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.