focused on their relationship to God. And perhaps the most stunning and I would say beautiful aspect of this line of thinking is that God is so much less world-event oriented than he is covenant relationship with Israel oriented. If history was a newspaper, (bear with the analogy)God's favorite page might be the Israel section which to the editors of this particular paper is worthy of (if its worthy of the paper at all) section E.

"His ways are not our ways. His thoughts are not our thoughts"

In a nutshell God is counter-cultural.

Marveling at Speech

The exchanging of thoughts through the medium of words is marvelous. By marvelous, I do not mean "awesome" or "great" or "good" or "friggin great" or any other vernacular-ed synonym. (Has anyone noticed how many ways that are to exclaim high approval in our culture?) By marvelous I mean marvelous, that is, worthy of marveling. In short, I think communication is marvelous. When we communicate we take great risks. Mostly, we risk being misunderstood, and thus we also risk being opposed for an untruth, or a misunderstood truth. That we can use words that can be misunderstood is marvelous enough. You would think that the entire point of having words is to avoid miscommunication. The whole point is to communicate! Yet we would probably be a victim of misunderstanding less if we didn't talk at all. But then, we might be taken as anti-social and thus a hater of people. In our refusal to communicate we still communicate.
And one considers this, one must wonder what it even means to be understood, and how one knows that one is understood. Indeed, being understood is something that many of us regard as a rare jewel, and pine for under the assumption that our anxiety and loneliness point to the difficulty of being understood. But if it is possible to be misunderstood, isn't it possible to miss being understood? And instead of our own words being misunderstood, it is us who misunderstand the ability of our own words to communicate truth, making our loneliness a reality worth doubting, since it may be totally based on a misunderstanding of our own ability to communicate.
Silliness?
I don't know. I think it's worth writing.

From Tuesday into Thursday

So if you're reading this post and you haven't read the last post; read the last post.
It seems providential that I stumbled across this silly article about Alfred Pennyworth (Batman/Bruce Wayne's butler); how he's Kierkegaard's "Knight of Faith" from the book "Fear and Trembling". Or in Kierkegaard's (the book to which this post and the last refers)"Concluding Unscientific Postscript", he may be closely linked to the individual who does not mediate his ethics/ relationship to the absolute telos, nor does he externalize them as the monastics. But he rather keeps them to himself as he relates to them absolutely, yet, the outside world wouldn't be able to tell that he is relating himself to an absolute telos. They would see him merely as Bruce Wayne's butler, doing the job of a butler. Basically Alfred lives in the faith that one day Bruce wayne will see the impossible and destructive nature of his idealism expressed in his duel identity, Batman, and repair his damaged psyche. Alfred's ethos, his absolute relationship to an absolute telos, i.e. his faith in Bruce is based on no higher ideal, or necessary reason. His faith is a pure presupposition against which he must constantly face the temptation to abandon. It is a passionate decision that keeps him from giving up on Bruce. But all of this is inward. None of it is external, or spoken, directly. So all the while Alfred expresses himself as relating relatively to a "relative telos" (like the majority of folks) he is actually relating himself to an absolute telos. In other words, a knight of faith can never be identified.
My questions are. Is the church (universal or local) required to relate itself, as if it is an individual, to the absolute telos? i.e. is the church supposed to be a corporate "knight of faith"? And if Kierkegaard is right, how shall the church be able to be a sign of the Kingdom of God, if the nature of being a knight of faith is being unidentifiable?
For me this is difficult because I think Kierkegaard's understanding of faith as presuppositional is correct, and I follow the logic of that all the way to his understanding of a "knight of faith." But I cannot reconcile that understanding and logic, with the nature and call of the church.
To be continued...

Relevant Kierkegaard

I hear you sighing.
"Matt says that his blog is about everything, but I think it's really about Kierkegaard, and sports."
Maybe.
But this post is not about Kierkegaard or his philosophy per se. It's about a Kierkegaard quote that is particularly relevant to a discussion which I've forced upon the parishioners of Steamtown Church via the teaching blog at steamtownchurch.com. So I'm linking them.
The quote:
"What has particularly helped mediation to grow and prosper in the ethical sphere is the deterring way in which the monastic movement of the Middle Ages has been used. People were made to believe that the existing person's absolute respect for the absolute "telos" (purpose, goal, end) would lead to entering the monastery. The movement itself was an enormous abstraction, monastic life a continued abstraction, so that life would be spent in praying and singing hymns--instead of playing cards at the club. If it is permissible as a matter of course to caricature the one, then it surely must also be permissible to depict the other as it has caricatured itself. In order, then, to stop the monastic movement, from which worldly wisdom has known how to derive great advantage, which even now it sometimes uses to preach indulgence from all engagement with the religious, (indeed in a Protestant country where Protestantism has prevailed for three hundred years, where anyone who wanted to enter a monastery would get into even greater difficulties than was the worried father who wrote: Where shall I send my son to school; in the nineteenth century, in which secularism is triumphant, we now and the stillhear a pasot who, in a discourse urging his listeners to participate in life 's innocent joys, warns against entering the monastery; one hears this and sees, behold the pastor is so gripped by his subject that he perspires and wipes away the perspiration)--consequently in order to stop the monastic movement people hit upon this foolish talk about mediation. Just as it is foolish talk to bring up God's name in ordinary chatter, so also is it foolish talk to place the absolute "telos" on the same level as the rank of captain of the popinjay shooting club and the like. But even if the Middle Ages erred in eccentricity, it by no means follows that mediation is commendable...the monastic movement is a passionate movement (related to what the Greeks also had, passion), as is appropriate with respect to the absolute "telos" and to that extent is far preferable in its nobility to the wretched brokerage wisdom of mediation."

It's important to note that although Kierkegaard prefers monasticism to mediation, (modern day Protestantism/the evangelical of my other blog)he does criticize the monastic movement for wanting to make the absolute telos external as opposed to internal. The whole of that particular argument is the assertion that one compromises the absoluteness of the absolute telos my making it external. That's not the goal of this particular blog post, although it's related and interesting. But now suffice it to point out the reason that Kierkegaard prefers monasticism to mediation. However, I might come back to discuss what exactly we should prefer as existing individuals if not mediation, or monasticism. In short, Kierkegaard would argue for a private yet passionate filled ethos or spirituality that could not be detected by anyone accept the one possessing it. I'm not very comfortable with that idea. But I do like the point he's made in the quote about the preferable nature of monasticism over mediation, i.e. the victory of passion over the tyranny and paganism of balance.

Baseball is for People Who Are Not Bored Easily

Baseball is a sport that doesn't need its romantic fans to defend it. And it is a sport for the romantic. It was America's pastime when America was romantic instead of cynical. I wonder if football is the cynics sport. I believe I could make a case for that, but that's neither here nor there.
Baseball is not in need of defense because the reason for which it's critics balk is totally subjective. How many romantic ways can one write that Baseball is boring? At least the romance employed by Baseball enthusiasts, is multifaceted, if not nuanced, and even at points objective. All the talk, the humor and hyperbole, by baseball's critics puts one thing on display. They think Baseball is boring. How can I persuade them that it is not boring? The fans of baseball can wax eloquent, and speak poetically about the ins and outs of baseball's intricacies, but if it's boring it's boring. Besides rhetoric is a lost art. An attempt to transfer enthusiasm may be the best method of persuasion.
The difficulty with Baseball in particular, when trying to persuade through enthusiasm, is that the enthusiasm which exists for baseball is an enthusiasm of knowledge. In other words, you have to know it to appreciate it, and you must know it on a deeper level in order to really know it. Furthermore, to appreciate it truly, to make the leap from hater, to tolerater, to spectator, to appreciater, and finally to enthusiast, you have to experience it existentially. And in all of these moves/leaps, essentially qualitative leaps, words can only build to a level of persuasiveness allowed by the subject. The critic must want to be baseball enthusiast.
So I'm not going to go the route of poetic persuasion away from the opinion that Baseball is boring. Even if it can be shown that a majority of Americans are under this opinion, I am of the opinion that a majority is not a synonym for a truth. In short, what you mean to say is not that it is boring, but that is bores you. Despite everything I said. I will still make an attempt to defend baseball against the accusation that it is boring. This is why it doesn't bore me.
When you see a pitch, I see the result of a thought out decision. A decision based on data, the empirically recorded data of the strengths and weaknesses of both the pitcher and the batter. When you see a pitch, I see a pitch count which plays into the pitcher's decision about what to pitch. When you see a pitch, I see a no one on base, or 1 man on, 2 men on or the bases loaded. When you see a pitch, I'm not only checking the pitch count, or the guys on base, but how many outs there are, and how the defense is defending the particular hitter, and what the manager for the hitting team is telling the hitter to do based on the situation, and the statistical data. And that's just one pitch. Nevermind a discussion of the home run, the squeeze play, the bunt, the steal. Or watching every pitch on its ways to a potential perfect game. Or a brewing confrontation at the mound.
Of course there is the esthetics of baseball culture. That's the area most defenders of baseball swim to. I like that too. But I've nearly exhausted the reasons for not going that way. And you may never understand the culture, the appeal of a ballpark frank, and the smell of a freshly cut ball field, the smell of summer, and a manager getting thrown out by an umpire, the sound of a ball smacking a glove. These are just little things that make us enthusiasts giddy about the whole thing. That's just us. We're quirky that way. But with so much packed into every pitch. With the fate of the entire game hanging on every single pitch, and the time to contemplate that fate, you cannot say that baseball is boring. Maybe you can say that contemplation is boring. But contemplate that for a second and realize that you cannot be bored and contemplating at the same time. If you realize that your bored, then you've acted, and for a second have by focusing on your boredom occupied your own mind, and are therefore, not bored. Baseball, for those willing to go beyond the surface is not any more boring than life itself. Perhaps many think life is boring. Perhaps that's why many prefer football...
Man, I am a snob.

Final Thoughts on Lebron James

If there is one thing I've never about that Lebron, its that he's bad in the clutch. In 2006 (I think) I watched him score 25 points in a fourth quarter comeback against the defending NBA champion Pistons. In 2009 I saw him nail a three-pointer at the buzzer in game 2 of the Eastern Conference Finals against the Magic. I've seen him takeover games and single-handedly win them for the Cavs. (With the Cavaliers posting less than 20 wins this year, one wonders how many games Lebron himself won? Is that not clutch? I can't remember one game I watched in which I thought... "man Lebron really blew that one." I do remember two games last spring though, when Lebron gave up. It wasn't an outright, intentional, lay down and die affair, but it was obvious that Lebron had somehow lost his motivation to play. After the Heat ousted the Celtics last night James himself even said that a lot of his emotion came from the fact that he had finally gotten over the hump of the Celtics, the team that beat his Cavaliers in the second round last season. He admitted that he saw no way for the Cleveland roster to match up with the Celtics roster. He saw no foreseeable championship in Cleveland. He had waited seven years, and signed two contracts and had not gotten the pieces to beat the Lakers or the Celtics, hell, even the Orlando Magic. The point is to win the NBA championship. He had lost trust that his organization would ever be able to complete the puzzle to win him a championship, and you have to give it to Lebron, what he wanted was a championship. He took less money to get it. Put in this light, his departure from Cleveland is justified, and done with no less motivation than the best of us would have if we departed one job for another. Talk Show host Colin Cowherd illustrated this point well when he compared Lebron leaving Cleveland to a lawyer leaving a bad firm. He also pointed out that lawyers get to pick their first job, and that Lebron had to go to Cleveland. He had to go to the "bad firm.", and was for all intents and purposes loyal to it. I feel for Lebron. I really do. I feel he should have the right to play for who he wants to as a free agent. That's what a free agent is. And we've all heard the argument that it wasn't THAT he left, but HOW he left. There's some merit to that argument, but having psychoanalyzed myself as a Cleveland fan for the past year I've determined that while the way Lebron made "the decision" had an effect on the level of my animosity, I would've have been greatly disappointed either way. For while I believe that Colin Cowherd's analogy has merit as a defense for the decision, and I never want to be part of the fanbase that makes Lebron feel shackled to a municipality called Cleveland, which I think he sincerely loves, and respects, and sincerely regrets the way everything went down, and while I didn't take his decision personally, I will say that as a Cavalier fan that I wished that Lebron James was not only about winning a championship for himself, but wanted to win one for Cleveland, the city of the Superbowless Browns, and the Indians, who despite their magical run in the 90's lost two world series, and are without one since 1948. If anyone could have sympathy for a sports city such as Cleveland. It was Lebron James. Now it may be a lame argument to say that he should've stayed for the sake of local sympathy. I understand that in the bigger context of his personal legacy that to ask Lebron to stay for Cleveland sounds absurd, but what doesn't sound absurd, assuming that this kind of egotism is tolerable, (it apparently is not only tolerated, but sympathized with, and encouraged), is to make a case that Lebron's legacy would be significantly more legendary if he did stick it out like Jordan and bring championships to the Cleveland Cavaliers, rather than join a superstar in Miami, and manufacturing championships through personal agreements made during the Olympics rather than through blood, sweat, and tears. Again, I understand why he did what he did. And maybe we should applaud the postmodern/generation x athlete. This vision of Lebron James being Cleveland's Michael Jordan was actually in my heart and mind since the minute he was drafted. He just never got his Scottie Pippen. Here was hoping that my favorite player felt the same. Here's the disappointment in discovering that the feelings were not mutual. There are weaker individuals in character than Lebron James, to be sure, but they are not Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, or Kobe Bryant. Maybe Lebron's way of thinking is a better way of thinking than those guys in the long run. Maybe we'll just have to get used to the utilitarian oppurtunist athlete? But why? Why? Why did the city of Cleveland have to be the ones that paid for the revolution?

Lenten Lessons

So here's what I know about lent:

You give up something during Easter season in order to realize something deeper about your life.

I'm embarrassed that after I celebrated it this year that I am not able to articulate it any better than that, so I sit her blogging on my second day of using facebook again not sure if I celebrated lent at all.

What's equally as disturbing is that I'm not sure that I should've kept Lent. I'm not a Catholic. When I told a Catholic friend about me kept Lent, he knowing that I am not a Catholic, said, "You're not a Catholic." And he seemed offended. But for what's it's worth, the following was my justification for keeping it, at least in my own head.

Even though I am not a Catholic, I feel that I am a part of the history of Christ that has been unfolding in the history of the church of which Catholicism and Protestantism are a part. I look at lent the same way I look at fasting. Fasting to me seems to be a really good thing because denying ourselves seems to be a really good thing. It focuses our attention. It has the ability to show us something about ourselves we might not have seen because of the habitual lifestyles we lead. A facebookless Matt is a different Matt than a facebooking Matt. And giving up facebook is a way for Matt to figure out if he really needs facebook to be a better Matt. Discipline in general seems to have more positives than negatives. A disciplined life is a happy life in my estimation, and it takes practice and discipline in order to be disciplined. Fasting is also counter-intuitive, but then so is discipline, so I think maybe happiness is counter-intuitive. But this makes sense. Think about what we would become if all we did was pursue our immediate impulses. I think our lives would suck. I think. Lent is an opportunity for us to discipline ourselves to discipline ourselves. And to continue speculating, perhaps in turn teaches us how to commune better with God, since it takes discipline to do that.
Alas, that being my justification as a protestant keeping Lent, I may not have done so as a Catholic. I suppose to some degree that's okay, but you Catholics out there are free to tear to me to shreds on this one. I'm standing in the middle of the street. I'm not moving and you're coming down the street on your two-wheeler, maybe you have a bat-pod. I'm not moving, so hit me if you like. I'm a target.
Anyway, if I haven't learned anything about Catholicism, or the significance of Lent, I have learned something by giving up facebook. And I tend to believe that my experience was spiritual.

I'm not sure yet if the distance I felt from my relationships had anything to do with facebook, but I am already starting to see the connection between my lack of facebook and my lack of feeling connected with my friends. I mean that's not a difficult connection to see. But what I wonder is if this is really sad and I'm addicted to facebook in an unhealthy way, or if I am just a human living in the technological age, but still human and need to be connected. Perhaps part of the problem is that there are not many things that I connect with people about. I like difficult things like philosophy, theology, religion, sports, and 20th century American novels, and stream of consciousness weirdness. Facebook was a way for me to wax eloquent with a witty status or something and get a response, a connection from a friend.
Perhaps this is just classic overthinking. But here's a thought that's a little more universal maybe. Is the feeling of being connected through facebook human connection, or is it superficial? If my feeling unconnected is a result of not being connected to facebook, and I begin to feel better now that I'm on facebook, shall I as a modern person question the possibility of true human connection in my lifetime? Well, maybe I better not go that far. I am married and feel extremely connected to my wife and in more ways than sexual. But the real question is; if I should conclude that my lack of connection was due to my fast from facebook, should I think twice about getting connected again? The broader question being asked, which is totally another post is; what is modern man, and should he fear his machines and technics? Are they merely giving him a different way to express his drive for human connection, or are they giving him a totally superficial experience and alienating him altogether? Or... are we alienated either way and doomed to a life of anxious desire for a connectivity we cannot completely understand or fulfill?
In the end, my lenten experience brought me know closer to understanding Lent, Catholicism, or the plight of modern man. But it did heighten my awareness of the reality of existing as a modern man and brought some of the questions that were sitting by the punch bowl, in the dark, away from the dance floor to the dance floor. And I think it was a valuable experience then, since these questions seem very urgent and relevant.

Existential Christianity

Existentialism is the doctrine that existence precedes essence. But is existentialism defining it's own essence before examining its existence? This apparent contradiction is only problematic if we locate the problem in the definition. But perhaps the problem is in the label, existentialism. The axiom; the a priori, of the ideal in question is that existence precedes essence.

When we think in terms of existence and not essence we find that existence presents problems of which essence thinking could never conceive, and therefore never solve, and our existence problems are real. However, what if they are not real? How would we know that our existential experiences are real? Surely we cannot discover their falseness by examining them according to essence, that realm which cannot conceive of existence problems in the first place? How shall it have the answer to a problem of which it cannot conceive? The philosophy of essence is an hilarious Holiday Inn commercial.

Some of you are begging for examples of an existence problem that cannot essentially be addressed. That's another post. Ha. What I find interesting is the claim that the existence precedes essence paradigm is the one under which the ancient Jews and the Jewish cult called Christianity operated; the claim that God's law was not the handing down of universal principles, but instructions concerning how His redeemed culture is to live, that is exist in a surrounding and yet unredeemed world.

That existentialism is now associated with atheism is unfortunate. I for one feel as if it has been hijacked. And when we find conservative Christians dismissing the published thoughts of more moderate Christian thinkers as the "brooding existentialism put forth as Christianity" I don't know whether to laugh or bang my head against the table. Sure, existentialism bears an atheistic form, but its main prognosticator, Soren Kierkegaard, argued for an existence paradigm in order to save Christianity from being swallowed up by a humanistic worldview. I will not fall into the trap of saying that existentialism is essentially Christian, but I think pointing out that existentialism as we know it, that is, the consistent use of an existence thought paradigm, was originally thought in relation to Christianity in order to avoid Christianity's death at the hands of the essence paradigm is noteworthy because as I have discovered at this point in my life, existence driven Christianity is what makes the most sense to me.

That folks should confuse existentialism with atheism, relativism, or the denial of any abstract truth, or the affirmation that all truth is contextual is an unfortunate misunderstanding. But that's another post too.

What Should We Do Today?

I walked into my favorite coffee shop and the first thing I saw was a headline that read, "Maybe 10,000 Dead". I thought, "This is terrible." This coming after a discussion with a friend about the book of Job. It all made me feel awfully self-centered because if it is true that 10,000 Japanese folks were killed, that means that there are perhaps scores of thousands of people hurting in Japan today. I am only one person here in the United States, and unless I am ridiculously self-conscious I'm doing pretty good. (Truth be told as a "Westerner" I am almost definitely too self-conscious already.) And now the more I write the more this inwardness; this inward approach to the whole topic sickens me, as if what is going on in Japan is not really happen, as if the earthquake is not real. There is no reason for me to be any less shaken in my faith about the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear explosions, than if something tragic happened in my personal life. But to take it a step further, and not to be overly cynical (trust me this post is going somewhere), all of these people, and all of us, are heading toward the same fate in the end. Given, most of us may not lose so much all at once as have many people in Japan this morning, (or it would be evening for them)but we will all lose. It's only normal for these things to affect our faith, if we have any. My main point so far is to say, if we're willing to think about it deeply, and it usually takes these catastrophes to make us think deeply about it, the whole thing can seem so absolutely absurd, but at the end of the day, regardless of the fact that it's unnatural to be as broken about the Japan earthquake, as the Japanese themselves, and certainly to some degree it would inappropriate and insensitive to purport to be; the other side of the coin is that we share a common humanity with them, a common experience, though perhaps variant in degree, of living in a world of suffering with a conscious that whispers to us that it ought not be so. To put the questions in blunt terms; "Given these sorts of "natural" disasters, why believe in God? And why should it take a personal tragedy to make us ask the question?
On one hand there is no easy way to handle it, and on the other, to try and explain in with abstract words seems both insensitive and impossible. But I have always said that faith exists for such a time as this. I don't believe this to be a comfort, nor the answer that anyone wants to hear, but I do believe its the truth, and the only thing I can say. No, there's one more thing I can say. People of the Christian faith believe that God became a man and suffered as a man, and that this is the universal atoning sacrifice for sin, but also that we now know that we have a God who knows what's it's like to suffer as a human, and now we can come to Him on terms as a human. We can say to God, "Why?!" We can explain how absurd this all seems. And we know that rarely is it the case that God answers our questions directly, rarely telling us what we want to hear, but always telling us what we need to hear, and to me He seems to be saying, "Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect" How is God perfect? How did He fulfill all things? He shared in suffering. His incarnation and crucifixion were not only the end and climax of our Christian story, but also the beginning. He died as our Savior, finally, but also as our example for eternity. I think it would be very pious but finally un-Christian of us to continue to speak eloquent thoughts about God's love to one another, and never show God's love. Recall James , where James tells us that faith without works is dead faith, and to be doers of the word, not merely hearers. So what should we today?

Just for Fun

Just felt the need to be philosophical you know? Which really for me is not something I always take too seriously, its more of a hobby than anything else. I guess my level of seriousness depends on the topic, and the topic on my mind which is about to fall on this blog post is not one I really take very seriously. But it is fun, at least for me.
The discussion starts as all good discussions do, with a question; what does it mean to be a fatalist? If everything happens according to plan, always, and if your were not keenly aware of the plan, which we evidently are not, otherwise we would all agree on the plan, and there would be no need for a discussion about fatalism, since its opposite could never even be conceived, then given differing situations and a confusing existence, the world is not at least completely predetermined, because, in summary, if it were, the whole discussion would be impossible.
So there is free will? The only problem with free will is that if it is our decisions which determine our "destinies", (whatever that means)and evidently under a free will mode of things, there can be nothing but chance, how do we make a wise decision? What is a wise decision if it is all free will and chance?
There are "patterns" which we observe in nature, and our experiences. The existence of a pattern would most definitely compromise an absolute stance on free will, for a pattern explicitly undermines chance.
The question would then be whether or not these patterns we observe are real or illusory, inherent, or contrived? It's possible we invent patterns in order to go on living, in order to deal with the absurdity of total free will and chance. But this in no way affects our ability to "make sense" of things, it only throws into question, what "making sense" is, as it is apparently at least trying to make sense of things. At least that's what we thought was the point of all this chatter thus far. But if we need the patterns, and we can't possibly know if they are illusory or contrived, why not act as if the patterns exist in order to go on living? The clearest thing to me is that if you're a fatalist, you believe in either a mean fate, or a dumb human, whether this human is dumb because she is absurdly pessimistic, or because she assume too much about God, and if your a "free willer", what threat is a fatalist to your obvious free will anyway? And the most profound clarity is the clarity that before you at every single instance, great or small, there is a decision to be made.

Lyrical Musings III

A Regressive Code of Morality (The Rise of Absurdity)
Carbon copy twisted destinies
Tied knots on top of withered ephiphanies
Cramped neatly folded inside
To get a cozy moment just in time for
The unapathetic
Dramatic exeunt tonight

They don't know what they want they just want to know who's not as
happy as they are
They don't want to be who they are they just wonder who they're
supposed to be
But if they could be me
They'd be
No different

A corrosive exotic mess layers the floor
Reeks nasty now confess you don't want anymore
But cheerful you give your stony brow away
To stewards wroth with nothing nice to say

They don't know what they want they just want to know who's not as
happy as they are
They don't want to be who they are they just wonder who they're
supposed to be
But if they could be me
They'd be
No different

Talked to a mistress so fair
Talked to a martyr who cared
Talked to a manic so proud
Talked to a maiden so loud
Talked to a Christian with doubts
Talked to a Christ-child on clouds
Talked to a foreigner
Friday talked to a freed slave.


Experience
Compelling invitation
And a great expectation
And I suppose I can stay
But if you weren't here I'd go
And if you weren't here I stay away
And the audio goes
Goes on and on
And the audio goes
Goes on and on

Securely committed
Measured and fitted
And I suppose I'm good
But if you didn't smile I'd change
If you didn't frown I'd stay the same
And the video goes
Goes on and on
And the video goes
Goes on and on

They told me you were just a vision of a movie I'd seen more than
twice
They told me you were just a song
That I couldn't get outta my head
Well there's just somethin bout a movie that just makes me wanna go
There's just somethin' bout a song
That makes me wanna sing.

Examining the King

"If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.”
That was Martin Luther King Jr. The purpose of this post is not to criticize the good doctor, nor the poetics of his poetically beautiful quote, but to use his quote as a springboard to question a vague and thus (in its vague state)untruthful perspective. It is not untruth in the ideal, but it is in the practical, but the practical has such a rare influence in this particular case that the ideal is for once actually too ideal, not too ideal in comparison to pragmatics, or what can actually happen, but too ideal in that it bears so little relation to how people in our day really think, and to the extent that even asking if they should think the in the way Dr. King prescribes does not have to jump through so many hoops, hoops which are close to an infinite number.
What I mean practically is that the quote does not make clear, (to say nothing about Dr. King's speech, for it may itself make clear) what exactly he is trying to have the street sweeper do. Are street sweeper's lazy? Not in my city. My streets are clean. Are they ashamed that they are street sweepers? This is a possibility. But it is an equal possibility that they are ecstatic to have the job, and it is another equal possibility that they would much rather be drinking and begging with their friends. This is the honest to God truth of the matter.
So then if the goal is trying to lift the street sweeper from the shame of his vocation then it only falls on the dull ears folks who have decent vocations. And it assumes the very problem that is trying to be remedied. It seems you Dr. King are more ashamed of being a street sweeper than a street sweeper is. The rich, by virtue that they are rich are in proportion to their wealth probably more ashamed of street sweeping, and the street sweeper in proportion to his wealth less ashamed of it. If it is not something to be ashamed of, and if our streets are clean, then what would want do we want them to think by this quote? Or forget "them", the street sweepers, but how should all of us apply this quote?
If Dr. King, (again it doesn't matter who the author is, and I am no doubt taking this quote out of context, but already taken out of context, this does present a worldview which many people mistakenly have, and so this is in no disrespect to Dr. King, whose name in this post merely gives nomenclature to the ideal expressed)is merely saying all work is worth the effort, regardless of what society says it's worth. This is an ideal that is worth the individual internalizing and applying. But the quote, unless I'm mistaken, doesn't seem to realize that the statement is actually an indictment on society such as ours which does see street sweeping as a lower profession, a profession necessary for the rich to benefit from Capitalism, but a profession in which Capitalists look down upon because they cannot understand the individual who would not have ambitions to capitalize, an individual who is much less ashamed of himself then they are of him, an individual who, for all anyone knew already internalized Dr. King's message, and thus didn't even need to hear it in the same way in which the pure in heart gain practically nothing from Jesus' exhortation that the pure in heart are blessed. They already know that. Only if this is a sly indictment upon snobby capitalists is this a worthy quote, just as Jesus' beatitudes are are sly indictment on the snobby Pharisees whose eyes were blinded to their own indictment. They may even cheer the sermon or the quote like Larry Flint's customers cheered his indictment.

Ramblings

Generally liberals are intuitive in the things that they value. The preservation of our environment; the protection of women; the right treatment of people regardless of their sexual preferences/orientation/whatever you want to call it; the simple atrocity of war which is essentially killing people for nationalistic or greedy reasons, not usually is self-defense or the ironic preservation of life; the observation that guns kill people, and so the logical necessity to remove guns from society; and the need to take care of the "less fortunate".
Admittedly I grew up in highly conservative environments, and so this will taint or improve my point of view, depending on how you view it. But I see many of the liberal intuitive values as shortsighted, naive, and ultimately deceitful. For instance, it sounds nice to repeal gun laws but pragmatically that means that all the people who got them legally can no longer get them, which means that two groups of people will be armed, the government and criminals. It's good to give the less fortunate money, but its bad to reward the irresponsible, and it is not prudent, nor fun to have a chunk of our income go to an invisible middle man called the government, so that irresponsibility and maddening bureaucracy flourishes.
I may have just built some of the biggest straw men you've ever seen. Feel free to knock them down yourselves. Enlighten me, but I must say this is just the way I see it.
But here's the other thing I don't understand. Why don't conservatives understand what they sound like when they vehemently disagree and appeal to past traditions to support their vehement opposition? I mean the problem with the liberal view is that it is naive and intuitive, right? It's not intentionally destructive, I don't think? So while there may be room to point out the pragmatic difficulties, when you show vehement disagreement, when you show passion, it's hard for the rest of us to think that anyone is that passionate about correcting naivety, so we naturally assume that you (conservatives)throw logic out the window, and generally love to kill your enemies which are, "the bastards who flew their planes into the Twin Towers," and "liberals".
If hippies are threatening to you, I wonder what it is that's at stake. Can a hippie make someone less manly, by just existing? Are pacifists dangerous? The only really safe people are the ones who are armed? I see people get really mad when they see someone dressing differently, or talk differently, or act differently. I don't understand it. I've seen dudes in frustration express their wishes that people would just be normal. Maybe my makeup is different. But I just don't care. I mean, if you have a problem with skinny jeans, then at least understand that the ancient Egyptians have just as much of a right to accost you for your "pants".

Two Libraries

There are two small libraries in my living room. My wife's stands in the form of a bookshelf on the one end, and mine sits in a window sill on the other. Not only are they spatial opposites, they are literary opposites. I rarely venture to the dark side. Except I did this morning. And I saw a book called "The Church on the Other Side", by Brian McClaren. I've read a decent amount of his stuff, but its been a while. I was initially drawn to his work at a time in my life when my head had more questions than answers, and I needed to read someone who had the same questions, not someone who had the answers. Eventually I began to grow weary of the popular "Emergent Church" authors. I wanted to read more substantial things. In fact I even left theological readings for a while in favor of the more "objective" studies of philosophy. So I read some Augustine, (theological I know). I read some Plato. I read some Hume, some Kant, and a lot of Kierkegaard. Then, I came back to theology. I read Carson, Wright, a book by Hays, some Barth, and Yoder, and recently Lesslie Newbigin and Jacques Ellul(Despite your suspicions, this post is not really about how much I've read. I'm just trying to spell out my literary journey as descriptively yet succinctly as possible). And then I saw Brian McClaren's new book, "A New Kind of Christianity." I read a few key chapters and threw up in my mouth. I hated it. There were so many holes in the logic, so many straw men, prejudices, and manipulative rhetoric, and I was more weary of the Emergent Church than ever, never stopping to notice that McLaren's bibliography was eerily similar to my library.
But then I picked up McLaren's "Church On the Other Side". The nature of the church is a major issue for me right now. I'm drowning myself in Ecclesiology. So, I had this thought, "wonder what Brian has to say about the Church"? The short of it is that I realized that much of my problem with McLaren was not theological, philosophical, or propositional. A lot of it may have been rhetorical and stylistic, but most of it was that Brian McLaren's works are not meant to be like the scholarly books I was reading. He doesn't fill in the gaps that the scholars do because he isn't writing for scholars or critics, but for followers of Jesus who are feeling disenfranchised or disillusioned. Now, the audience for that may be bigger than McLaren thinks it is. (He does sell a lot of books though), but in reading my wife's book I gleaned no novelty, but there was little with which I was in disagreement. And I found that I haven't changed much. I'm still searching for different explanations of my faith years later, I'm just finding it on the shelves of university libraries, instead of of on the shelves of popular bookstores, or my wife's shelf. The major difference between McLaren and those in his bibliography is that Brian just doesn't feel in the logical gaps. He foresees the cultural shift of our culture, and is aware of the conversations that are happening in the Universities, and expounds their practical implications for the blue collar. I don't think I'll read Brian much for theological insight, not to sound smug, but I will read him for insight maybe as to "what it looks like" or "how it's going to happen", and maybe for facebook statuses.

Responding Religiously

My friend Jon once asked me, “How do you know that God exists?” “How do you know that that Christianity is true?” The most truthful answer I could give him (although I’m sure it didn’t answer what he was really asking), the truest answer I could give him, in many ways, the only answer I could give, was, God has revealed it to me. In fact, Jon said, “That’s what everybody says. I hate that answer.” Now I sound like a mystic and best, and a nutcase at worst, and many of you think those are the same thing, but I can attest to you that I have never heard the audible voice of God. Nor have I had any sort of vision of Him, or an angel. But I don’t deny the spiritual nature of this knowledge of the truth of Christianity. I remember the day I realized that it was true, that Jesus is God, and that He died for my sins, and rose again; I remember it more vividly than any other day in life, and I tell you in the same intuitive way in which women just know stuff, in that way that aggravates the more analytical male animal, I knew it was true. The only other experience I’ve had that was as spiritual as that, was the day that my soul was lit up with the sudden realization upon reading Psalm 33, that compared to the ultimate reality of God, and his omnipresent yet transcendent pervasiveness over an infinite universe, and that the glory which represents this reality, the glory which forces me to my knees, is only a representation of the ultimate reality, that compared to that I am utterly insignificant, thus, hardly worthy of claiming existence, that God considered me an existing person, and not only existing, but significant; I fell with my face on the floor, and physically could not get up. I could not move! Now I had to ask, what it was that made me realize this? It wasn’t a thought I had after a long logical and progressive line of thought. It was not induced or deduced from anything. This doesn’t mean that it might not have been just my imagination on overload. It could’ve been. The point is, if it isn’t my imagination, that is, if it is not all in my head, then it must have been God.
No doubt the skeptic will read the last paragraph and vomit. Jon is a skeptic. That’s why he was annoyed with my answer to his question. I gave him a spiritual answer to a skeptical question. So let me at least address his question skeptically. Go read the philosophy guys at Notre Dame.
I’ll say this before I completely cop out. I am not claiming that the only knowledge that someone can have to God is spiritual or anti-intellectual, or that the only path to a knowledge of God is spiritual or ethereal, that there is no intellectual realization of the truth claims of Christianity. I am not skilled enough to argue for the position in a way that would not have me merely repeating the arguments of greater men and women. Whether or not a purely intellectual approach to religion can lead one to God is a major philosophical issue in our times. My hunch is that it’s true to believe in God, and false to be an atheist. And you can get someone as far as admitting that Christianity is a coherent belief system, but as far as human persuasion is a violent endeavor, that is you cannot make people believe anything really, the Holy Spirit of God takes that role, and does it without any violence, but in the pure unutterable form of epiphany. So that when someone says that they know God, they are not talking about knowing God in a way that comforts a skeptic. Skepticism’s range in eternity is as infinite as anything. There’s always a deeper question. But if Christianity is going to be worthy of acceptance, it has to have a rational coherence. I don’t believe that any true skeptic who asks me how I know that my Christianity is true will ever be close to anything but completely dissatisfied with the answer I give.

Christian Anarchy (Subversion?)

I just can't find the quote, and I'm tired of scouring the pages of the book looking for it. So I'll do what all grade-schoolers do when they are writing a paper, except I'll give the credit. I will paraphrase.
"Christian anarchist", sociologist, and theologian Jacques Ellul says in his book, "Presence of the Kingdom", that the Christians job in the world is not to bring peace, or bring the world to completion, but that all her practical efforts should be directed towards showing the world the deficiency of their own godless attempts to bring peace on earth, in hopes that in seeing the debunk nature of their ultimately futile attempts, they will turn to God"
I compare this to a quote from popular culture, sprung from the lips of 2008's hero, the Joker, as portrayed by the late Heath Ledger, "The mob has plans. The cops have plans. Gordon's got plans. They're schemers. Schemers trying to control their little worlds. I'm not a schemer. I try to show the schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are."
Is that essentially what Ellul says the Christians job is; to "show the schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are"? Before going on, Ellul makes it clear that the Christian's attempts to show the "schemers" how pathetic their attempts are directed towards a real goal; the goal of showing that all things are really under the Lordship of Christ. The Joker's goal is simply to show the so called "order" is in fact "chaotic" by consistent in his own chaotic way of living. That's the only moral base. And it seems to be based simply on his own belief or lack thereof in an authentic morality.
Still I think comparing Ellul's "anarchy" with Joker's nihilism/anarchy is an interesting prospect. For the concepts nihilism and anarchy seem not to be so easily equated with a Christian worldview. Well, I think nihilism is obviously out of the question for a Christian, but what about "anarchy". Strictly related to politics, anarchy is not a Christian option any more than nihilism is in reference to philosophy, but the idea that our role in the world, nay, our efforts are not directly related to making converts, but to representing a worldview, that idea is neatly related to anarchy in that the mode of communication is not as direct as it is subversive.
Still, in relation to Christianity, culturally speaking (not necessarily theologically speaking) if anarchy is the appeal or the turn-off there is reason to suspect that one is looking for a merely convenient Christianity, or for those who are turned off that they have already accepted a different worldly form for their own convenient version of the faith, and are therefore revolted by an opposite suggestion.
So the questions hanging in the air are: What is the nature of the Christian's political and cultural relationship to the world? If it's not anarchic, (and I truly believe that is a terrible term) is it subversive? I'm not sure if I think Christianity itself is subversive. That is as an ideal. But when one honestly compares or rather contrasts the ideals set forth in Scripture to what he sees in the world, he should see a marked difference; not in confession, for most think it’s good to be good, but in action, especially when the rubber meets the road. The truth is that Scripture is not the dominate factor in our culture in the individual's decision at any given moment. The Scripture may hold sway over the general ethos of the culture, but when the ethos of being content runs into the ethos of caring for your family, a mediate ethos is created, making a mockery of Scripture while having the audacity to use it for the decision's defense. That mediate ethos in the situation above may be called, "stewardship", so that one unthinkingly continues fueling his culture's economy, to the detriment of his brothers and sisters for the sake of an apparently superior sister, namely his wife, never minding the Gospel's multiple statements concerning the new family order.
I am not making any absolute statements about what Christian's should or should not be doing. Nor am I by the example offered suggesting that men and women leave their spouses in the dust. But merely pointing out the difference between a mind led by the Spirit as revealed in Scripture and a mind led by the world giving lip service to the letters of the Scripture, ignoring the spirit. And I am suggesting that to the extent in which we are willing to obey the Spirit of the Scripture we will by default be in some way subversive. I think this is also the heart of Dr. Ellul's theological machinations. As for the Joker, he simply hates everyone.

Football/Celebrity Culture

Done being Bill Simmons. For all of you reading this who were looking for picks this week I'll give to you but I won't give an explanation. The Bears and the Jets are getting 3.5. I'm taking the Packers, and the Jets. That's it. Just so you know.
I almost just went on a tirade about Anne Hathaway being cast to play Catwoman. I recalled the tirade I ushered against Lebron James, and then had this thought? Wait. These are people. I've heard people argue that if folks like Hathaway and Lebron are going to have public personas' then they shouldn't complain when they are bashed. They should accept bashing with the same grain of salt with which they accept praise. To be fair, many celebrities bask in negative press, because "all press is good press". I agree with all of this. I don't want to hear celebrities complaining about being bashed. They basically ask for it. None of this means that I have to bash them. Opinions, decisions, and actions are open to be criticized, but I feel that me, a non-member of the media has as much right to bash someone I don't know on my blog as I do my personal friend. It's not talking about them behind their back. But its still gossip. It's like hanging flyers all over your high school about who so and so slept with when they were drunk Saturday. I realize that these people will never hear me, and don't care about my little blog, and that I have an infinitesimal influence upon global culture, but its the principal. The honest truth is that we act as if these people are not people. We act like they're ideas, that just pop up on screens, or make noise on i-pods. It's true that they ask for it many times, but that is said, I suspect, as a rationalization for saying things about our fellow human beings that we would never say about our worst enemy. Well, we might say it about our worst enemy, but the point is that our entertainers exist in another world for most people. They are gods. We like some of them, we don't like others. They're invisible, but they're real. We offer them the sacrifice of our time, and often our praise. They often exist as idealistic figures of the people we would like to be, never minding the fact that they are usually acting, and that includes musicians. They are at heart entertainers. If they are not our gods, they are at least our muses. I have some more critiques of modern American culture based on these kinds of observations. For now this will suffice.
Also, I wouldn't mind the Bears winning the Superbowl. Anybody but the Steelers. And also the Jets would be annoying. I already have to listen to one of my best, but most obnoxious friends gloating about their Fantasy Football victory until next December. I'd rather not listen to Rex Ryan all that time either. Wait, did I just bash Ryan. Well, I'll say if he has a problem with what I said he can comment on this blog, and I'll say it to his cyberface.

Picking the Games

I've never done this before. And I'm super stoked about it. I really should have went into sports broadcasting. I'm going to pick the games this week using the line.

First things first; Baltimore is getting 3 points. This is the easiest game to pick because everyone knows that the team who wins will not win by more than three points. It's a coin flip game anyway. I'm going with Baltimore and I'll explain a little more later, but for now it will suffice to say that Pittsburgh could easily win, but I doubt they win by more than three.

Second; Green Bay is getting 2.5. Green Bay is hot. I love Aaron Rodgers. I love the Packers defense. I really just like the Packers. I picked them to win the Super Bowl. But... Everyone, and I mean everyone is going with the Pack, and that's just way to suspicious. The three main areas that help us all pick these games is QB: Push with a slight advantage to Ryan at home. DEF: Packers. Coach: Microscopic advantage to McCarthy when considering experience in big games, but you have to impressed with Smith's job in Atlanta in just three years. So the Packers win definitively in the defensive category, and barely in the Coaching department, but I still think that the ATL is a huge home field advantage, and although it hammers against my reason, for the reason that everyone likes the dog in this one, I'm taking, ever so reluctantly, the Falcons to cover.

Third; Seattle is getting 10. Seattle has 11 men this week. Seattle is 8-9. Seattle is coming off an emotional win. If Seattle wins, it won't be by much. If they lose, we know it will be massive. Considering all this, and my gut (which always hates the Seachickens) a no brainer pick for the Bears and I'm taking the points.

Last: The Jets are getting 8.5. Think about this. What's the least amount of points that the beastly Pats offense could put up? The absolute least? I say 24. What is the most that Mark Sanchez, in the freezing cold, who had a terrible game last week against the Colts indoors, could put up on a somewhat equal defense, even if they ran all over them. I say 17. Consider that the football gods love Rex Ryan which closes the current 7 point gap by 4. So now we're down to three. But we've just determined the most the Jets could score and the least the Pats could score. Considering all of that, and the Rex Ryan factor we've determined a 4 point Patriots victory, but let's be a little more objective. I really think the Pats will put up 31, and I think the max the Jets could score is 17, so to meet in the middle lets add another 3.5 to the 4 we have for the Jets, and after all that we have... the Jets covering? Yeah, the Jets covering. All because of the Rex Ryan factor? Does the Rex Ryan factor cause him to make a game closer, or just win? Hmm... I say the Jets cover but barely.

Rhetoric Concerning Harsh Rhetoric is Harsh

I don't do politics. Usually. I vote. I have opinions. But mostly I'm disgusted by the influence that talking heads and entertainment pundits have over the hopes, fears, and political zeitgeist of our nation. That's why I don't do politics. Call me cynical, but I wonder how much actual news is on the news anymore. I say, with all seriousness, and I'm not joking, that the news program most worth the American's time is not really a news program. It's the Daily News with John Stewart. It may be liberal, but it does exactly what somebody needs to do; point out the glaring, numerous, and silly inconsistencies and hypocrisies of modern American society.
Americans have an uncanny propensity for debate . And the freedom of speech and freedom of the press are awesome things. With that said, there is something the American people are forgetting these days that is fundamental to their being American; it's okay to strongly disagree. Your enemy is the person who wants to harm you, not the person who simply disagrees with you. As Americans we believe we can talk this out. And as a blogger, I do not purport to give any official or expert opinion, but as an American consider myself well within my rights to share an opinion and hope that those who disagree will comment and that not have to worry about being physically sabotaged, and that maybe we can have a cup of coffee, or (gasp), be friends. The bruising of your ego is not an occasion for hate, but for appreciation. Also, I hope that those who feel as strongly as I do, do not take me as a prophet, but would take a little bit of time to objectively analyze my comments. This seems to be too much to ask in today's political/entertainment climate. Preaching to the choir is as in vogue in the news as it is in churches. I think a lot of you like being in the choir, not only do I prefer to be in the pew, I don' t think you harmonize very well these days. So I may be at the pulpit today, but I'd like the choir to go sit down please.
So I realize that USA Today is a liberal publication. Now I ask, if you have a problem with left-leaning publications, is it because it's not conservative, or because it's biased. They ran a story on the shootings in Arizona with the headline: "Have nasty politics gotten out of hand? with the sub-headline: "Shootings fuel debate on tenor of rhetoric". In the article there is a quote from Rep. James Clyburn, (D) from S. Carolina. He said he worries about the effect of words on "people who may not be clicking on all cylinders" Apparently many Democrats have voiced concerns that the heated and sometimes incendiary comments from right-wing programming is to some degree sparking a dangerous angst among anti-government, ultra-right wing, folks. Republican aide to Sarah Palin is quoted as saying, "This is a terrible politicization of a tragedy" I think she's right. So kudos to USA Today for publishing it. The aide (Mansour) also said "Craziness is not an ideology". Yeah that's true, but most crazy people have an ideology. Mansour does a fantastic job of de-politicizing the issue. (That's sarcasm)
I'm not going to mention anything about how familiar this whole discussion is. How about Marlyn Manson, or Eminem, getting blamed for school shootings and youth violence, and all the lefties saying, "craziness is not an ideology", and the righties, responding that it's not worth the risk, that censorship in this case is necessary to protect individuals? Talk about role reversals. And the truth is that there really is no objective way to measure how much influence Eminem has on already disturbed individuals, or whether his music has the ability to turn otherwise normal people into crazy violent people, but to deny that it has an influence on that basis is ludicrous, so Ms. Mansour, let's be fair. We shan't blame Limbaugh and Beck for the shootings, but to deny that their daily rhetorical programs have a substantial effect on the political mood of our culture is again ludicrous.
If only Beck, Limbaugh, Matthews, and Olbermen were merely sharing opinions and allowing for us to decide. But unfortunately we don't seem to have the patience for discussion. We listen to Beck because he agrees with us, and dismiss Olbermen as unworthy of our attention or we listen to Matthews and dismiss Limbaugh, because hearing an opposite opinion than ours, as opposed to actually sharpening us, we believe today that hearing an opposite opinion will corrupt us. What is this? The middle ages? (And for anyone who wants to claim that the media is overwhelmingly liberal, let us consider the most popular political entertainers: liberal: Matthews, (moderate) Olbermen, and just to be nice, Stewart, and Colbert, although they shouldn't really count. Conservative: Beck, O'Reilly, (moderate) Hannity, Rush. If I count Stewart and Colbert, it's even. If I don't, well it looks like the conservative bias wins. But then they are the newspapers, and magazines. Granted. But I'd like you to name 3 journalist from Newsweek, Time, and U.S. News and World Report) The problem is compounded when none of these people we're listening is even trying to pretend that they trying to be objective. They are shamelessly persuading us. Not that there is not room for opinion based shows on the news, but when we take their obviously spun viewpoints as the way it is, they become not mere talking heads from whom we may gain perspective, but iconoclasts who hold an enormously un-American influence over the thoughts and speech of we 21st century lazy Americans (if we can be truly called that anymore). As opposed to saying, "I already agree with Beck, and what he says is how it is", let us leave the middle ages now and ask one basic fundamental question, "is what he says the pure truth, or is there an angle?" Of course there's an angle.
The article was titled: "Have nasty politics gotten out of hand?" It's a rhetorical question with a simple and straight forward answer. And in the midst of this tragedy it is right to do some self-evaluation, and see what it's potential causes are. Let us also reason together here. To call someone out for politicizing is usually politicizing. It hurts the said cause. This was was out of hand before anyone lost of life, and its problems are not primarily pragmatic. American politics are supposed to be heated, discussion based, and often hairy and difficult. But not nasty. Americans believe that almost everything can be talked out. But if we are really going to "talk" we're going to listen to the other side, be willing to change our own opinion, and leave our ego's at the door. I don't think its about procuring our own political power. I think, correct me if I'm wrong, its about the fact that we can learn to exist as a society with sometimes grossly differing opinions. In America, the belief in freedom of speech supersedes every other belief, and freedom of speech is best protected in honest attempts at objectivity and the willingness to break bread with your political opposite. This is my mere opinion. The Gospel is found in someone else's writings.

Still Rampaging and Waiting for Someone to Engage

The BCS is goofy and money-driven, and every 7 years the wrong team wins the championship, but the team that allegedly should have at least had a chance still gets a huge chunk of money and national notoriety and school pride, but must hear it from the media day in and day out that they deserve more, because the media wants a champion for whatever reason, not realizing that it will inevitably soften the best regular season in the sports.
So in one sardonic run-sentence, I have effectively stated my confused position. Because if I knew nothing about the BCS and somebody told me they decided the college football championship based on a mathematical equation, and the votes of men and women who do not strap on a uniform, I would say, "that's stupid". And I also understand that its not really about the game or the kids, but the money, and no matter how many cowardly, pragmatists want to say, "That's just how it is", can never convince me that "that's how it should be". Call me a moralist, but I'm not ashamed of purity. There's a part of me that wants to see a playoff, that sees the ridiculousness of the current system, and then a part of me that wants people to enjoy a few good bowl games that mean everything to the kids in them. Did you see the Freshmen from 6-7 Tennessee crying after a loss in the Music City Bowl?
I am not frustrated with people that want to see a playoff, but with the line of thinking that dominates the anti-BCS mob in the media. Exhibit A: High on rhetoric, low on logic, it's ESPN columnist, Rick Reilly.
He says, "TCU's 21-19 win over arguably the hottest team in college football -- Wisconsin -- Saturday in the Rose Bowl means the Horned Frogs are undefeated and untied and unwelcome in the BCS "Doesn't Prove A Damn Thing Game" in Glendale."
Wow. Talk about overstated.
Again, "The Horned Frogs' perfect 13-0 season was rendered pointless by The Greedheads Who Run College Football."
Pointless? They won the freakin Rose Bowl! They have 9,000 kids go to their private school. This was a huge win for TCU.
And again, "They say with this system, "every game counts." Except of course, TCU's epic win over Wisconsin to stay undefeated Saturday. Counts exactly as much as a rainbow to Stevie Wonder."
I still think the Rose Bowl counts.
And yet again, "Just another day in college football -- the Chrysler K Car of sport -- the only place in the world where athletes have to shrug and say, 'Well, I guess we just have to settle for an undefeated season," as a few Horned Frogs did after the game Saturday. "Today we proved that we have just as good players as anybody else in the country,' said Horned Frogs QB Andy Dalton, who won't get the chance to prove another thing -- that they're better.
Okay, there's a difference between champion and "best team in the country". College Football fans are hampered by the unreasonable desire to see the best team. Granted, there is not as much parody in College Football as there is in the NFL, but you start getting near the top, anybody can beat anybody on any given day. The reason that the system is broken is not because it makes teams like TCU's season "pointless" but the reason the system is broken is that it thrives under the illusion that we ought to be searching for the "best team". No, we ought to be searching for a champion. TCU does deserve a shot. But you don't know if they got screwed, because you don't have a playoff system. My point is not that we shouldn't have a playoff, but if you're argument for a playoff is based on the idea that mid-majors are getting screwed, you're as blind as the BCS that believes it can gauge greatness on an irrational SOS stat.
And when I think about it in this light. I don't really want a playoff. Because the only way to do it is to make a set amount of conferences, eliminate "mid-majors", do away with the computer and the voting, and have eight major conferences, and have the winners play it off in the tournament.
Or,
Get over the whole "national championship thing" and like the kids, put all your emotional stock in your bowl game. Who knows college football might be fun again? I could go either way. But please just stop whining about how TCU is getting screwed. If they got killed by Auburn by 65, everyone would be like "oh". And how do you know they wouldn't have.

Don't Get It

I'm missing something. Nothing is self-evident to everyone. That's what makes things so difficult. I need to hear the reasoning of folks who are not outraged that there's a 7-9 team in the playoffs who gets a first round home game, and two 10-6 teams are out of it? Here's what I've heard. "You win your division you're in." What? Why? That's not an answer that's a restatement of the problem. Why should it be that way? If you can answer me that, that would be an answer.
To me divisions exist to maintain and forge rivalries (which is sweet), and to keep teams from traveling all over the country, except the Cowboys, (which is fine by me as well.) If you disallow the Seahawks this year, you still have you're division battles, and the tie-breaker's can still go to the team with the best divisional record. But also, you would not get a chance to have a NFC West Championship. That's the one downside. But to me missing this year's NFC West Championship is like missing this year's professional lacrosse championship. I can live with that. I'd much rather not see the Bucs and Giants miss the playoffs than miss the "compelling" Rams and Seahawks battle out for the league's coveted, "most mediocre title". No, not even "mediocre", more like, "Not as bad as ten other teams title" The NFL HAS to change this. It is self-evident to me. Apparently to others it's self-evident that you win your division, you're in. I don't know. Win at least 9 games in a 16 game season and you're in. Sounds reasonable to me.

The Beauty of Words

I went to Ohio for Christmas. I read nothing but a sermon, and my Bible. I ate too much. And watched an embarrassing amount of television. In short I splurged. And as much as I think my metabolism is paying for it, my IQ is paying even more. The television is so subtle in its brain draining effort, but the effects are felt today. I have nothing to say in my blog except this, and at least I know that going forward, as I try to regain the 6 IQ points I lost, that I have enough of a vocabulary to say nothing in a paragraph, unlike lesser mortals who can say nothing in mere nanoseconds.