"Just have faith that it's true."
I've heard this quite a bit lately. People often try to meet my skepticism about the truth of the Bible or the truth of Christian doctrine with the response "just have faith". When I have difficulty accepting something in the Bible or in Christian doctrine, or if I find that I have insufficient reason to accept something, people say I should "just have faith".
I translate this as them telling me to believe a certain doctrine or statement to be true even though the rest of my mind is against it (or agnostic). As if we don't actually need to use our minds anymore, as if we should just blindly accept everything our tradition and culture teaches us.
It's funny, I'm told to "just have faith that the Bible is completely true" even though every ounce of my reason says otherwise. I'm being told to believe in Biblical inerrancy even when I can't stand it!
Somehow, I think my comforters are missing the point of "faith". The word "faith" has numerous meanings in modern English. It can mean something along the lines of assent. In this usage, to have faith is to assent that the object of faith is true or correct. What kind of objects fit this usage of "faith"? Statements. "True" applies to statements.
But there is another usage of the word "faith". Faith can also mean trust. What type of objects fit this usage of "faith"? When I use "faith" like this, I normally use it in reference to a person. I have faith--trust--in people. I have faith in my parents, of their love for me. This is a very strong faith - unlikely to ever break. I have faith in my girlfriend, that she will be there for me and be faithful towards me. Faith is personal, it's relational. Faith is trust in someone; faith is also faithful - a reciprocal trustworthiness.
Those who tell me to "just have faith" are mistaking assent for trust. They went me to assent to a statement, rather than trust in God. This is why I think they are mislead. I can't see how assenting to a statement as true has anything to do with my spirit. I don't think our beliefs are first and foremost in God's mind. I'm no prophet, but that's something I believe: that beliefs aren't primary for God's purposes.
But trust. Trust is a different animal all together. Faith which trusts in God even in the face of doubt and uncertainty - now that is real faith. A faith that stays faithful even when staring into the unknown. That's real faith. That is the kind of faith that I sorely lack - and earnestly long for.
"Just have faith."
It's not what you believe, but who.
*The writings of Marcus Borg have helped me during my struggles over the word "faith". His book The Heart of Christianity, which I previewed here, was especially useful.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Monday, November 06, 2006
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Bible Says, Church Says, I Say
The Bible says many things. It is, after all, a collection of books and letters compiled over hundreds of years. The authors, yes plural, were a varied bunch: temporally, culturally, linguistically, and theologically. So each book of the Bible, each author, says its own thing. And it's not an easy task to pick this apart. Much of the Bible has gone through redaction - modification and editing. We don't even know if we have the words of the original author! In some cases, we can be certain that we don't. So we're left with a rather complex collection of texts whose unity is a debated issue. Does it even make sense to say that 'the Bible' says such-and-such. Honest historical-critical study of the biblical texts would convince one to the contrary. There is tension in the Bible. Some books say things that make us uncomfortable. Some books ignore a theme we think is important - a theme we think should have been given more prominence! It is not an easy task to try and harmonize everything together into one, single, united viewpoint.
But on another level, each passage of each book in the Bible says something. By this I mean that Paul is saying one thing and not another in Chapter 1 of Romans. The range of meaning which one can attribute to that passage is limited. I understand the complexity of literary theory, and the thorny issue of who decides the meaning of a text. But reading a text in its historical and literary context circumscribes the range of possible meanings. Sometimes, we can be quite certain what the argument or logic of a passage is; other times, we may only try and guess. At this level, we can have a pretty good idea what 'the Bible' says when the book or passage is read in its context - when it's read on its turf.
The Church has its own doctrines and dogmas. The evangelical, "bible-believing" branch of Christians always wants to claim their beliefs to rest on the Bible. Actually, several things are going on here. Individuals have beliefs. The institution they are part of--their particular Bible-believing Church--has its own set of beliefs. Organizational beliefs, you could call them. In many branches of the evangelical Church, the beliefs of the individual members of the organization are for the most part in line with the organization itself. Moreover, both the individual and the organization think that their beliefs rest on the Bible. We can differentiate three layers of belief: (1) the Bible (what a passage says), (2) the Church (what the Church officially teaches), and (3) the individual (what the individual believes). Unfortunately, many in the Church fail to realize that those three layers are distinct. Often, the layers are blurred together as if they were the same.
Remember how I mentioned the tension present in the Bible? Well, why do you think so many Churches say so many different things about the Bible. The Bible itself is a diverse book! Different Churches have different interpretations, that is because they emphasize certain themes at the expense of other themes. But Churches are only recapitulating what is already present in the Bible.
Though it won't admit it readily, the Church has many beliefs that have no direct link to the Bible. Or perhaps they have one, very weak, link. Or perhaps they have taken a vague idea, and built a whole skyscraper of doctrine on top of it. Divinity of Christ? The Trinity? Infallibility of Scripture? The End Times? Abortion ethics? All of these doctrines are the construct of the Church. They may draw upon the Bible - they may argue to death their continuity with what 'the Bible says' - but in the end, these doctrinal constructs are what the Church says, not what 'the Bible' says.
See, I can separate my beliefs from what the Bible authors wrote and from official Church doctrine. I am aware of the distinction between what the different parts of the Bible say, what the Church says, and what I believe. They are different things. My readers are aware of my rejection of biblical inerrancy; biblical authority is also a big question mark to me. It is not one of my working assumptions. My training in Religious Studies has given me the tools to try and grasp what the different parts of the Bible say. Having gripped the meaning or message of a passage, there are many instances where I stand to disagree with the biblical text. I have no problem with that. My involvement in a Christian Church has taught me what my particular Church has to say; but I've also been exposed to other types of Christians and what they have to say. Many times, I don't agree with Church doctrine. I have no problem with that.
So when do I get bothered?
I get bothered when individuals think that 'the Bible' says one and only one thing without realizing that it is a collection of ancient texts.
I get bothered when individuals or Churches try to make the scriptures say something they aren't saying.
Bible says, Church says, I say.
Three different things.
But on another level, each passage of each book in the Bible says something. By this I mean that Paul is saying one thing and not another in Chapter 1 of Romans. The range of meaning which one can attribute to that passage is limited. I understand the complexity of literary theory, and the thorny issue of who decides the meaning of a text. But reading a text in its historical and literary context circumscribes the range of possible meanings. Sometimes, we can be quite certain what the argument or logic of a passage is; other times, we may only try and guess. At this level, we can have a pretty good idea what 'the Bible' says when the book or passage is read in its context - when it's read on its turf.
The Church has its own doctrines and dogmas. The evangelical, "bible-believing" branch of Christians always wants to claim their beliefs to rest on the Bible. Actually, several things are going on here. Individuals have beliefs. The institution they are part of--their particular Bible-believing Church--has its own set of beliefs. Organizational beliefs, you could call them. In many branches of the evangelical Church, the beliefs of the individual members of the organization are for the most part in line with the organization itself. Moreover, both the individual and the organization think that their beliefs rest on the Bible. We can differentiate three layers of belief: (1) the Bible (what a passage says), (2) the Church (what the Church officially teaches), and (3) the individual (what the individual believes). Unfortunately, many in the Church fail to realize that those three layers are distinct. Often, the layers are blurred together as if they were the same.
Remember how I mentioned the tension present in the Bible? Well, why do you think so many Churches say so many different things about the Bible. The Bible itself is a diverse book! Different Churches have different interpretations, that is because they emphasize certain themes at the expense of other themes. But Churches are only recapitulating what is already present in the Bible.
Though it won't admit it readily, the Church has many beliefs that have no direct link to the Bible. Or perhaps they have one, very weak, link. Or perhaps they have taken a vague idea, and built a whole skyscraper of doctrine on top of it. Divinity of Christ? The Trinity? Infallibility of Scripture? The End Times? Abortion ethics? All of these doctrines are the construct of the Church. They may draw upon the Bible - they may argue to death their continuity with what 'the Bible says' - but in the end, these doctrinal constructs are what the Church says, not what 'the Bible' says.
See, I can separate my beliefs from what the Bible authors wrote and from official Church doctrine. I am aware of the distinction between what the different parts of the Bible say, what the Church says, and what I believe. They are different things. My readers are aware of my rejection of biblical inerrancy; biblical authority is also a big question mark to me. It is not one of my working assumptions. My training in Religious Studies has given me the tools to try and grasp what the different parts of the Bible say. Having gripped the meaning or message of a passage, there are many instances where I stand to disagree with the biblical text. I have no problem with that. My involvement in a Christian Church has taught me what my particular Church has to say; but I've also been exposed to other types of Christians and what they have to say. Many times, I don't agree with Church doctrine. I have no problem with that.
So when do I get bothered?
I get bothered when individuals think that 'the Bible' says one and only one thing without realizing that it is a collection of ancient texts.
I get bothered when individuals or Churches try to make the scriptures say something they aren't saying.
Bible says, Church says, I say.
Three different things.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Slow and Steady
You may have noticed I've been involved with blogs much more lately - again.
Well, life isn't as hectic anymore. Part of it is that I reorganized my life. But another part is that, well, I'm over a big hump.
Medical school applications are pretty much finished. Medical school references are all complete. Midterms are done except for one. I don't have any essays due till the end of November (I think there are 4, I've lost count). But, I've partitioned my time, so that hopefully being organized will keep me sane.
Sunday night was the first time in 2 months that I sat at my desk and realized I didn't have to work!
What a liberating feeling.
With a massive load of stress off my shoulders, I find that I have stuff to write about yet again.
Hurrah!
Well, life isn't as hectic anymore. Part of it is that I reorganized my life. But another part is that, well, I'm over a big hump.
Medical school applications are pretty much finished. Medical school references are all complete. Midterms are done except for one. I don't have any essays due till the end of November (I think there are 4, I've lost count). But, I've partitioned my time, so that hopefully being organized will keep me sane.
Sunday night was the first time in 2 months that I sat at my desk and realized I didn't have to work!
What a liberating feeling.
With a massive load of stress off my shoulders, I find that I have stuff to write about yet again.
Hurrah!
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Blogger Beta...eh?
I have converted my blog to the new Blogger Beta style. Spiffy eh?
I even managed to code back in my 'trademark' left and right sidebars.
Still a few tweaks required...but I like it!
Google owns the world.
I even managed to code back in my 'trademark' left and right sidebars.
Still a few tweaks required...but I like it!
Google owns the world.
Paradox: Darwin vs. Hippocrates
A paradox has been tugging at my mind these past months. It's all rather vague and abstract, but I'll try to present it nonetheless. It goes something like this.
Life on this earth has been driven by natural selection. Every organism alive today is only here because it, and it's many ancestors, have made it through nature's brutal selective hand. They are the ones most capable of breeding and surviving in the specific environment that they inhabit. If an organism carries a gene which makes them weak or feeble, they will die. They will not spread that gene. That's the point. That's natural selection. But more so, that species as a whole is better off with the weak individual dying. It keeps harmful genes out of the gene pool.
And such is the world of Darwin.
But we humans are odd. We defy Darwin's world - we defy nature itself. Our technology and medicine allows weakness and disease to survive. Our health industry allows weak and sick individuals to survive, reproduce, and nurture offspring - a possibility nearly impossible to every other species on this planet. We have been able to overcome natural selection. Its heavy hand no longer controls our fate. Our doctors, drugs and scientists do that now.
And I confess, I am one of those who wants to take on nature. I do, after all, want to become a Physician. It would be my sworn duty to heal others. This is my dream.
This is the world of Hippocrates.
What would Darwin and Hippocrates have to say to one another? Are physicians in some way harming humankind? Doctors are bound to do good and no harm - that is their oath. Every human life is precious. Every human life is equal. Every condition will receive the full treatment available. Pharmaceutical companies labour long and hard at designing and producing drugs. They do it for the dollar, but intentions aside, patients receive treatment. However, the unintentional consequence of health care is that bad genes might make it through, they might get passed on.
And herein lies my paradox. In defying natural selection--the very branch upon which the human species stands--are we only making our species weaker? By fighting against the weeding hand of nature, are we only doing more harm in the long run?
I for one know, if I ever make it into medicine, I would do good and no harm.
Besides, I've always had a thing for the Greeks.
Life on this earth has been driven by natural selection. Every organism alive today is only here because it, and it's many ancestors, have made it through nature's brutal selective hand. They are the ones most capable of breeding and surviving in the specific environment that they inhabit. If an organism carries a gene which makes them weak or feeble, they will die. They will not spread that gene. That's the point. That's natural selection. But more so, that species as a whole is better off with the weak individual dying. It keeps harmful genes out of the gene pool.
And such is the world of Darwin.
But we humans are odd. We defy Darwin's world - we defy nature itself. Our technology and medicine allows weakness and disease to survive. Our health industry allows weak and sick individuals to survive, reproduce, and nurture offspring - a possibility nearly impossible to every other species on this planet. We have been able to overcome natural selection. Its heavy hand no longer controls our fate. Our doctors, drugs and scientists do that now.
And I confess, I am one of those who wants to take on nature. I do, after all, want to become a Physician. It would be my sworn duty to heal others. This is my dream.
This is the world of Hippocrates.
What would Darwin and Hippocrates have to say to one another? Are physicians in some way harming humankind? Doctors are bound to do good and no harm - that is their oath. Every human life is precious. Every human life is equal. Every condition will receive the full treatment available. Pharmaceutical companies labour long and hard at designing and producing drugs. They do it for the dollar, but intentions aside, patients receive treatment. However, the unintentional consequence of health care is that bad genes might make it through, they might get passed on.
And herein lies my paradox. In defying natural selection--the very branch upon which the human species stands--are we only making our species weaker? By fighting against the weeding hand of nature, are we only doing more harm in the long run?
I for one know, if I ever make it into medicine, I would do good and no harm.
Besides, I've always had a thing for the Greeks.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Where'd You Go
Yes, I've disappeared lately, I know. I am in fact still alive. I don't have time or motivation to say anything of significance, so I will post one of those "this is what I've been up to" blog posts.
***
Medical school applications are almost over. So far I've completed:
UBC
University of Manitoba
University of Toronto
Queens University
University of Western Ontario
McMaster University
University of Ottawa
Northern Ontario Medical School
I still have to do:
University of Alberta
University of Calgary
Dalhousie University
University of Saskatchewan
And yes, I'm applying to almost every medical school in Canada.
Chances are I'll get 12 letters of rejection. But maybe, just maybe, one school is brilliant enough to let me in. Hah!
***
A good boss makes a big difference!
My boss has kindly allowed me to drop down to 5 hours of work per week instead of 9. This may seem insignificant, but it's the difference between getting home at 3pm or 9:30pm.
***
I'm going to be volunteering at the Dr. Peter Centre. This is a residence and day centre for AIDS infected individuals. Those inside are also dealing with issues such as poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, and mental problems. I'm going to be volunteering in the live-in residence, which has 24 private single-room dwellings. I'll be doing things like one-on-one chats, games, reading aloud, and taking residents to local medical appointments.
This is going to be very challenging. I've never done anything like this before. But I'm excited. This is going to give me some really valuable experiences, and probably bust a lot of my naivety.
***
I thought October would be busy, followed by a relatively low key November.
The way it looks...no chance in hell...
***
Medical school applications are almost over. So far I've completed:
UBC
University of Manitoba
University of Toronto
Queens University
University of Western Ontario
McMaster University
University of Ottawa
Northern Ontario Medical School
I still have to do:
University of Alberta
University of Calgary
Dalhousie University
University of Saskatchewan
And yes, I'm applying to almost every medical school in Canada.
Chances are I'll get 12 letters of rejection. But maybe, just maybe, one school is brilliant enough to let me in. Hah!
***
A good boss makes a big difference!
My boss has kindly allowed me to drop down to 5 hours of work per week instead of 9. This may seem insignificant, but it's the difference between getting home at 3pm or 9:30pm.
***
I'm going to be volunteering at the Dr. Peter Centre. This is a residence and day centre for AIDS infected individuals. Those inside are also dealing with issues such as poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, and mental problems. I'm going to be volunteering in the live-in residence, which has 24 private single-room dwellings. I'll be doing things like one-on-one chats, games, reading aloud, and taking residents to local medical appointments.
This is going to be very challenging. I've never done anything like this before. But I'm excited. This is going to give me some really valuable experiences, and probably bust a lot of my naivety.
***
I thought October would be busy, followed by a relatively low key November.
The way it looks...no chance in hell...
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Juggling
Number of hours in a week: 168
So far...
School: 18 hrs/week (21 including tutorials) **Thank God I'm done my lab courses**
Bus: 11 hrs/week
Work: 9 hrs/week
Church: 5 hrs/week
Sleep: 55 hrs/week
ESS: 10 hrs/week (East, shit, shower)
Subtotal: 107 hrs
Time remaining: 61 hrs
Soon to add...
Dance Class: 2 hrs /week
Volunteering: 3 hrs/week
New Subtotal: 112 hrs
Time remaining: 56 hrs
That's 56 hours every week to...
- Study, write papers, research assignments
- Prepare applications for medical school (very long and involved process)
- Maintain a relationship
- Try and keep friendships
- Relax and stay sane!
I'm becoming quite good at juggling.
So far...
School: 18 hrs/week (21 including tutorials) **Thank God I'm done my lab courses**
Bus: 11 hrs/week
Work: 9 hrs/week
Church: 5 hrs/week
Sleep: 55 hrs/week
ESS: 10 hrs/week (East, shit, shower)
Subtotal: 107 hrs
Time remaining: 61 hrs
Soon to add...
Dance Class: 2 hrs /week
Volunteering: 3 hrs/week
New Subtotal: 112 hrs
Time remaining: 56 hrs
That's 56 hours every week to...
- Study, write papers, research assignments
- Prepare applications for medical school (very long and involved process)
- Maintain a relationship
- Try and keep friendships
- Relax and stay sane!
I'm becoming quite good at juggling.
Monday, September 04, 2006
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Purpose
An odd feeling came over me this morning while I was preparing my breakfast. I couldn't quite put a name to it.
At first, I thought it was loneliness. Maybe I'm just feeling a little lonely. I just got back from a very socially-stimulating vacation, and now I'm in my house all alone with no one home. Maybe I'm just lonely. But as I thought about it more, I realized that loneliness just wasn't it. I wasn't lonely.
Then it struck me. Like a tonne of bricks it came down on me. I have no purpose. I'm running around like a lab rat trying to get through medical school applications, but I have no purpose. I have a vague direction, a general feeling, some values, goals, dreams - but I have no purpose. I know what I want to do in life (I think), I know how to go about doing that (I think), but I do not know why I am doing it. That deep down, big picture, serious "why".
Perhaps it's utterly pessimistic. You live, you die. If you want to live, you need food and house and fun. None of that comes free. So get a good job, live well, then die happy.
But will I die happy? Is it possible to live and die happily without purpose? Can I be truly satisfied in life without purpose?
Is my life for more than just me?
At first, I thought it was loneliness. Maybe I'm just feeling a little lonely. I just got back from a very socially-stimulating vacation, and now I'm in my house all alone with no one home. Maybe I'm just lonely. But as I thought about it more, I realized that loneliness just wasn't it. I wasn't lonely.
Then it struck me. Like a tonne of bricks it came down on me. I have no purpose. I'm running around like a lab rat trying to get through medical school applications, but I have no purpose. I have a vague direction, a general feeling, some values, goals, dreams - but I have no purpose. I know what I want to do in life (I think), I know how to go about doing that (I think), but I do not know why I am doing it. That deep down, big picture, serious "why".
Perhaps it's utterly pessimistic. You live, you die. If you want to live, you need food and house and fun. None of that comes free. So get a good job, live well, then die happy.
But will I die happy? Is it possible to live and die happily without purpose? Can I be truly satisfied in life without purpose?
Is my life for more than just me?
Yes, I'm Back
I'm home.
I've been home since Sunday night.
I've been really busy the past two days. Well, now I'm a certified first aid-er.
I wrote a long post on my time in Ottawa. I'll be posting it up with pictures over the next week.
I've been home since Sunday night.
I've been really busy the past two days. Well, now I'm a certified first aid-er.
I wrote a long post on my time in Ottawa. I'll be posting it up with pictures over the next week.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
I'm Back!
I'm alive.
I survived my MCAT - that brutal, 10 hour long, test. I plan to do a brain dump, blog style, in the near future.
Also, I leave tomorrow morning for Ottawa for my friend's wedding. I'll be taking my laptop and digital camera with me. Maybe I can blog some of the trip? In either case, that's where I'll be till Sunday. Expect some sort of writing to come out of that trip. That and me writing my UBC med school application. Oh joy!
What else is to come? Oh yes, I got a part time job. I'll be working for Arts ISIT this coming school year. I'll be a computer lab attendant at the Buchanan computer labs. Not too shabby. Good pay too (relative, of course).
What I'm trying to say is, I'm back.
More to come.
I survived my MCAT - that brutal, 10 hour long, test. I plan to do a brain dump, blog style, in the near future.
Also, I leave tomorrow morning for Ottawa for my friend's wedding. I'll be taking my laptop and digital camera with me. Maybe I can blog some of the trip? In either case, that's where I'll be till Sunday. Expect some sort of writing to come out of that trip. That and me writing my UBC med school application. Oh joy!
What else is to come? Oh yes, I got a part time job. I'll be working for Arts ISIT this coming school year. I'll be a computer lab attendant at the Buchanan computer labs. Not too shabby. Good pay too (relative, of course).
What I'm trying to say is, I'm back.
More to come.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
The Last Leg
Once again, blogging is on a hold for the week. I'm in last leg of studying and preparing for the MCAT exam this Saturday. I've done one full length, timed, practice exam. I did quite well. I surprised myself. I also found some weak areas which I will work on tomorrow.
Moreover, the MCAT exam includes 2x30 min essay sections. Each of the two sections is essentially identical. You are presented with a prompt - some statement that is sorta-true-sorta-not. Then you are given three tasks to write about in a coherent essay. First, explain what the statement means; second, provide a counterexample of the statement; and third, determine what decides whether the statement or the counterexample is true. It really is quite formulaic. The tasks, for example, are always the same (with appropriate modification for each of the two prompts).
So anyways, I will be doing plenty of (hand)writing over the next few days. I'm not sure if I'll have anything left for (blog)writing.
Moreover, the MCAT exam includes 2x30 min essay sections. Each of the two sections is essentially identical. You are presented with a prompt - some statement that is sorta-true-sorta-not. Then you are given three tasks to write about in a coherent essay. First, explain what the statement means; second, provide a counterexample of the statement; and third, determine what decides whether the statement or the counterexample is true. It really is quite formulaic. The tasks, for example, are always the same (with appropriate modification for each of the two prompts).
So anyways, I will be doing plenty of (hand)writing over the next few days. I'm not sure if I'll have anything left for (blog)writing.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Pebbles
I know I haven't posted in a while. So instead of the usual long, rambling post about something interesting, I have a few small pebbles.
***
I have been studying for the MCAT this past while. Harsh studying. For those who don't know (I don't know, maybe you live in a cave), the MCAT is a standardized exam used by many Canadian medical schools to help them judge who would make a better doctor. They even have this journal article on their website that correlates MCAT performance with success in medical school. I don't have a link. I could probably find it but (1) I'm too tired and (2) I think tens of thousands of people paying $210 US is enough to write anything in a journal. Must be a great business. I should invent a standardized test...
***
I'm flying out to Ottawa in a couple weeks for Dan's wedding. I'm excited to travel. I'm also excited to see a good friend of mine tie the knot. I will always remember his advice: happy wife, happy life.
***
This year's season for the Knights has come to its end. Yes, it is true, we did make the playoffs. But considering 6 of the 7 teams in the tier did, it wasn't exactly all that hard. And, true to form, we got our asses kicked in the first game.
Nonetheless, it was a great season. I had lots of fun, and just enjoyed playing the game - win or lose. Well, mostly lose.
***
I have finished 3 seasons of 24 so far. I'm an addict.
***
I've been reading some books by James Fowler on human development and faith development. There's a lot of stuff I've been mulling about. Future posts, no doubt.
finis
***
I have been studying for the MCAT this past while. Harsh studying. For those who don't know (I don't know, maybe you live in a cave), the MCAT is a standardized exam used by many Canadian medical schools to help them judge who would make a better doctor. They even have this journal article on their website that correlates MCAT performance with success in medical school. I don't have a link. I could probably find it but (1) I'm too tired and (2) I think tens of thousands of people paying $210 US is enough to write anything in a journal. Must be a great business. I should invent a standardized test...
***
I'm flying out to Ottawa in a couple weeks for Dan's wedding. I'm excited to travel. I'm also excited to see a good friend of mine tie the knot. I will always remember his advice: happy wife, happy life.
***
This year's season for the Knights has come to its end. Yes, it is true, we did make the playoffs. But considering 6 of the 7 teams in the tier did, it wasn't exactly all that hard. And, true to form, we got our asses kicked in the first game.
Nonetheless, it was a great season. I had lots of fun, and just enjoyed playing the game - win or lose. Well, mostly lose.
***
I have finished 3 seasons of 24 so far. I'm an addict.
***
I've been reading some books by James Fowler on human development and faith development. There's a lot of stuff I've been mulling about. Future posts, no doubt.
finis
Friday, July 07, 2006
Evangelical Guilt
A snippet from Slacktivist:
The failure to thus pester these people is often characterized with a misappropriated quotation from St. Paul: "You ate at Denny's without asking the waitress if she knows Jesus as her own private savior? You must be ashamed of the Gospel of Christ!"I know what he means.
That phrase is often used to argue that Christians ought to feel really, really guilty if they are not at all times and in all places making themselves into off-putting, conversation-stealing, monomaniacal, conversion-machines.
It is also used as an all-purpose dismissal of people like me. I believe that evangelism, properly understood, is an invitation -- a form of hospitality. I believe that Christians are called to be salt and light -- not to be the kinds of people that no one wants to sit next to on an airplane.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Weird Computer Problem - The End!
See Part I and Part II.
It's ALIVE!
The beast is alive, once again. Hear him roar!
It was the power supply. Damnit! Twenty dollar fix, that's it. Now I have an extra motherboard--socket 478--and nothing to do with it. Socket 478s are pretty useless now, especially AGP ones. Bah!
What did I learn? Always, ALWAYS go with the cheaper option first. Especially if your certainty factor isn't all that good. Also, power supplies are pieces of shit. Expect them to fail. And when they do, expect them to fail in a way that you would never assume is a power supply fault.
Oh well. Lesson learnt.
It's ALIVE!
The beast is alive, once again. Hear him roar!
It was the power supply. Damnit! Twenty dollar fix, that's it. Now I have an extra motherboard--socket 478--and nothing to do with it. Socket 478s are pretty useless now, especially AGP ones. Bah!
What did I learn? Always, ALWAYS go with the cheaper option first. Especially if your certainty factor isn't all that good. Also, power supplies are pieces of shit. Expect them to fail. And when they do, expect them to fail in a way that you would never assume is a power supply fault.
Oh well. Lesson learnt.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Weird Computer Problem - Part II
My desk right now.
See Part I here.
So I got my new motherboard. A very similar mobo to my old one. Moved my P4 chip over to the new motherboard. That took a little work. I had to clean the thermal gunk off and reapply new gunk. That was after I used my dissecting scalpel to pry it loose from the heat sink. Then plugged in the power supply. And...NO GOOD. Still acts the same way.
Great.
135 bucks WASTED.
Now I'm thinking it's the power supply. At least power supplies are cheap.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Is God Merciful?
Freethinking Faith writes a great post on whether the orthodox (traditional) understanding of God is truly merciful. Read it all here.
A few snippets:
A few snippets:
Strict orthodoxy tells us that God will cast the overwhelming majority of humans who have ever lived into the fire. Millions and millions and millions feeding the ravenous appetite of gehenna, from the earliest Bronze Age hunter to the modern businessman, factory worker and mother.
...
Swarms of humanity will go into the fire having lived exemplary, unselfish lives. People who walked sacrificially according to the precepts of their religions. Physicians who worked long hours to relieve the suffering of others. Old women who cradled the village children in their arms and spoke to them kindly about their ancestors. All will wake up in ghastly torment of which they will understanding little or nothing.
...
Then there will be many, many professing Christians, those who chose theologically incorrect versions of Christianity. They were Roman Catholics or Unitarians or liberal Episcopalians. They didn't understand the nuances of justification by faith alone or the Trinity. Or they put some trust -- maybe just a particle -- in their own works. So they join heathen and infidel in the furnace.
For millions of Christians, this is the good news, glad tidings. It is sound doctrine that might even garner a Sunday school ribbon. Or a high accolade from one of the faithful: "Yes, he is theologically sound -- sound in the faith. How encouraging to hear someone speak the truth in this age of infidelity. Praise God."
Friday, June 30, 2006
Background Noise
The human body is an amazing machine. Take the nervous system for example. The nervous system is our lifeline to the world we inhabit. It is constantly communicating within us - very often in ways we are not even conscious of. Our nervous system is also incredibly dynamic. Our sensory system--which provides us our sense of taste and touch, light and sound--is hardly static. Long enough exposure to a given stimulus causes many sensory systems in our body to undergo what is called 'receptor adaptation'. Our senses adapt to the information our body is constantly receiving in order to tune our senses onto the differences. When it comes to survival, it is often those differences, those changes in the environment, that are must critical to be aware of.
But I wonder, can we not undergo the same process mentally? Our minds are bombarded with loads of information: emotions, desires, fears, doubts. If our bodies tune out the background noise in order to be more sensitive to our surroundings, is it not equally valid to tune out the background noise in our minds?
The world is a shitty place for many people. Thousands die of simple, curable diseases every day; children starve, women are sold into sexual slavery, fathers fight and die for the greed of others. The information age has brought hell into our family rooms, onto our computer screens. Those of us living in our comfort are swamped daily by the barrage of pain the rest of the world experiences. It can get overbearing, it has for me.
If I decide to shut it out, and try to live my life, will I let the human race down? More importantly, will I let God down? The pain and the guilt--nothing more than the luck of being born in the right place at the right time--tears my soul apart sometimes. I don't want to turn a blind eye to the world, but at the same time I don't want to be disabled by it.
Perhaps I should take a page out of evolution's playbook.
But I wonder, can we not undergo the same process mentally? Our minds are bombarded with loads of information: emotions, desires, fears, doubts. If our bodies tune out the background noise in order to be more sensitive to our surroundings, is it not equally valid to tune out the background noise in our minds?
The world is a shitty place for many people. Thousands die of simple, curable diseases every day; children starve, women are sold into sexual slavery, fathers fight and die for the greed of others. The information age has brought hell into our family rooms, onto our computer screens. Those of us living in our comfort are swamped daily by the barrage of pain the rest of the world experiences. It can get overbearing, it has for me.
If I decide to shut it out, and try to live my life, will I let the human race down? More importantly, will I let God down? The pain and the guilt--nothing more than the luck of being born in the right place at the right time--tears my soul apart sometimes. I don't want to turn a blind eye to the world, but at the same time I don't want to be disabled by it.
Perhaps I should take a page out of evolution's playbook.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Weird Computer Problem
I have a curiously odd computer problem: my motherboard will not power down. I have stripped my system down to just the power supply, motherboard, and chip. The system will not turn off! If the power cord is in and the switch on the back of the computer is in the ON position, the computer stays in some weird, vegetative, on-like state. It is non-responsive, and has no video output - it's in some kind of computer-coma.
So, the culprit could be:
1. Power supply is screwed
2. Motherboard is screwed
3. Intel chip is screwed
Or, perhaps, it is a combination of those three. Or maybe aliens are screwing with me. As exciting as that option might be, I doubt it.
By the way, those three options are in my order of 'preference'. Power supplies are cheap; the motherboard isn't cheap but it's still not a killer; the same P4 chip, however, runs a couple hundred bucks. Ugh.
I hate it when technology fails.
Thank God the iBook is my main computer.
*knocks on wood*
So, the culprit could be:
1. Power supply is screwed
2. Motherboard is screwed
3. Intel chip is screwed
Or, perhaps, it is a combination of those three. Or maybe aliens are screwing with me. As exciting as that option might be, I doubt it.
By the way, those three options are in my order of 'preference'. Power supplies are cheap; the motherboard isn't cheap but it's still not a killer; the same P4 chip, however, runs a couple hundred bucks. Ugh.
I hate it when technology fails.
Thank God the iBook is my main computer.
*knocks on wood*
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Natural Selection and Mating
Imagine if you will two Dingdongs: Dingdong A and Dingdong B. What species of animal a Dingdong is is irrelevant (mostly because I just pulled it out of thin air). Dingdong A and Dingdong B are completely identical in all ways except for one: Dingdong A is feisty when it comes to partnering and mating, whereas Dingdong B is indifferent. Both Dingdong A and Dingdong B have the same machinery for producing offspring; however, Dingdong A has a drive to find a mate, while Dingdong B will do it only if the opportunity arises.
Assume that the children of both Dingdong A and Dingdong B have an equal probability of growing to sexual maturity - who do you think will produce more children?
I would venture to say Dingdong A. Dingdong A will "beat out Dingdong B to potential mates. So while Dingdong B sits around and takes a mate when he/she can, Dingdong A is out and about actively seeking a mate.
So now let's say that we start with a population of 50% Dingdong A and 50% Dingdong B. What will happen to this population? Over generations, it will slowly shift to become Dingdong A heavy and Dingdong B light. Who knows, maybe Dingdong B will disappear. It isn't that Nature "desired" one over the other, or one was intrinsically better than the other. Random chance has given us two characteristics: feisty and non-feisty. Over time, one characteristic is better able at producing descendants than another. More descendants, more evolutionary success, more of your genes out in the gene pool.
This hypothetical example shows that an animal with a drive to attain a mate is going to be selected for over against an animal without a drive to attain a mate.
What's the point?
Well, twofold. First, it shows how evolution could work in simple, observable terms. Second, it shows a possible reason why we humans actually desire a partner and a mate. It just may be a parting gift from one of our ancestors.
Assume that the children of both Dingdong A and Dingdong B have an equal probability of growing to sexual maturity - who do you think will produce more children?
I would venture to say Dingdong A. Dingdong A will "beat out Dingdong B to potential mates. So while Dingdong B sits around and takes a mate when he/she can, Dingdong A is out and about actively seeking a mate.
So now let's say that we start with a population of 50% Dingdong A and 50% Dingdong B. What will happen to this population? Over generations, it will slowly shift to become Dingdong A heavy and Dingdong B light. Who knows, maybe Dingdong B will disappear. It isn't that Nature "desired" one over the other, or one was intrinsically better than the other. Random chance has given us two characteristics: feisty and non-feisty. Over time, one characteristic is better able at producing descendants than another. More descendants, more evolutionary success, more of your genes out in the gene pool.
This hypothetical example shows that an animal with a drive to attain a mate is going to be selected for over against an animal without a drive to attain a mate.
What's the point?
Well, twofold. First, it shows how evolution could work in simple, observable terms. Second, it shows a possible reason why we humans actually desire a partner and a mate. It just may be a parting gift from one of our ancestors.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Statistics show that Kevin is crazy
There is something very wrong with me. Something very, horribly, wrong. I cannot understand it. I don't even think I know who I am anymore.
I actually like statistics.
What is wrong with me?!?
I have tried to figure out why I'm actually enjoying learning about statistical tests - goodness of fit, normal, ANOVA. Oh me oh my!
Perhaps it's because statistics is in large part trying to understand the unknown. How to go from what we do know, and applying it to what we don't know - going from sample to population. I might just be so pissed off at not 'knowing' anything that probabilistic-knowledge seems pretty appealing to me. All my learning has driven out certainty and truth. What is certain? What is true? What is true in the realm of religion, or ethics? Who can answer such questions? But with statistics, we can come to some probabilistic answer: it seems like this is the case - 5% chance we're wrong. I must admit, that's not too shabby.
Or maybe it's because for once I really look forward to using what I learn in one class (statistics) in another class (animal physiology lab). I haven't had such direct applicability for a long time. It is refreshing, to say the least.
I may never know why I like statistics. I have a feeling it's just a phase, like so many other intellectual phases that have come and gone.
It will all be over in a week, no doubt.
I actually like statistics.
What is wrong with me?!?
I have tried to figure out why I'm actually enjoying learning about statistical tests - goodness of fit, normal, ANOVA. Oh me oh my!
Perhaps it's because statistics is in large part trying to understand the unknown. How to go from what we do know, and applying it to what we don't know - going from sample to population. I might just be so pissed off at not 'knowing' anything that probabilistic-knowledge seems pretty appealing to me. All my learning has driven out certainty and truth. What is certain? What is true? What is true in the realm of religion, or ethics? Who can answer such questions? But with statistics, we can come to some probabilistic answer: it seems like this is the case - 5% chance we're wrong. I must admit, that's not too shabby.
Or maybe it's because for once I really look forward to using what I learn in one class (statistics) in another class (animal physiology lab). I haven't had such direct applicability for a long time. It is refreshing, to say the least.
I may never know why I like statistics. I have a feeling it's just a phase, like so many other intellectual phases that have come and gone.
It will all be over in a week, no doubt.
Monday, May 22, 2006
The Paradigm of the Cross of Jesus
Evil, hatred, anger, malice - all these things require people to propagate them. When someone hurts you, attacks you, you have two choices. First, you can lash back. You can continue the chain--whether it is a closed loop of two people, or an open chain of a whole nation--by returning hatred, anger, and harshness upon another. The second choice is to stop it. You can stop the chain dead in it's tracks.
You must take the momentum of the hatred, of the anger, and absorb it upon yourself. It is an odd metaphor, I know, but it is true. You have to take it upon yourself to let all the momentum land upon you, and choose not to reflect it onto another person.
This is how I see the paradigm of the Cross of Jesus: he let evil stop at him. He didn't retort, he didn't strike back, he didn't organize a rebellion. He let it stop at him. He gave us a paradigm, an example of how to live righteously. An example of how to stop hate, and hurt, and pain. It is a paradigm for those who follow in the way of Jesus, who seek to live in the wisdom that this teacher gave us in his life and teachings.
Maybe it's the whole 'turn the other cheek' bit?
I don't know. But I do know that it is a nugget of pure gold - a godsend of wisdom upon my life. When I try to win, or try to get the upper hand, everything fucks up. When I stop trying to win, and stop the heated momentum, everything calms down.
Curiously, I see this paradigm elsewhere:
In the Matrix movies, Neo tries to fight Agent Smith over and over again. It never works, Smith only keeps getting stronger and stronger (as does Neo). But when Neo finally allows Smith to 'kill' him, only then does he finally attain victory over Smith. He absorbs it upon himself, stops it in its tracks, and is truly victorious.
I close with a U2 Lyric:
You don't have to put up a fight,
You don't have to always be right,
Let me take some of the punches
for you tonight.
(Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own)
You must take the momentum of the hatred, of the anger, and absorb it upon yourself. It is an odd metaphor, I know, but it is true. You have to take it upon yourself to let all the momentum land upon you, and choose not to reflect it onto another person.
This is how I see the paradigm of the Cross of Jesus: he let evil stop at him. He didn't retort, he didn't strike back, he didn't organize a rebellion. He let it stop at him. He gave us a paradigm, an example of how to live righteously. An example of how to stop hate, and hurt, and pain. It is a paradigm for those who follow in the way of Jesus, who seek to live in the wisdom that this teacher gave us in his life and teachings.
Maybe it's the whole 'turn the other cheek' bit?
I don't know. But I do know that it is a nugget of pure gold - a godsend of wisdom upon my life. When I try to win, or try to get the upper hand, everything fucks up. When I stop trying to win, and stop the heated momentum, everything calms down.
Curiously, I see this paradigm elsewhere:
In the Matrix movies, Neo tries to fight Agent Smith over and over again. It never works, Smith only keeps getting stronger and stronger (as does Neo). But when Neo finally allows Smith to 'kill' him, only then does he finally attain victory over Smith. He absorbs it upon himself, stops it in its tracks, and is truly victorious.
I close with a U2 Lyric:
You don't have to put up a fight,
You don't have to always be right,
Let me take some of the punches
for you tonight.
(Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own)
Friday, May 05, 2006
Random Stream of Consciousness
My one week of relaxation is over. Summer session begins on Monday. I have 23 hrs of school a week (17hrs of lecture, 6 hrs of lab). It lasts for 8 weeks. I'm going to be very, very glad when it's over.
All my marks are out, finally. I will only say this - wow! It's a sad day when the highest mark you ever get in university is from Physical Chemistry. It's even more sad when it's from the course I never attended and thought would definitely fail. Oh well. University is weird like that.
I've managed to finish another game of Civ IV. Nothing spectacular, I'm just an amateur. Noble domination win, large balanced map, a good 7 or 8 civs. I think I just beat out Hatty's spaceship. Very close call.
I'm very relieved. My marks now are pretty much set for med-school applications. Some schools are gonna include my summer courses from this semester, some aren't. But 10 credits aren't gonna change very much. And I hope to do well...semi-well...maybe?
I really like this rollerhockey league. Though we've gotten our arse handed to us lately, it's fun to get out and play some hockey with a few friends. Good sport, good exercise. Although, I have a feeling we'd have a much better time if we went down a tier or two. That will be decided after our game this Sunday.
* * * *
All my marks are out, finally. I will only say this - wow! It's a sad day when the highest mark you ever get in university is from Physical Chemistry. It's even more sad when it's from the course I never attended and thought would definitely fail. Oh well. University is weird like that.
* * * *
I am officially addicted to 24. This tension is killing me. Aie ya! So many hours left, I wonder oh I wonder!
Oh, and I'm interested in CSI now.
Either way. I will only go DVD seasons. I can't stand television: I want uninterrupted, commercial-free, entertainment when I want it.
Oh, and I'm interested in CSI now.
Either way. I will only go DVD seasons. I can't stand television: I want uninterrupted, commercial-free, entertainment when I want it.
* * * *
I've managed to finish another game of Civ IV. Nothing spectacular, I'm just an amateur. Noble domination win, large balanced map, a good 7 or 8 civs. I think I just beat out Hatty's spaceship. Very close call.
* * * *
I'm very relieved. My marks now are pretty much set for med-school applications. Some schools are gonna include my summer courses from this semester, some aren't. But 10 credits aren't gonna change very much. And I hope to do well...semi-well...maybe?
* * * *
I really like this rollerhockey league. Though we've gotten our arse handed to us lately, it's fun to get out and play some hockey with a few friends. Good sport, good exercise. Although, I have a feeling we'd have a much better time if we went down a tier or two. That will be decided after our game this Sunday.
The eel in the cave
For all you doubters, here are some screen caps with subtitles. I told you, she was talking about her 'cave'.
Trust me, my friends, I didn't grow up watching movies on subtitles - I actually listen.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Inerrancy, so what? A career revolution
I think many of you are wondering why I've thought so long and so hard about biblical inerrancy. For many, this seems like a useless case of intellectual gymnastics, having little relevance to daily life. I'm afraid that isn't so. I think that my views of the inerrancy of the Bible have had a very direct impact on my life.
During my first and second years of university, I was aiming to go into graduate studies in Christianity and become a New Testament scholar. I had always thought that my scholarship could be of service to the Church; my little bit in helping the whole 'body' move along. "The Bible is sacred text, the word of God, so we need to understand it as best we can and live by it." Or so I thought.
Soon, I came to realize that I just can't believe in biblical inerrancy. With this, came a depreciation of the value of the Bible in my life. It was no longer the very words of God, like the Christian version of the Holy Qur'an. Now it just a mish-mash of religious literature written by Jews and Christians over about a thousand year period. It became to me, in every way possible, a human text.
As this happened, I became less and less motivated to study the Bible. Now don't get me wrong, I still love the Bible, and I think it is one of the most important books ever. Personally, the Bible plays a big role in my life and in my interests. However, it no longer was about "scholarship for the Church". Losing my belief in the inerrancy of the Bible was intertwined with the rise of critical attitude in me. No longer was the Bible off limits for me - "question everything", I said.
Could I really spend the rest of my life--my whole career--studying a collection of texts, supposedly authoritative for my faith, when I no longer saw much authority or certainty in them? My faith was shaky, I didn't even know if I was still going to be a Christian in 10 years. Could I still devote the rest of my life, with considerable financial and emotional hardship, to studying texts of Christian faith. No. I couldn't.
Then I found that several things started to change. All along during my undergraduate studies, I had been pursuing concurrent studies in Religious Studies and Biology. The Religious Studies was because of my initial desire to become a New Testament scholar. The Biology was--VERY long story short--because of background interest and family wisdom. (Family wisdom turned out to be so, SO true). For several years, I wasn't very interested in the Biology side of my degree. I invested a lot more time in my Religious Studies. After all, it was my first career choice. But then with my transition away from biblical inerrancy, away from a certain and strong faith, I found myself gravitating more and more towards Biology.
I began to live a simplified message of Christianity: love God and love your neighbour. Helping people in definite and concrete ways seemed much more valuable in life than throwing around ideas in towers made of ivory.
It was at this point that a career in medicine seemed to make so much sense. My reconstructed Christian faith placed much more value in helping people in their lives than trying to "save them for eternity". I was starting to regain interest in Biology. I could definitely see myself as a physician. I realized just how rewarding such a career would be. I talked to people, I did research, I did lots of thinking. I would really love to be a doctor.
In fact, this is nothing new. I once memorized some 30 major bones in the body - on a family vacation. In elementary school. Also, my goal in initially going into Engineering out of high school was to go into biomedical engineering - I really wanted to make prosthetics and devices to help injured and sick people. But the year or two that I was all wrapped up in Religious Studies had turned me aside from what was a lifelong passion. But it was back.
Giving up biblical inerrancy, and the certainty in faith that came along with it, led to a complete change in career aim: from New Testament scholar to physician.
I hope you all now see why inerrancy is such a big deal to me. It has truly changed my life.
During my first and second years of university, I was aiming to go into graduate studies in Christianity and become a New Testament scholar. I had always thought that my scholarship could be of service to the Church; my little bit in helping the whole 'body' move along. "The Bible is sacred text, the word of God, so we need to understand it as best we can and live by it." Or so I thought.
Soon, I came to realize that I just can't believe in biblical inerrancy. With this, came a depreciation of the value of the Bible in my life. It was no longer the very words of God, like the Christian version of the Holy Qur'an. Now it just a mish-mash of religious literature written by Jews and Christians over about a thousand year period. It became to me, in every way possible, a human text.
As this happened, I became less and less motivated to study the Bible. Now don't get me wrong, I still love the Bible, and I think it is one of the most important books ever. Personally, the Bible plays a big role in my life and in my interests. However, it no longer was about "scholarship for the Church". Losing my belief in the inerrancy of the Bible was intertwined with the rise of critical attitude in me. No longer was the Bible off limits for me - "question everything", I said.
Could I really spend the rest of my life--my whole career--studying a collection of texts, supposedly authoritative for my faith, when I no longer saw much authority or certainty in them? My faith was shaky, I didn't even know if I was still going to be a Christian in 10 years. Could I still devote the rest of my life, with considerable financial and emotional hardship, to studying texts of Christian faith. No. I couldn't.
Then I found that several things started to change. All along during my undergraduate studies, I had been pursuing concurrent studies in Religious Studies and Biology. The Religious Studies was because of my initial desire to become a New Testament scholar. The Biology was--VERY long story short--because of background interest and family wisdom. (Family wisdom turned out to be so, SO true). For several years, I wasn't very interested in the Biology side of my degree. I invested a lot more time in my Religious Studies. After all, it was my first career choice. But then with my transition away from biblical inerrancy, away from a certain and strong faith, I found myself gravitating more and more towards Biology.
I began to live a simplified message of Christianity: love God and love your neighbour. Helping people in definite and concrete ways seemed much more valuable in life than throwing around ideas in towers made of ivory.
It was at this point that a career in medicine seemed to make so much sense. My reconstructed Christian faith placed much more value in helping people in their lives than trying to "save them for eternity". I was starting to regain interest in Biology. I could definitely see myself as a physician. I realized just how rewarding such a career would be. I talked to people, I did research, I did lots of thinking. I would really love to be a doctor.
In fact, this is nothing new. I once memorized some 30 major bones in the body - on a family vacation. In elementary school. Also, my goal in initially going into Engineering out of high school was to go into biomedical engineering - I really wanted to make prosthetics and devices to help injured and sick people. But the year or two that I was all wrapped up in Religious Studies had turned me aside from what was a lifelong passion. But it was back.
Giving up biblical inerrancy, and the certainty in faith that came along with it, led to a complete change in career aim: from New Testament scholar to physician.
I hope you all now see why inerrancy is such a big deal to me. It has truly changed my life.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Inerrancy Continued
Dan and I have recently been exploring the notion of inerrancy, with a number of posts going back and forth between us:
Dan's initial post: Life + God
My first response: Ehrman and Inerrancy
Dan's response: Biblical Inerrancy
It's a great dialogue we've got going, and I think I can fruitfully continue it - for one more post at least. =]
I agree fully with Dan in that inerrancy isn't just something for academics to squabble about, but it is something the everyday believer must wrestle with as well:
Dan is also right to point out the big difference between modern historiography and ancient historiography. (Historiography is just a big fancy word for the study of the way history is/was written). The way an ancient approached "history" is very different from how a modern historian approaches "history". We need to remember this when we approach the Bible, which is composed of many very ancient pieces of literature.
At this point I want to clarify something. Though I do not believe in inerrancy, I still do believe that God uses the Bible to reach humanity. I cannot overlook the vast evidence that people all over the world, in different cultures and times, have experienced God as they read the Bible. Though the Bible is full of bias, inaccuracies, exaggerations, and errors, it is also full of a message of grace, mercy, love, and encouragement. Now this isn't an argument 'proving' the existence of God or the role of the Bible, but it does show that people have had what they thought were divine encounters while reading the Bible. I believe that this is God using the words in the Bible to touch human lives. But all the same, I don't think this is any different than God using a human to touch another human's life, or a sunset, or a walk on the beach, or a piece of music. I seem to recall the saying - the wind blows where it will.
I remember reading a book (The Heart of Christianity) by New Testament scholar and Theologian Marcus Borg. I quite liked his approach to the Bible. He says that the Bible is not primary to Christianity because of what it is: the revealed word of God; but because of what it does: its function as 'metaphor' and 'sacrament'. For Borg, the Bible is a sacred text not because it is sacred itself, but because it is a channel, a vessel, a mediator, of the Sacred. Scripture is still inspired, but inspiration isn't about how God wrote the text down. Scripture is inspired because it brings life to those who read it. It is inspired because it is a channel for humankind to encounter the Spirit of God.
Now the question I have is - what is meant by inerrancy? Dan writes:
(a) Grammar and spelling.
(b) Minor details of history - time and date.
(c) Contextual issues no longer relevant to today.
(d) Central narratives (e.g., exodus, monarchy, exile, Jesus)
(e) Central doctrines (sinfulness of mankind, need for Jesus as saviour)
I'm not laying down a slippery slope here. I believe that there is no guarantee that something is true just because it is in the Bible. However, just because I don't think there is a guarantee that it is true, it doesn't mean I'm saying that it's all false! I'm just saying that I can't invoke the doctrine of inerrancy and say, "that's that, it's all settled."
I think I'll end this response before it turns into a full blown essay. There is a very direct relationship between inerrancy and my life, but I'll keep that for a separate post which I'll post soon.
In the words of Paul, grace and peace.
Dan's initial post: Life + God
My first response: Ehrman and Inerrancy
Dan's response: Biblical Inerrancy
It's a great dialogue we've got going, and I think I can fruitfully continue it - for one more post at least. =]
I agree fully with Dan in that inerrancy isn't just something for academics to squabble about, but it is something the everyday believer must wrestle with as well:
I can see several of their points for believing that the bible is not inerrant; however, I think that the topic of biblical inerrancy and where it fits into Christianity must be examined not just for the select few, or those academic scholars, but even for the average Christian. I believe that it is naiive (sic) for Christians to completely ignore the topic and just say that the bible is inerrant without questioning anything.This is especially true for 'Bible-believing' evangelicals, of which there are a lot around. What one thinks of inerrancy directly affects how one incorporates and uses the Bible in life, as well as in the public forum. A couple examples:
- The Bible says homosexuality is wrong--see, here are the relevant passages (blah blah and blah). The Bible is inerrant, so it tells us exactly what God's laws are. Therefore, I'm going to vote for the Conservatives because they won't legalize homosexual marriage.
- The Bible says that God created the world in 6 days. The Bible is inerrant. Therefore, I'm going to oppose the Theory of Evolution. A real Christians should not believe in Evolution. Also, I'm going to throw big bucks into Creationist literature and research. Why? Because I know God made the world in 6 days.
Dan is also right to point out the big difference between modern historiography and ancient historiography. (Historiography is just a big fancy word for the study of the way history is/was written). The way an ancient approached "history" is very different from how a modern historian approaches "history". We need to remember this when we approach the Bible, which is composed of many very ancient pieces of literature.
At this point I want to clarify something. Though I do not believe in inerrancy, I still do believe that God uses the Bible to reach humanity. I cannot overlook the vast evidence that people all over the world, in different cultures and times, have experienced God as they read the Bible. Though the Bible is full of bias, inaccuracies, exaggerations, and errors, it is also full of a message of grace, mercy, love, and encouragement. Now this isn't an argument 'proving' the existence of God or the role of the Bible, but it does show that people have had what they thought were divine encounters while reading the Bible. I believe that this is God using the words in the Bible to touch human lives. But all the same, I don't think this is any different than God using a human to touch another human's life, or a sunset, or a walk on the beach, or a piece of music. I seem to recall the saying - the wind blows where it will.
I remember reading a book (The Heart of Christianity) by New Testament scholar and Theologian Marcus Borg. I quite liked his approach to the Bible. He says that the Bible is not primary to Christianity because of what it is: the revealed word of God; but because of what it does: its function as 'metaphor' and 'sacrament'. For Borg, the Bible is a sacred text not because it is sacred itself, but because it is a channel, a vessel, a mediator, of the Sacred. Scripture is still inspired, but inspiration isn't about how God wrote the text down. Scripture is inspired because it brings life to those who read it. It is inspired because it is a channel for humankind to encounter the Spirit of God.
Now the question I have is - what is meant by inerrancy? Dan writes:
I believe that God has spoken through His Word...God, a Holy God, STILL used imperfect humans. Therefore, when you have a perfect mouth piece (GOD), and then you have an imperfect scribe (the New Testament writers), there are bound to be mistakes, it's natural.What is it that God has spoken through 'His Word'? How far does the imperfection of the human author reach?
(a) Grammar and spelling.
(b) Minor details of history - time and date.
(c) Contextual issues no longer relevant to today.
(d) Central narratives (e.g., exodus, monarchy, exile, Jesus)
(e) Central doctrines (sinfulness of mankind, need for Jesus as saviour)
I'm not laying down a slippery slope here. I believe that there is no guarantee that something is true just because it is in the Bible. However, just because I don't think there is a guarantee that it is true, it doesn't mean I'm saying that it's all false! I'm just saying that I can't invoke the doctrine of inerrancy and say, "that's that, it's all settled."
I think I'll end this response before it turns into a full blown essay. There is a very direct relationship between inerrancy and my life, but I'll keep that for a separate post which I'll post soon.
In the words of Paul, grace and peace.
Life Sucks Sometimes
I'm sad.
31 year old woman lying on the ground: unconscious, not breathing.
6 year old daughter crying as she watches mommy die.
Mommy's partner crying as he tries to perform CPR and keep her alive.
"The patient had suffered a sudden huge and unrecoverable bleed into the brain. She would never wake up"
That's it. Life over. Thirty one years old with a six year old daughter. Completely out of the blue.
Life sucks sometimes.
I think I'm gonna cry.
31 year old woman lying on the ground: unconscious, not breathing.
6 year old daughter crying as she watches mommy die.
Mommy's partner crying as he tries to perform CPR and keep her alive.
"The patient had suffered a sudden huge and unrecoverable bleed into the brain. She would never wake up"
That's it. Life over. Thirty one years old with a six year old daughter. Completely out of the blue.
Life sucks sometimes.
I think I'm gonna cry.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Ehrman and Inerrancy
Bart Ehrman, Professor of New Testament at the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, has been buzzing about the blogosphere as of late. I refer specifically to the following posts on blogs I frequently visit:
Maggi Dawn - When God Vanishes (II)
Scott Adams (the author of 'Dilbert') - Uh-Oh
AKMA - That's "A. K. M. Adam," Not "Scott Adams"
See also this Washington Post article which gives Ehrman's biographical background.
(The current post is also an indirect response to my good buddy Dan's reflections on the Bible.)
I find a lot of similarity between myself and Professor Ehrman. Like him, I also had a 'born-again' experience and joined the evangelical Church. Like him, I was indoctrinated in a fundamentalist style Church. And like him, I came up against major challenges when I began to academically study Christianity.
However, unlike Ehrman, I have yet to completely abandon Christian faith - at least not yet. Granted, it took him quite some time to come to realize he was a full blown agnostic. But still, I don't think I'll ever completely reject Christianity. I have come to realize that there are other ways of being Christian than I had once thought. Reading the blogs of others who have also gone through these struggles and yet held onto a Christian faith--however radically reconstructed--has shown me that there isn't just "fundamentalist evangelical" and "agnostic".
I like how Maggi Dawn puts it:
Regulars to my blog will by now know that I do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (see Biblical Inerrancy). Yet I once was an inerrantist. In my first year of university, I tried desperately to hold on to the doctrine of inerrancy. I read all sorts of attempts to justify and support biblical inerrancy. But my scientific mind squashed those attempts. Saying that the Bible is a human text--written by regular human beings--makes much greater sense of the data (in this case, the Bible itself) than saying that it is a Divine text, revealed to the various authors by God. And so by the time second year began, I had let go of biblical inerrancy.
But I am still here. While Ehrman decided to call it quits, I decided to stick with it and see what I could do. I rebuilt my castle (see Building Castles - Part I and Part II).
I fear for those around me who hold to biblical inerrancy. I fear that someday their bubble might collapse - that reality might catch up to them. And I fear that, like Ehrman, they will give up on their faith. False dichotomies abound: it's either all completely true, or it's all completely false (see the related Slippery Slope). That's how a lot of people think, I'm afraid.
Cheers.
Maggi Dawn - When God Vanishes (II)
Scott Adams (the author of 'Dilbert') - Uh-Oh
AKMA - That's "A. K. M. Adam," Not "Scott Adams"
See also this Washington Post article which gives Ehrman's biographical background.
(The current post is also an indirect response to my good buddy Dan's reflections on the Bible.)
I find a lot of similarity between myself and Professor Ehrman. Like him, I also had a 'born-again' experience and joined the evangelical Church. Like him, I was indoctrinated in a fundamentalist style Church. And like him, I came up against major challenges when I began to academically study Christianity.
However, unlike Ehrman, I have yet to completely abandon Christian faith - at least not yet. Granted, it took him quite some time to come to realize he was a full blown agnostic. But still, I don't think I'll ever completely reject Christianity. I have come to realize that there are other ways of being Christian than I had once thought. Reading the blogs of others who have also gone through these struggles and yet held onto a Christian faith--however radically reconstructed--has shown me that there isn't just "fundamentalist evangelical" and "agnostic".
I like how Maggi Dawn puts it:
I was once a "born again" believer, and it was in part the recognition of endless intellectual dishonesty, both in biblical interpretation and in church practice, that led me to re-conceive my own faith. For me, though, the end result (so far at any rate) has not been the loss of faith, but a radical reconstruction of it. If, like Ehrman, my faith had depended on the inerrancy of the "original texts" of the Bible, I guess I would have lost my faith too.
Regulars to my blog will by now know that I do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (see Biblical Inerrancy). Yet I once was an inerrantist. In my first year of university, I tried desperately to hold on to the doctrine of inerrancy. I read all sorts of attempts to justify and support biblical inerrancy. But my scientific mind squashed those attempts. Saying that the Bible is a human text--written by regular human beings--makes much greater sense of the data (in this case, the Bible itself) than saying that it is a Divine text, revealed to the various authors by God. And so by the time second year began, I had let go of biblical inerrancy.
But I am still here. While Ehrman decided to call it quits, I decided to stick with it and see what I could do. I rebuilt my castle (see Building Castles - Part I and Part II).
I fear for those around me who hold to biblical inerrancy. I fear that someday their bubble might collapse - that reality might catch up to them. And I fear that, like Ehrman, they will give up on their faith. False dichotomies abound: it's either all completely true, or it's all completely false (see the related Slippery Slope). That's how a lot of people think, I'm afraid.
Cheers.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Good Friday Reflection
A great reflection on Good Friday by Maggi Dawn. An excerpt:
Have a blessed Easter-time,
Kev
For those who enjoy a degree of certainty in their faith, maybe Good Friday and Holy Saturday don't really "bite" - they are more about anticipation than devastation. But those of us who live with a fragemented faith, a faith that has had too many holes punctured in it, too much damage ever to recover a naive certainty, there is something reassuring about the rise and fall of the Church seasons. It's a relief to be honest, to acknowledge the disappearance of God and the uncertainty of the outcome.
That's not to say that there is no hope of the resurrection. But that hope doesn't forestall the depth of blackness that can descend even upon people of faith. And the recollection that the Easter faith was born in the darkness is, perhaps, a reason to hold on and not to give up.
Have a blessed Easter-time,
Kev
Saturday, April 08, 2006
A Little Health Tip, Thanks Prince Charles
The good Prince has some splendid health advice:
I tell you, the man is so right.
Amen, Prince Charles, Amen.
In an interview with Men's Health magazine, which specializes in advice on building muscle and flattening stomachs, the heir to the British throne discussed his sometimes controversial ideas about health and spirituality. Asked how men could be encouraged to pay more attention to their health, Charles said: "Via the ladies, I'd have thought. It's funny, the influence that women can have on getting us men sorted out is enormous,"
I tell you, the man is so right.
Amen, Prince Charles, Amen.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
A Little (True) Humour
Sometimes humour is the best way to get a point across.
A few snippets from a recent post by Slacktivist on a major evangelical youth rally in San Francisco.
Ahahah. Awesome!
A few snippets from a recent post by Slacktivist on a major evangelical youth rally in San Francisco.
The "spiritual warfare" metaphor was once a good one. St. Paul used it well, as did John Bunyan. But overuse and misuse have long since corrupted this metaphor, devaluing its currency to cliche status.
...
From the bogus "War on Christmas" to the fetishistic devotion to Ten Commandments markers, this territory-marking has become an obsession for many of the alleged followers of Christ. "They'll know we are Christians by our love" apparently proved too difficult, so instead we've settled for "They'll know we are Christians by our bullying dominance of the public square."
Stop it. Just stop. Stop pissing on trees. Stop "reclaiming America for Christ." Christ already has a kingdom, an upside-down, mustard-seed kingdom without a flag. And while you people are so busy trying to create an alternative kingdom called "Christian America," the prostitutes and tax collectors and Samaritans are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. And so are a lot of those couples who got married there at City Hall.
...
And the bottom line here is this: $55 for two days in San Francisco is a good deal.
That $55 includes concert tickets. More importantly, it also includes two days away from home. In San Francisco. And more than likely it also includes a longish bus or van ride, possibly in the dark, with the girls from the youth group. That may amount to little more than surreptitious hand-holding, but don't knock it. For an evangelical teenager, a bit of surreptitious hand-holding on the church bus may amount to the high point of the school year.
Ahahah. Awesome!
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Busted
So there we were, in the library. Chatting, studying.
All of a sudden, Ren reaches across my shoulder and picks up a long, blonde, piece of hair.
She looks at me in terror.
I tell her it was from the wild, passionate sex I had with some blonde girl last night after I dropped her off at home.
Then I start laughing - hard.
At this point I'm thinking of all the dumb movies where the girlfriend finds another girl's hair on the guy's clothes. Now, if you knew as I did how incredibly far I was from snuggling with some random blonde girl, you would also be laughing - hard.
Ren gets all upset and demands I tell her where the hair came from. Who was I seeing! What was I doing?
I don't think she was pleased.
Maybe cuz I was laughing uncontrollably. In a library.
Sorry Ren, you got me.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
All of a sudden, Ren reaches across my shoulder and picks up a long, blonde, piece of hair.
She looks at me in terror.
I tell her it was from the wild, passionate sex I had with some blonde girl last night after I dropped her off at home.
Then I start laughing - hard.
At this point I'm thinking of all the dumb movies where the girlfriend finds another girl's hair on the guy's clothes. Now, if you knew as I did how incredibly far I was from snuggling with some random blonde girl, you would also be laughing - hard.
Ren gets all upset and demands I tell her where the hair came from. Who was I seeing! What was I doing?
I don't think she was pleased.
Maybe cuz I was laughing uncontrollably. In a library.
Sorry Ren, you got me.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Finding Flow
Came across this neat article by Psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi on "flow". He was the former head of the Psychology deparment at the University of Chicago, and the concept of flow is one of his main contributions to the field.
It's a long article, well worth the read. But here are a few snippets I particularly enjoyed:
(Hat tip to Maggi Dawn)
Cheers
It's a long article, well worth the read. But here are a few snippets I particularly enjoyed:
These exceptional moments are what I have called "flow" experiences. The metaphor of flow is one that many people have used to describe the sense of effortless action they feel in moments that stand out as the best in their lives. Athletes refer to it as "being in the zone," religious mystics as being in "ecstasy," artists and musicians as "aesthetic rapture." It is the full involvement of flow, rather than happiness, that makes for excellence in life.
...
Flow tends to occur when a person faces a clear set of goals that require appropriate responses. It is easy to enter flow in games such as chess, tennis, or poker, because they have goals and rules that make it possible for the player to act without questioning what should be done, and how. For the duration of the game the player lives in a self-contained universe where everything is black and white. The same clarity of goals is present if you perform a religious ritual, play a musical piece, weave a rug, write a computer program, climb a mountain, or perform surgery. In contrast to normal life, these "flow activities" allow a person to focus on goals that are clear and compatible, and provide immediate feedback.
Flow also happens when a person's skills are fully involved in overcoming a challenge that is just about manageable, so it acts as a magnet for learning new skills and increasing challenges. If challenges are too low, one gets back to flow by increasing them. If challenges are too great, one can return to the flow state by learning new skills.
...
Leisure time in our society is occupied by three major sorts of activities: media consumption, conversation, and active leisure--such as hobbies, making music, going to restaurants and movies, sports, and exercise. Not all of these free-time activities are the same in their potential for flow. For example, U.S. teenagers experience flow about 13 percent of the time that they spend watching television, 34 percent of the time they do hobbies, and 44 percent of the time they are involved in sports and games. Yet these same teenagers spend at least four times more of their free hours watching TV than doing hobbies or sports. Similar ratios are true for adults.
Why would we spend four times more of our free time doing something that has less than half the chance of making us feel good? Each of the flow-producing activities requires an initial investment of attention before it begins to be enjoyable. If a person is too tired, anxious, or lacks the discipline to overcome that initial obstacle, he or she will have to settle for something that, although less enjoyable, is more accessible.
(Hat tip to Maggi Dawn)
Cheers
Friday, March 24, 2006
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Where oh where has Kevin been?
Sick with a really nasty case of Influenza. I've been pretty much knocked out since Sunday when my fever began, and it's still around 39 or 40 C if I don't take regular doses of Advil/Tylenol. I've got about 4 hrs of sleep a night for 4 nights in a row. My head feels like it's gonna explode. My neck and back are stiff and in pain. I'm so fatigued I can't even walk straight down my hallway. My ears are under constant pressure, and any high pitch noise kills. I have no appetite, and what appetite I have is brutally suppressed by the high fever and the antibiotics. The antibiotics are so I don't get a secondary bacterial infection since I'm in such bad shape. I get chills and major shakes at night when my meds wear off since my body thinks I have hypothermia.
Fortunately, my lab work turned up negative, as did my chest x-ray. So we're pretty certain it's just Influenza. And an emergency doctor/family friend said that this isn't out of the ordinary for Influenza: high fever that takes you out of the game for 3-5 days. And right now, there's a lot of it going around.
I'm going to miss a week of school at crunch time: a week where I have no juice to do any homework. So now I'm a week behind when I really, really couldn't afford it.
So that's where Kevin has been. Not like you cared anyways.
Fortunately, my lab work turned up negative, as did my chest x-ray. So we're pretty certain it's just Influenza. And an emergency doctor/family friend said that this isn't out of the ordinary for Influenza: high fever that takes you out of the game for 3-5 days. And right now, there's a lot of it going around.
I'm going to miss a week of school at crunch time: a week where I have no juice to do any homework. So now I'm a week behind when I really, really couldn't afford it.
So that's where Kevin has been. Not like you cared anyways.
Slippery Slope
Another great post by Real Live Preacher.
Here's a snippet of a part I really enjoyed:
Read it all here.
Here's a snippet of a part I really enjoyed:
Once I told someone that I did not think the events described in the book of Jonah had actually occurred. The story has great spiritual value, which is why it was included in the Bible, but I felt there was no real history behind it.
An alarmed Christian person said, “Yes, but once you say that Jonah didn’t really happen, what’s to stop you from saying any or all of the Bible didn't happen?”
I’ve heard this same argument with regard to scripture a thousand times over the years. Here is the appropriate response:
“Well, let’s see. I believe that Jonah was not swallowed by a great fish and vomited up on the beach. But I believe Abraham was a real person. Further, I believe that David was a real king of a real Israel. And I believe that Jesus was also a real person, one who worked miracles and died on the cross for our sins. See now, that wasn’t so hard, was it?”
Read it all here.
Friday, March 17, 2006
My week
I feel like posting. I don't know why - I don't really have anything specific to talk about. That's never stopped me before though.
I just finished the first draft of my RELG 304 paper (Creation and Covenant in Ancient Israel). It's a look at laws concerning sexual behaviour in ancient Israel using sociological criticism. My thesis is something along the lines of:
It wasn't a particularly difficult paper to write. Once I had a question (regulation of sexuality and society), the method came naturally (sociological criticism), and then the text was obvious (Deuteronomy 22.13-29). But, my lack of formal sociological training didn't help. Fortunately, my RELG 370 paper drew on sociology, and I've been reading up on the field throughout this semester. Sucks I'll never take a sociology course in my life. Oh well.
Now this weekend I have to start researching for my RELG 414 paper (Gospels and Jesus). I think I might change my topic. My original topic/thesis was too broad for only 15 pages. I'm now thinking of writing about the significance of Jesus' open shared meals. I have a gameplan in mind (i.e., an outline of the argument) so I think it just might work.
Oh, and I've registered for summer session.
Animal Physiology - M W F @ 9AM-12PM; M @ 12PM-2PM; M @ 2PM - 5PM. (May to end of June)
Biostatistics - T Th @ 7PM - 10PM; W @ 2PM-5PM. (May to mid June)
Then, okay wait for it...I HAVE TWO MONTHS OFF!!
Oh. My.
I haven't had two months of summer since...man...before University. Wooow!!
I'm gonna be so bored, haha!
Fin
-Kev
I just finished the first draft of my RELG 304 paper (Creation and Covenant in Ancient Israel). It's a look at laws concerning sexual behaviour in ancient Israel using sociological criticism. My thesis is something along the lines of:
As reflected in Deuteronomy 22.13-29, non-marital sex was primarily restricted for women in ancient Israel—and only secondarily for men—because it challenged the structure and stability of the society.
It wasn't a particularly difficult paper to write. Once I had a question (regulation of sexuality and society), the method came naturally (sociological criticism), and then the text was obvious (Deuteronomy 22.13-29). But, my lack of formal sociological training didn't help. Fortunately, my RELG 370 paper drew on sociology, and I've been reading up on the field throughout this semester. Sucks I'll never take a sociology course in my life. Oh well.
Now this weekend I have to start researching for my RELG 414 paper (Gospels and Jesus). I think I might change my topic. My original topic/thesis was too broad for only 15 pages. I'm now thinking of writing about the significance of Jesus' open shared meals. I have a gameplan in mind (i.e., an outline of the argument) so I think it just might work.
Oh, and I've registered for summer session.
Animal Physiology - M W F @ 9AM-12PM; M @ 12PM-2PM; M @ 2PM - 5PM. (May to end of June)
Biostatistics - T Th @ 7PM - 10PM; W @ 2PM-5PM. (May to mid June)
Then, okay wait for it...I HAVE TWO MONTHS OFF!!
Oh. My.
I haven't had two months of summer since...man...before University. Wooow!!
I'm gonna be so bored, haha!
Fin
-Kev
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Biblical Inerrancy: What is it? How does it work?
I have decided to write out my understanding of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. This isn't from a theological textbook, or a history textbook, but from my mind - a layman's understanding. This is partially to clarify my thoughts, but also to aid others to reflect upon their own beliefs.
Biblical inerrancy is the idea that the Bible is inerrant. Okay, great, good definition. What this really means is that the Bible is free from error. Different people consider different issues as under the category 'error-free'. I think a majority of Evangelicals that believe in inerrancy, the ones I know at least, hold on to a pretty strong version of the doctrine. That is, the Bible is free from error in issues of theology (who is God, what is God like, who is Jesus), morality (what is right, is lust bad), history (was there an exodus, did Jesus walk on water), and science (did God create the universe in 7 days, is the earth the center of the universe). However, others hold to weaker versions of this doctrine. Often, the first thing to go is scientific inerrancy, after that goes historical inerrancy, then typically moral inerrancy, and the last to go is theological inerrancy. My feeling is that many evangelicals have let go of scientific inerrancy, and some have at least softened a bit on historical inerrancy, but most do not part with moral and theological inerrancy.
Why do some believers think that the Bible is inerrant? Well, they would argue, it is divinely revealed by God. God spoke, or moved, the biblical authors to write; therefore, what they wrote is error free. Because it is divinely revealed, it has access to divine perspective, and thus would see all things truly. Moses wasn't around for creation, no problem - God told him everything. John wasn't in the room when Pilate was talking to Jesus, no worries - God revealed the conversation to him. So on, so forth.
Thus, believers who hold onto inerrancy stand defiantly with their 'biblical truth' over against the tools of scientific or historical inquiry. Hundreds of thousands of man-hours of research and discussion has built up the modern theory of evolution. Yet biblical inerrantists still think the world was made in 7 days. This is based on a ~2500 year old text, the product of an ancient civilization. Biblical inerrantists think that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are real, and all the stories in the Bible about them are real; this is based on a text written at least a thousand years after they lived. But to one who believes in biblical inerrancy, this is no problem. God revealed all truth to the biblical authors, and they wrote this down.
But the real dagger of biblical inerrancy is that those who champion it do so on basis of "faith": "I have faith in the Bible that it is true". I don't get this. Why do you have faith in an ancient collection of diverse texts? Inerrantists make it seem that if I have a "real faith" in God, I would also have faith in the Bible. This, of course, plays into the related idea that faith in God is mainly intellectual assent (believe in your mind something to be true), not fidelity, trust, or loyalty (the way we use "faith" in daily human relationships). So faith in the Bible becomes equally important as faith in God, and both are equated with intellectual belief. The result - if I don't believe the Bible is true, I'm only quasi-Christian. If the Bible isn't free from error - my oh my, how could it be relevant to our religion!?
I don't bite. Most of my life isn't based on mathematically certain truths. None of my interpersonal relationships are based on certainties. Why should the transcendent relationship be any different?
It is possible to be a Christian yet not believe the Bible to be inerrant.
Biblical inerrancy is the idea that the Bible is inerrant. Okay, great, good definition. What this really means is that the Bible is free from error. Different people consider different issues as under the category 'error-free'. I think a majority of Evangelicals that believe in inerrancy, the ones I know at least, hold on to a pretty strong version of the doctrine. That is, the Bible is free from error in issues of theology (who is God, what is God like, who is Jesus), morality (what is right, is lust bad), history (was there an exodus, did Jesus walk on water), and science (did God create the universe in 7 days, is the earth the center of the universe). However, others hold to weaker versions of this doctrine. Often, the first thing to go is scientific inerrancy, after that goes historical inerrancy, then typically moral inerrancy, and the last to go is theological inerrancy. My feeling is that many evangelicals have let go of scientific inerrancy, and some have at least softened a bit on historical inerrancy, but most do not part with moral and theological inerrancy.
Why do some believers think that the Bible is inerrant? Well, they would argue, it is divinely revealed by God. God spoke, or moved, the biblical authors to write; therefore, what they wrote is error free. Because it is divinely revealed, it has access to divine perspective, and thus would see all things truly. Moses wasn't around for creation, no problem - God told him everything. John wasn't in the room when Pilate was talking to Jesus, no worries - God revealed the conversation to him. So on, so forth.
Thus, believers who hold onto inerrancy stand defiantly with their 'biblical truth' over against the tools of scientific or historical inquiry. Hundreds of thousands of man-hours of research and discussion has built up the modern theory of evolution. Yet biblical inerrantists still think the world was made in 7 days. This is based on a ~2500 year old text, the product of an ancient civilization. Biblical inerrantists think that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are real, and all the stories in the Bible about them are real; this is based on a text written at least a thousand years after they lived. But to one who believes in biblical inerrancy, this is no problem. God revealed all truth to the biblical authors, and they wrote this down.
But the real dagger of biblical inerrancy is that those who champion it do so on basis of "faith": "I have faith in the Bible that it is true". I don't get this. Why do you have faith in an ancient collection of diverse texts? Inerrantists make it seem that if I have a "real faith" in God, I would also have faith in the Bible. This, of course, plays into the related idea that faith in God is mainly intellectual assent (believe in your mind something to be true), not fidelity, trust, or loyalty (the way we use "faith" in daily human relationships). So faith in the Bible becomes equally important as faith in God, and both are equated with intellectual belief. The result - if I don't believe the Bible is true, I'm only quasi-Christian. If the Bible isn't free from error - my oh my, how could it be relevant to our religion!?
I don't bite. Most of my life isn't based on mathematically certain truths. None of my interpersonal relationships are based on certainties. Why should the transcendent relationship be any different?
It is possible to be a Christian yet not believe the Bible to be inerrant.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
The Blind Can See
I was standing at the bus stop, waiting for the Vancouver bus, when an elderly gentleman got off one of the busses passing by and hobbled under the bus shelter. The man was old--but not that old--a little slow, and seemed shaky. Within seconds of seeing this man, I had judged him and formed a picture of him in my mind.
Now I'm sitting on the bus, on my way downtown. A middle aged lady gets on the bus, along with her seeing-eye dog. The bus driver seats her just in front of me in the handicap section. She's sitting beside the shaky old man.
Sometimes I wonder what it's like to be blind.
Soon enough, the shaky man and the blind lady started chatting.
To the blind lady, the man was just another voice in a sea of dark: no judgement, no prejudice.
Perhaps it's the blind who truly see - they see humans as humans, not as shaky old men.
Now I'm sitting on the bus, on my way downtown. A middle aged lady gets on the bus, along with her seeing-eye dog. The bus driver seats her just in front of me in the handicap section. She's sitting beside the shaky old man.
Sometimes I wonder what it's like to be blind.
Soon enough, the shaky man and the blind lady started chatting.
To the blind lady, the man was just another voice in a sea of dark: no judgement, no prejudice.
Perhaps it's the blind who truly see - they see humans as humans, not as shaky old men.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Welcome to Lent
Today is Ash Wednesday, the beginning of the season of Lent.
I've hurt someone who means so very much to me - really hurt them.
What a great start to Lent.
God have mercy on me.
please
I've hurt someone who means so very much to me - really hurt them.
What a great start to Lent.
God have mercy on me.
please
A Prayer of St. Francis
Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love.
Where there is injury, pardon.
Where there is discord, vision.
Where there is doubt, faith.
Where there is despair, hope.
Where there is darkness, light.
Where there is sadness, joy.
O divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved, as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.
Amen.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love.
Where there is injury, pardon.
Where there is discord, vision.
Where there is doubt, faith.
Where there is despair, hope.
Where there is darkness, light.
Where there is sadness, joy.
O divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved, as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.
Amen.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Feeling Lighter
I'm feeling lighter.
- I'm no longer sick.
- Our house is back to normal: peace and quiet.
- Religious space paper draft is done. I just have to sit infront of class for 45 mins and listen to criticism. I can handle that.
- Old Testament midterm is done. It was relatively straight forward.
- I'm slowly, very very slowly, catching up on all the courses I fell behind on last week. Did I mention how slowly?
- Cell group night is done with. It was a load of fun and went well. Pictures up soon.
I'm not in the clear yet.
- Greek midterm next week. This gonna be killer. I'm so far behind on my translations, and I just plain suck. Languages take me a long, long time.
- Gospels and Jesus midterm next week. I need to catch up on my readings. A whole bunch of textbook readings, and I need to read the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John. I just read the Gospel of Matthew tonight, took about 2.5 hrs. Ugh, so long!
- I gotta get crackin on my other two papers: Old Testament and Gospels n Jesus. Think think think, write write write.
Adios,
Kev
- I'm no longer sick.
- Our house is back to normal: peace and quiet.
- Religious space paper draft is done. I just have to sit infront of class for 45 mins and listen to criticism. I can handle that.
- Old Testament midterm is done. It was relatively straight forward.
- I'm slowly, very very slowly, catching up on all the courses I fell behind on last week. Did I mention how slowly?
- Cell group night is done with. It was a load of fun and went well. Pictures up soon.
I'm not in the clear yet.
- Greek midterm next week. This gonna be killer. I'm so far behind on my translations, and I just plain suck. Languages take me a long, long time.
- Gospels and Jesus midterm next week. I need to catch up on my readings. A whole bunch of textbook readings, and I need to read the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John. I just read the Gospel of Matthew tonight, took about 2.5 hrs. Ugh, so long!
- I gotta get crackin on my other two papers: Old Testament and Gospels n Jesus. Think think think, write write write.
Adios,
Kev
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Ugh
Being sick sucks.
Being sick--and having to write a midterm--sucks.
Being sick--and having to entertain relatives with little kids--sucks.
Being sick--and having to write a term paper--sucks.
Being sick--and having to prepare for cell group--sucks.
Being sick--and having to study for another midterm--sucks.
Being sick, and having to write a midterm, entertain relatives with little kids, write a term paper, prepare for cell group, study for another midterm...
Being sick--and having to write a midterm--sucks.
Being sick--and having to entertain relatives with little kids--sucks.
Being sick--and having to write a term paper--sucks.
Being sick--and having to prepare for cell group--sucks.
Being sick--and having to study for another midterm--sucks.
Being sick, and having to write a midterm, entertain relatives with little kids, write a term paper, prepare for cell group, study for another midterm...
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Mosaic
"In everything do to others as you would have them do to you." -Matthew's Jesus
"I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another." - John's Jesus
"If I have all the faith, so as to move a mountain, but have not love, then I am nothing. And if I should dole out all my possessions, and if I should give over my body so that I might boast, but hold not love, then I profit nothing." - Paul
"Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and do not make room for the devil." - A disciple of Paul
"You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' " - James, the brother of Jesus
"I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another." - John's Jesus
"If I have all the faith, so as to move a mountain, but have not love, then I am nothing. And if I should dole out all my possessions, and if I should give over my body so that I might boast, but hold not love, then I profit nothing." - Paul
"Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and do not make room for the devil." - A disciple of Paul
"You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' " - James, the brother of Jesus
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Screwed
I'm screwed.
I have to submit a draft of my research paper by this weekend, probably Friday or Saturday.
Our assignment is to interpret a sacred space in the city of Vancouver.
My space is St. Helen's Catholic Church in North Burnaby.
I went to Sunday Mass last week for some hands on research.
I had a proposed theory before going in last week.
I have spent the last week realizing that my theory is vacuous bullshit.
Suffice to say, I haven't written a single word yet.
I'm screwed.
So, utterly, screwed.
God shave me.
-Kev
I have to submit a draft of my research paper by this weekend, probably Friday or Saturday.
Our assignment is to interpret a sacred space in the city of Vancouver.
My space is St. Helen's Catholic Church in North Burnaby.
I went to Sunday Mass last week for some hands on research.
I had a proposed theory before going in last week.
I have spent the last week realizing that my theory is vacuous bullshit.
Suffice to say, I haven't written a single word yet.
I'm screwed.
So, utterly, screwed.
God shave me.
-Kev
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Telos
What is the purpose of it all:
What is the purpose of religion, faith, salvation - whatever?
What is all this stuff aiming towards?
What does God want for humans?
What is the purpose of religion, faith, salvation - whatever?
What is all this stuff aiming towards?
What does God want for humans?
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Building Castles - Part Two
In my last post, "Building Castles - Part One", I wrote about how my beliefs, and my faith itself, were challenged repeatedly. Over time, these challenges wore away my coherent package of 'Christianity' to the point where it could no longer stand, and my faith collapsed.
But what kind of challenges? Well, here's a brief, but representative, list.
Experience of God
- My experiences of God seemed complete out of the domesticated picture of God that I had in my head. The God that I experienced in life was mysterious: sometimes there and sometimes not; never doing as expected; full of love, and yet terrifying. He is the type of God that sits and watches millions of Jews be massacred in Europe, hundreds of thousands of Africans in Rwanda, and millions of others in countless acts of brutal genocide throughout human history. Yet he does nothing - he did nothing; yes they all came to an end, but not before scores of people lost their lives. He is the type of God that sometimes heals the sick and dying, but most of the time lets them die no matter how passionately people pray otherwise. He is the type of God that blesses some people with great life, and doesn't bless others - seemingly arbitrarily. God, I realized, is mysterious and unpredictable. Can a God like this really be trusted? And trusted for what? A good life - obviously not, no guarantees for that; health - nope, no certainty there; afterlife - well, maybe, probably; a constant companion - getting warmer.
- Moreover, in my own life, I went through a phase in life that really, directly, made me rethink what God was. Whatever God was, I had to reconcile his character and nature with what I myself was experiencing spiritually (or not experiencing). So the things I experienced in life, and that I read, heard, and saw others experience in their lives - I had to put God in the picture and try to make sense of everything.
The Bible
- I used to hold on to the doctrine of biblical inspiration. Biblical inspiration states that the Bible is inspired by God. Most people take this to mean that its composition was inspired, which amounts to saying that the Bible is a text supernaturally revealed by God. The texts of the Bible, in one way or another, were written by God. In light of all I had learned about the composition of these texts, I could no longer come to see them as revealed by God.
- We have no idea who wrote the vast majority of the Bible. The Pentateuch is a composite document of traditions and sources spanning half a millennia or more. Many of the historical books in the Hebrew Bible were also composed by anonymous authors over a period of time. The great scroll of the prophet Isaiah is most likely the result of three layers of prophetic authorship over a period of 300 years, by at least three authors of whom we know little about. We have no clue who wrote the Gospels, though we do have some good indications of the situation in which they wrote. Half of the letters traditionally ascribed to Paul are most likely pseudonymous: that is, Paul didn't write them. A disciple, a follower, someone, wrote these letters in the name of Paul in order to give them authority and weight. All of this came as a huge blow against my doctrine of biblical inspiration.
- Historically, the Bible is troubled. For example, we have little to no archaeological evidence of a swift conquest of Canaan c. 1200 BCE. The story of Joshua and the swift conquest of the land seems to have actually occurred much different. Many think that the picture painted in the Book of Judges is more accurate: a slow settling of Hebrew people in Canaan. Not the decisive military conquest of Joshua. More hammering away at inspiration.
- The Bible is not unified. When you look at the Bible, all the authors didn't have the same theology. There are a number of different theologies in the Bible - both in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Sometimes, these theologies differ and disagree with each other over religion, God, Jesus, etc... Some things even flat out contradict. With so many differing viewpoints the question is, who do we listen to? This further tore down my doctrine of inspiration.
- The Bible is so obviously a human document. It is made up of stories and tales that humans told, and retold. It shows all the marks of human composition and editing: various sources and materials being put together into a continuous scroll. Not only that, but we see the political agenda of authors showing in these texts: pro-monarchy, pro-Judah, pro-Pauline Christianity, pro-Jewish Christian Christianity. Yet another shot at inspiration.
Jesus
- When I was exposed to historical Jesus studies, I just devoured the stuff. But the more I learned about what historians have to say about Jesus, the more and more difficult it became to connect the dots between Jesus-the-guy and Jesus-the-Lord-of-the-Church. Now don't get me wrong, Jesus was religious, and his agenda was religious (and political: the two were intimately bound together back in Jesus' society). But my problem was the vast chasm I saw between Jesus' message, goals, and interests, and that of the Church which proclaims Jesus. It's as if the picture of Jesus painted in the Gospel of John is the lens the Church must look through in order to understand Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This ignores the fact that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were each their own stand alone Gospel; the Jesus-story of three different communities. Three different pictures of Jesus, three different ways of following Jesus. All of it subsequently read through - and distorted by - the lens of John.
- Over time, I became more and more puzzled over the 'divinity' of Jesus. Firstly, I wondered whether the Jesus of history ever believed such a thing about himself. Read the Synoptic Gospels, you'll be hard pressed to find any indication of it. In the Gospel of John you get a number of passages, that when read in a certain way, seem to indicate that (though, as I said, when read in a certain specific way). In Paul, again, you will be hard pressed. Two passages come to my mind, both are fiercely debated. The attribute of divinity to Jesus was a development of the Church Fathers in the first several centuries of Christianity. I see attribution of divinity to Jesus as mythological, metaphorical language - not metaphysical. It is using comparison - the language of poetry - not the language of philosophy and science.
Science
- I came to accept the evolutionary explanation of life, and human origins. Evolution just makes much better sense of all the data than creationism. The universe is some 15 billion years old, the earth around 5 billion, humans around 1-2 million. So then what does this make of the stories in Genesis. Creation? Adam and Eve? Noah? If this stuff wasn't science or history, then what was it? Partly this rubbed shoulders with inspiration, but it also made me rethink what the texts in the Bible are, and what they aren't.
World Religions
- Learning about the vast religious diversity in this world had a major impact on me. Ancient Judaism was just the local religion of an insignificant piece of land in a very, very large world. There were many other religious beliefs all over the ancient world. So what - were all those non-Israelites screwed? I couldn't accept that. Move forward through the centuries as Christianity spread. Christianity did spread and grow, but much of the world's population was never Christian. And today, a significant portion of this world's population is not Christian. So what - are all of them bound to an eternal punishment in hell? I couldn't accept that. How could a God of love and compassion do such a thing. Learning of the religious diversity in this world challenged whole portions of my Christian worldview. My shift towards inclusivism, and then pluralism, tore down a huge segment of my Christian understanding.
These are just some of the many, many, attacks vaulted at my fortress. Maybe, someday, I'll share some more, but I think I've said enough. You get my drift.
Thanks everyone for the grace you've shown me.
Peace,
Kev
But what kind of challenges? Well, here's a brief, but representative, list.
Experience of God
- My experiences of God seemed complete out of the domesticated picture of God that I had in my head. The God that I experienced in life was mysterious: sometimes there and sometimes not; never doing as expected; full of love, and yet terrifying. He is the type of God that sits and watches millions of Jews be massacred in Europe, hundreds of thousands of Africans in Rwanda, and millions of others in countless acts of brutal genocide throughout human history. Yet he does nothing - he did nothing; yes they all came to an end, but not before scores of people lost their lives. He is the type of God that sometimes heals the sick and dying, but most of the time lets them die no matter how passionately people pray otherwise. He is the type of God that blesses some people with great life, and doesn't bless others - seemingly arbitrarily. God, I realized, is mysterious and unpredictable. Can a God like this really be trusted? And trusted for what? A good life - obviously not, no guarantees for that; health - nope, no certainty there; afterlife - well, maybe, probably; a constant companion - getting warmer.
- Moreover, in my own life, I went through a phase in life that really, directly, made me rethink what God was. Whatever God was, I had to reconcile his character and nature with what I myself was experiencing spiritually (or not experiencing). So the things I experienced in life, and that I read, heard, and saw others experience in their lives - I had to put God in the picture and try to make sense of everything.
The Bible
- I used to hold on to the doctrine of biblical inspiration. Biblical inspiration states that the Bible is inspired by God. Most people take this to mean that its composition was inspired, which amounts to saying that the Bible is a text supernaturally revealed by God. The texts of the Bible, in one way or another, were written by God. In light of all I had learned about the composition of these texts, I could no longer come to see them as revealed by God.
- We have no idea who wrote the vast majority of the Bible. The Pentateuch is a composite document of traditions and sources spanning half a millennia or more. Many of the historical books in the Hebrew Bible were also composed by anonymous authors over a period of time. The great scroll of the prophet Isaiah is most likely the result of three layers of prophetic authorship over a period of 300 years, by at least three authors of whom we know little about. We have no clue who wrote the Gospels, though we do have some good indications of the situation in which they wrote. Half of the letters traditionally ascribed to Paul are most likely pseudonymous: that is, Paul didn't write them. A disciple, a follower, someone, wrote these letters in the name of Paul in order to give them authority and weight. All of this came as a huge blow against my doctrine of biblical inspiration.
- Historically, the Bible is troubled. For example, we have little to no archaeological evidence of a swift conquest of Canaan c. 1200 BCE. The story of Joshua and the swift conquest of the land seems to have actually occurred much different. Many think that the picture painted in the Book of Judges is more accurate: a slow settling of Hebrew people in Canaan. Not the decisive military conquest of Joshua. More hammering away at inspiration.
- The Bible is not unified. When you look at the Bible, all the authors didn't have the same theology. There are a number of different theologies in the Bible - both in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Sometimes, these theologies differ and disagree with each other over religion, God, Jesus, etc... Some things even flat out contradict. With so many differing viewpoints the question is, who do we listen to? This further tore down my doctrine of inspiration.
- The Bible is so obviously a human document. It is made up of stories and tales that humans told, and retold. It shows all the marks of human composition and editing: various sources and materials being put together into a continuous scroll. Not only that, but we see the political agenda of authors showing in these texts: pro-monarchy, pro-Judah, pro-Pauline Christianity, pro-Jewish Christian Christianity. Yet another shot at inspiration.
Jesus
- When I was exposed to historical Jesus studies, I just devoured the stuff. But the more I learned about what historians have to say about Jesus, the more and more difficult it became to connect the dots between Jesus-the-guy and Jesus-the-Lord-of-the-Church. Now don't get me wrong, Jesus was religious, and his agenda was religious (and political: the two were intimately bound together back in Jesus' society). But my problem was the vast chasm I saw between Jesus' message, goals, and interests, and that of the Church which proclaims Jesus. It's as if the picture of Jesus painted in the Gospel of John is the lens the Church must look through in order to understand Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This ignores the fact that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were each their own stand alone Gospel; the Jesus-story of three different communities. Three different pictures of Jesus, three different ways of following Jesus. All of it subsequently read through - and distorted by - the lens of John.
- Over time, I became more and more puzzled over the 'divinity' of Jesus. Firstly, I wondered whether the Jesus of history ever believed such a thing about himself. Read the Synoptic Gospels, you'll be hard pressed to find any indication of it. In the Gospel of John you get a number of passages, that when read in a certain way, seem to indicate that (though, as I said, when read in a certain specific way). In Paul, again, you will be hard pressed. Two passages come to my mind, both are fiercely debated. The attribute of divinity to Jesus was a development of the Church Fathers in the first several centuries of Christianity. I see attribution of divinity to Jesus as mythological, metaphorical language - not metaphysical. It is using comparison - the language of poetry - not the language of philosophy and science.
Science
- I came to accept the evolutionary explanation of life, and human origins. Evolution just makes much better sense of all the data than creationism. The universe is some 15 billion years old, the earth around 5 billion, humans around 1-2 million. So then what does this make of the stories in Genesis. Creation? Adam and Eve? Noah? If this stuff wasn't science or history, then what was it? Partly this rubbed shoulders with inspiration, but it also made me rethink what the texts in the Bible are, and what they aren't.
World Religions
- Learning about the vast religious diversity in this world had a major impact on me. Ancient Judaism was just the local religion of an insignificant piece of land in a very, very large world. There were many other religious beliefs all over the ancient world. So what - were all those non-Israelites screwed? I couldn't accept that. Move forward through the centuries as Christianity spread. Christianity did spread and grow, but much of the world's population was never Christian. And today, a significant portion of this world's population is not Christian. So what - are all of them bound to an eternal punishment in hell? I couldn't accept that. How could a God of love and compassion do such a thing. Learning of the religious diversity in this world challenged whole portions of my Christian worldview. My shift towards inclusivism, and then pluralism, tore down a huge segment of my Christian understanding.
These are just some of the many, many, attacks vaulted at my fortress. Maybe, someday, I'll share some more, but I think I've said enough. You get my drift.
Thanks everyone for the grace you've shown me.
Peace,
Kev
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Building Castles - Part One
My Christian faith used to be a strong castle. All the beliefs and doctrines I held onto fit tightly together. Everything was coherent; within the framework, everything made sense.
But then challenges came. My first reaction was to build up my castle walls. I added to them, fortified them, and built them taller and thicker. I turned my castle into a towering fortress.
But the challenges kept coming. Bits of my fortress were slowly chipped off. A brick here, a plank there.
More challenges kept coming. Larger and larger pieces were being chipped off; massive stones were removed. The archways, the ramparts, the walls - peppered with holes all over. I was in a fortress of swiss cheese.
Finally, the castle - my fortress - collapsed. My impenetrable fortress was weakened to the point where it could no longer keep itself standing.
My faith fell apart.
I stood atop the ruins. Everything that kept me safe - that gave me meaning, direction, and purpose in life - had crumbled into a massive heap of stone, wood, and metal.
I don't know why, but I stayed. I decided to rebuild.
For the past year or so of my life I have been rebuilding. Most of the structure is new. Oddly enough, from the outside, my new home resembles my old one. However, on the inside, it is radically different. I have utilized a different construction technique for building my foundation built my foundation. The framing of the walls is altogether different. No longer have I built with stone - which does not bend and sway under pressure - but I have built with wood. Organic, able to absorb stress and pressure by bending and swaying; able to channel and redirect the energy. Alive. Dynamic.
I am in the process of rebuilding a faith, a religiosity, a spirituality that had completely and utterly collapsed. A faith that can stand strong in full view of all the challenges.
Perhaps now you all can understand why I am the way that I am.
Stay tuned for Part Two where I present a list of some of these 'challenges'.
Peace,
Kev
*EDIT: Part Two here.
But then challenges came. My first reaction was to build up my castle walls. I added to them, fortified them, and built them taller and thicker. I turned my castle into a towering fortress.
But the challenges kept coming. Bits of my fortress were slowly chipped off. A brick here, a plank there.
More challenges kept coming. Larger and larger pieces were being chipped off; massive stones were removed. The archways, the ramparts, the walls - peppered with holes all over. I was in a fortress of swiss cheese.
Finally, the castle - my fortress - collapsed. My impenetrable fortress was weakened to the point where it could no longer keep itself standing.
My faith fell apart.
I stood atop the ruins. Everything that kept me safe - that gave me meaning, direction, and purpose in life - had crumbled into a massive heap of stone, wood, and metal.
I don't know why, but I stayed. I decided to rebuild.
For the past year or so of my life I have been rebuilding. Most of the structure is new. Oddly enough, from the outside, my new home resembles my old one. However, on the inside, it is radically different. I have utilized a different construction technique for building my foundation built my foundation. The framing of the walls is altogether different. No longer have I built with stone - which does not bend and sway under pressure - but I have built with wood. Organic, able to absorb stress and pressure by bending and swaying; able to channel and redirect the energy. Alive. Dynamic.
I am in the process of rebuilding a faith, a religiosity, a spirituality that had completely and utterly collapsed. A faith that can stand strong in full view of all the challenges.
Perhaps now you all can understand why I am the way that I am.
Stay tuned for Part Two where I present a list of some of these 'challenges'.
Peace,
Kev
*EDIT: Part Two here.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Keep Your Mouth Shut
I'm sitting in Scarfe, trying to translate a letter written by the Roman Emperor Claudius - tough shit, believe me.
Beside me two asian ladies are having a conversation.
It's about creation and evolution.
The one girl is telling the other that Darwin became a Christian later on in life, and he repented and regretted having ever made the theory of evolution.
I'm sorry lady, but that is pure bullshit.
Darwin never converted later in life.
Darwin never regretted his theory of evolution.
I bet one of the girls has had evangelism training. She's got her Bible with her. She's pumping out the Gospel of John. She's got all the lines: "can you see air? can you see radio waves? can you see an invisible God?" She even has evangelistic tracts. Yep - she's definitely had the evangelism training.
You want to tell people about Jesus? Be my guest; he's an important dude. The story of his life changes people's lives to this very day. And walking in his Way is a choice I myself have made for my own life. But, please, don't spread hearsay and false stories to try and convert people. If Jesus is worth anything, he can attract people on his own merits. He doesn't need people to lie for him.
But, alas, I keep my mouth shut.
-Kev
P.S. Why do people bother? Evolution is a damn good theory. It makes sense of a LOT of data that we have (geological, biological, etc...). It does exactly what a theory is meant to do: explain the data. And it does this much more gracefully than Creationist attempts, with much less conjecture. I smell another post?
Beside me two asian ladies are having a conversation.
It's about creation and evolution.
The one girl is telling the other that Darwin became a Christian later on in life, and he repented and regretted having ever made the theory of evolution.
I'm sorry lady, but that is pure bullshit.
Darwin never converted later in life.
Darwin never regretted his theory of evolution.
I bet one of the girls has had evangelism training. She's got her Bible with her. She's pumping out the Gospel of John. She's got all the lines: "can you see air? can you see radio waves? can you see an invisible God?" She even has evangelistic tracts. Yep - she's definitely had the evangelism training.
You want to tell people about Jesus? Be my guest; he's an important dude. The story of his life changes people's lives to this very day. And walking in his Way is a choice I myself have made for my own life. But, please, don't spread hearsay and false stories to try and convert people. If Jesus is worth anything, he can attract people on his own merits. He doesn't need people to lie for him.
But, alas, I keep my mouth shut.
-Kev
P.S. Why do people bother? Evolution is a damn good theory. It makes sense of a LOT of data that we have (geological, biological, etc...). It does exactly what a theory is meant to do: explain the data. And it does this much more gracefully than Creationist attempts, with much less conjecture. I smell another post?
Thursday, January 19, 2006
From Gospels to the Historical Jesus
I have finally begun reading (again, but much more closely) the Gospels in the New Testament as part of my course on 'The Gospels and Jesus'. Immediately, I was struck by a seemingly insurmountable difficulty. Namely, how can I go from reading this Gospel text to saying anything about the historical Jesus. I was baffled. I was stuck on the question of 'method'
But then I remembered the approach of my course textbook (Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus). First, one must understand each Gospel; then, one can begin to make the jump to the historical Jesus.
I think I'm going to follow this approach. My first goal will be to understand each of the Gospels as individual texts. Having then understood the world of each of the Gospels, I can then begin to form my picture of the historical Jesus.
In general terms: understand each of your sources first, and only then try to put all the pieces together.
Well, at least that's my approach for now. Unless I come across a better way. I always love better ways.
-Kev
But then I remembered the approach of my course textbook (Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus). First, one must understand each Gospel; then, one can begin to make the jump to the historical Jesus.
I think I'm going to follow this approach. My first goal will be to understand each of the Gospels as individual texts. Having then understood the world of each of the Gospels, I can then begin to form my picture of the historical Jesus.
In general terms: understand each of your sources first, and only then try to put all the pieces together.
Well, at least that's my approach for now. Unless I come across a better way. I always love better ways.
-Kev
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Political Reflections
Democracy they say?
I vote for a man or woman to represent me in the House of Commons for approximately four years. This individual, my Member of Parliament, is affiliated with one of the major Canadian political parties: Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, Greens, etc... When I, the Canadian citizen, vote in the federal election, who do I vote for? Person or Party?
Party. Why do I vote party - because it is the party that is really in charge. See, my MP is given a seat in the House of Commons, which gives them a vote and voice in legislative proceedings. But, how does my MP decide what to vote for, or what issues to discuss? The party line. As I understand it, few of the issues voted upon in our House are free votes. That is, each MP is free to vote however they wish without the constraint of the party stance. Thus, the MP is merely an extra vote for the mythical beast - ahem, the political party. Moreover, if I write to my MP in disapproval of this-or-that-issue--which is their party's stance--guess who they'll listen to. The party.
So who will I vote for this federal election? I'm not sure yet. But this I know: I'll base my decision on the party stance, not the individual politician.
After all, what does the character of the politician have anything to do with it? Bill Clinton anyone?
(Removing my tongue from my cheek)
I vote for a man or woman to represent me in the House of Commons for approximately four years. This individual, my Member of Parliament, is affiliated with one of the major Canadian political parties: Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, Greens, etc... When I, the Canadian citizen, vote in the federal election, who do I vote for? Person or Party?
Party. Why do I vote party - because it is the party that is really in charge. See, my MP is given a seat in the House of Commons, which gives them a vote and voice in legislative proceedings. But, how does my MP decide what to vote for, or what issues to discuss? The party line. As I understand it, few of the issues voted upon in our House are free votes. That is, each MP is free to vote however they wish without the constraint of the party stance. Thus, the MP is merely an extra vote for the mythical beast - ahem, the political party. Moreover, if I write to my MP in disapproval of this-or-that-issue--which is their party's stance--guess who they'll listen to. The party.
So who will I vote for this federal election? I'm not sure yet. But this I know: I'll base my decision on the party stance, not the individual politician.
After all, what does the character of the politician have anything to do with it? Bill Clinton anyone?
(Removing my tongue from my cheek)
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Take It Easy
I have noticed something: my dad and I are alike in a very certain way.
A couple days ago, Dan and I were chattin' over lunch, and we came upon the topic of how people deal with stress. I told him that I didn't want to be the type of person that makes a big deal over their stress. Everyone is busy, everyone has stress, there is no need to get all down and grumpy over it. Not only that, but when you get grumpy, you tend to pull those around you down as well - which in turn feeds your grumpiness. I was telling him that I don't want to be like that if I ever get into Med school (our conversation started with how busy med students are). Not only that, I have not wanted to be like that throughout my undergraduate education.
At which point Dan tells me something he has noticed: I'm pretty easy going.
Fast forward to the next day on the bus ride to school. I was thinking about my Dad, and how he is so easy going in life. I don't recall ever hearing my dad whine or complain. Throughout all the financial woes our family has gone through, Dad hasn't ever gotten grumpy. Throughout all the hard work he has to do to build houses, Dad hasn't ever gotten grumpy. When you hang around him, you'd never know how many things are hovering about, trying to stress him out in life.
But he doesn't wear it on his sleeve.
He takes it easy.
That's one thing about Dad I wanna be like.
Kev
A couple days ago, Dan and I were chattin' over lunch, and we came upon the topic of how people deal with stress. I told him that I didn't want to be the type of person that makes a big deal over their stress. Everyone is busy, everyone has stress, there is no need to get all down and grumpy over it. Not only that, but when you get grumpy, you tend to pull those around you down as well - which in turn feeds your grumpiness. I was telling him that I don't want to be like that if I ever get into Med school (our conversation started with how busy med students are). Not only that, I have not wanted to be like that throughout my undergraduate education.
At which point Dan tells me something he has noticed: I'm pretty easy going.
Fast forward to the next day on the bus ride to school. I was thinking about my Dad, and how he is so easy going in life. I don't recall ever hearing my dad whine or complain. Throughout all the financial woes our family has gone through, Dad hasn't ever gotten grumpy. Throughout all the hard work he has to do to build houses, Dad hasn't ever gotten grumpy. When you hang around him, you'd never know how many things are hovering about, trying to stress him out in life.
But he doesn't wear it on his sleeve.
He takes it easy.
That's one thing about Dad I wanna be like.
Kev
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Is Christianity True? - A Response
I had the good fortune of receiving intelligent, constructive comments on certain posts of mine a few weeks ago. My post where I stood Jesus and Siddhartha (the Budda) side by side elicited a couple great comments. Both Wing and Eug left thought provoking comments (thanks guys!...this is why Blogger pwns Xanga), and both asked essentially the same question:
How do we know that what we believe in (Christianity) is true?
I don't know where to start answering such a question. I have undertaken quite a radical paradigm shift the past few years in how I approach the Bible, Jesus, God, religion, faith, etc... In fact, I know that my views are quite fringe in the Christian Church. It is a rather nice coincidence that I have been asked this question now, for I have just read three books that tackle this issue (two by Borg, one by Pagels). These books have really helped me understand where I now stand, for all three articulate the same general paradigm that I find myself coming into. In order to bring to light my thinking, I'll present my thoughts in a question-and-answer format. This recognizes the fact that much of what I need to say isn't logically linked together, but is more like a mosaic of thought-clusters and opinions. I think this is the best way to describe my thinking at this point - a messy mosaic. It is too soon to come down with a definite position; all of this is thinking-in-progress. Also, my aim is not to persuade you, my faithful readers. No, my goal is to bring to light where I stand, to share my own opinions and thoughts. Don't expect persuasive argumentation to try and convert you to my way of thinking - that is not my aim. Anyways, on to the juicy stuff.
Is there a God?
Yes - that is what I believe. However, our language about God is imperfect at best. We must take our human descriptions of God with a grain of salt.
What is the nature of God?
This is hard to answer. I think God is both personal and impersonal. That is, God is both a Sacred reality that one can be in a personal relationship with, and God is a Sacred, impersonal presence/energy/reality that permeates everything. The great religions of this world have seen God in both ways. I think they are the result of genuine encounters with the Sacred. I do not think that they were all deceived. Therefore, I take into consideration that a number of religions see the Sacred as a personal deity, while others see it as an impersonal cosmic force. Honestly though, most of my interactions with God I would classify as personal and relational. But, at the same time, God is the great mystery. Not only does our language break down when we talk about God, but the very being of God is so great, and so vast, that surely we can't possibly understand everything about God. So I remain open to the mystery that is God.
So are you a pluralist?
I guess deep down, yes. I try to be inclusive all the incredibly rich and diverse religious traditions this world has seen. I do think that these different religions traditions did, and do, have honest, genuine encounters with the Sacred reality. God did not limit itself to one, and only one, culture or religion. I think that mainline Christian thinking, acceptable to most Christians I know, does provide some resources for thinking in this way. For example, few would deny that God is active among non-believers by means of his Spirit. However, most do not go to the pluralism that I find myself in.
If you are a pluralist, then what is salvation?
Salvation. Hrmm. It can mean a bunch of things I suppose. But I think at the center of it is transformation. (Here I recognize my debt to John Hick and, to a lesser extent, Marcus Borg). Salvation is the transformation of humanity, both individually and socially. Many of the religions in the world reveal the feeling that something is out of place, something is wrong. Something needs to change. I realize my definition of salvation as transformation is very Christian. The Christian story aims for the resurrection of the dead into a new heavens and a new earth. The goal is a transformed existence. However, despite the very Christian way of seeing things, I think this theme of transformation is common throughout a number of major religions in this world. Even secular thinking hopes for transformation of that which ills society.
What about hell then?
Honestly, the concept doesn't sit well with me. That God would condemn the majority of the human race to eternal punishment is a bit much. And, as much of Christianity tends to put it, that God would condemn the majority of the human race to eternal punishment because they did not believe--give intellectual assent to--certain 'truths' strikes me as absurd. I cannot imagine a God that could do such a thing. Especially a God that would watch the universe create itself for billions upon billions of years. Why would he want to go through all that just to throw most of it into a pit of fire. Just doesn't make sense to me.
So does God judge us?
I don't know. Honestly, I don't. I don't have an answer to this yet. I believe that human injustice must be addressed. Each of us has acted unjustly to our fellow humans, and to the world that sustains us. I don't think God will brush this injustice aside. But, at the same time, I don't think God is going to condemn most of humankind. In the end, I'm not afraid. I know God is with me: he is mine, and I am his. I do not fear judgment. And Christian tradition has always said that Jesus bore God's punishment for the world. If Jesus did indeed fulfill this role, then what is to fear? Just how it all will work out, I don't know.
Then how do you view Jesus?
A very broad question, one which I can cover only briefly. First, Jesus was most definitely an incredible human being. I stress that 'human being'. There's this quote I came across in one of the books I just read: to rob Jesus of his humanity is to rob him of his greatness. The compassion and love he showed, the barriers he broke down, his teachings, his healings, all of them are marks of a great man. Moreover, Jesus intimately encountered and experienced the Sacred. I agree with Marcus Borg in that Jesus' whole ministry and life was driven by his deep, intimate, relationship with God. And the compassion and love that he found in the presence of God, he showed to those whom he came across in life. Jesus was a person saturated by the Divine.
What about the incarnation then?
I think this is one of those areas where human language and understanding fails us. What does it mean to say that literally Jesus is God? I have no idea what to make of this language. I think Jesus shared an intimacy with God that few humans have experienced. In many ways, to look upon Jesus is to look upon the Sacred itself. This doesn't deny that other humans in history could have played similar roles. However, there is something else about Jesus - people still encounter him, to this very day. Those who are Christians personally encounter God in the figure of Jesus, they have from the very beginning. There is something about Easter, boy I tell ya.
What do you think the Bible is?
I do not think the Bible is revealed text: I don't think that God dictated the contents of the Bible to the people who wrote it. I see the Bible as a human document. Written by humans, edited by humans, compiled by humans. The Bible is a collection of texts resulting from the encounter between ancient communities and the Divine. It is a human response to Sacred experience. And so I do not see the Bible as a book about doctrine and dogma, but rather of experience and story. The Bible testifies to God and Jesus; it is the one whom the Bible speaks of that is of utmost importance to Christianity; the text itself is just a medium, a messenger, a pointer. In the words of a fellow blogger: there will be no Bible stand in heaven.
Why are you a Christian?
The question you've all been waiting for, my faithful readers. Well, there are a number of reasons. First, I think that Christianity is a valid path for bringing people to encounter God. In Christianity, in it's way of life, it's rituals, it's forms of prayer, it's stories, it's Scriptures, it's community, I am brought into a transformative relationship with God. I think I genuinely do, and will continue to, encounter the Divine within Christianity. Second, I am captivated by Jesus. I just can't get away from this guy. Trust me, I've tried. There is something about who Jesus was, and I would say, still is, that seizes me. Third, I have found a sense of community and belonging within my particular Christian community. Fourth, I think that Christianity has much to tell us about God, humanity, and the nature of the religious life; and I am willing to stick with it to listen and follow.
Here I will raise the same question that Pagels does in her book - why is being Christian today virtually synonymous with believing certain things. Why is Christianity defined by 'belief'? What about all the stories we tell? the values we hold? the rituals we perform? our church communities? our life of prayer? our life of self-giving love? the central place of Jesus in our lives? the Way of Jesus that we follow? Are none of these markers of 'being Christian'?
If Christianity is all about believing certain things to be true, then I might just be S.O.L. (Shit outta luck). But if being Christian is more than that (e.g., following the Way of Jesus the Messiah/Christ), then I'm home.
Why are you so liberal?
The question that I'm sure is in all of your minds at this point. The short answer - it's the path that my life has taken me. It is the result of my experiences, encounters, thoughts, feelings - everything. The somewhat-longer answer. I don't think Jesus would be so quick to condemn people. He offered forgiveness to people outside of the established system of ritual purity, that is, apart from the temple and the sacrificial system. Jesus also associated with the people that society marginalized: the unclean, the impure, the poor, the prostitutes. He did not come to them with a message of fiery judgment, but with compassion and love. He didn't go around telling people what to believe in order to be saved; rather, he healed the sick, loved the unloved, and told them to follow in his footsteps. But his fire, oh yes his fire was reserved for those who marginalized others and condemned them to lives of misery. What would Jesus think about the Church today? We are so quick to label who is 'in' and who is 'out'. So, ironically enough, it is my view of Jesus that makes me so liberal.
This is a difficult post. It is both hard for me to write so openly and honestly about such a controversial topic - a topic that may (will?) marginalize me - and also I bet it has been difficult for some of you to read. I first drafted this post a couple weeks ago and let it sit and simmer for a while, then came back to it last week to edit it, and now finally return to publish it. I welcome and look forward to your comments. Please, don't bother yelling 'heretic' and quoting scripture at me, you'll get nowhere. But if you do, I will appreciate the fact that you are motivated by my eternal well being - in fact, I will be flattered! However, blogging is all about dialogue and discussion, so please, comment with that aim. Don't forget my warning right at the beginning: all of my thinking at this stage in my life is still 'in progress'. I have changed my mind many times over the past few years, and I don't see that process ending any time soon.
Grace and peace,
Kev
How do we know that what we believe in (Christianity) is true?
I don't know where to start answering such a question. I have undertaken quite a radical paradigm shift the past few years in how I approach the Bible, Jesus, God, religion, faith, etc... In fact, I know that my views are quite fringe in the Christian Church. It is a rather nice coincidence that I have been asked this question now, for I have just read three books that tackle this issue (two by Borg, one by Pagels). These books have really helped me understand where I now stand, for all three articulate the same general paradigm that I find myself coming into. In order to bring to light my thinking, I'll present my thoughts in a question-and-answer format. This recognizes the fact that much of what I need to say isn't logically linked together, but is more like a mosaic of thought-clusters and opinions. I think this is the best way to describe my thinking at this point - a messy mosaic. It is too soon to come down with a definite position; all of this is thinking-in-progress. Also, my aim is not to persuade you, my faithful readers. No, my goal is to bring to light where I stand, to share my own opinions and thoughts. Don't expect persuasive argumentation to try and convert you to my way of thinking - that is not my aim. Anyways, on to the juicy stuff.
Is there a God?
Yes - that is what I believe. However, our language about God is imperfect at best. We must take our human descriptions of God with a grain of salt.
What is the nature of God?
This is hard to answer. I think God is both personal and impersonal. That is, God is both a Sacred reality that one can be in a personal relationship with, and God is a Sacred, impersonal presence/energy/reality that permeates everything. The great religions of this world have seen God in both ways. I think they are the result of genuine encounters with the Sacred. I do not think that they were all deceived. Therefore, I take into consideration that a number of religions see the Sacred as a personal deity, while others see it as an impersonal cosmic force. Honestly though, most of my interactions with God I would classify as personal and relational. But, at the same time, God is the great mystery. Not only does our language break down when we talk about God, but the very being of God is so great, and so vast, that surely we can't possibly understand everything about God. So I remain open to the mystery that is God.
So are you a pluralist?
I guess deep down, yes. I try to be inclusive all the incredibly rich and diverse religious traditions this world has seen. I do think that these different religions traditions did, and do, have honest, genuine encounters with the Sacred reality. God did not limit itself to one, and only one, culture or religion. I think that mainline Christian thinking, acceptable to most Christians I know, does provide some resources for thinking in this way. For example, few would deny that God is active among non-believers by means of his Spirit. However, most do not go to the pluralism that I find myself in.
If you are a pluralist, then what is salvation?
Salvation. Hrmm. It can mean a bunch of things I suppose. But I think at the center of it is transformation. (Here I recognize my debt to John Hick and, to a lesser extent, Marcus Borg). Salvation is the transformation of humanity, both individually and socially. Many of the religions in the world reveal the feeling that something is out of place, something is wrong. Something needs to change. I realize my definition of salvation as transformation is very Christian. The Christian story aims for the resurrection of the dead into a new heavens and a new earth. The goal is a transformed existence. However, despite the very Christian way of seeing things, I think this theme of transformation is common throughout a number of major religions in this world. Even secular thinking hopes for transformation of that which ills society.
What about hell then?
Honestly, the concept doesn't sit well with me. That God would condemn the majority of the human race to eternal punishment is a bit much. And, as much of Christianity tends to put it, that God would condemn the majority of the human race to eternal punishment because they did not believe--give intellectual assent to--certain 'truths' strikes me as absurd. I cannot imagine a God that could do such a thing. Especially a God that would watch the universe create itself for billions upon billions of years. Why would he want to go through all that just to throw most of it into a pit of fire. Just doesn't make sense to me.
So does God judge us?
I don't know. Honestly, I don't. I don't have an answer to this yet. I believe that human injustice must be addressed. Each of us has acted unjustly to our fellow humans, and to the world that sustains us. I don't think God will brush this injustice aside. But, at the same time, I don't think God is going to condemn most of humankind. In the end, I'm not afraid. I know God is with me: he is mine, and I am his. I do not fear judgment. And Christian tradition has always said that Jesus bore God's punishment for the world. If Jesus did indeed fulfill this role, then what is to fear? Just how it all will work out, I don't know.
Then how do you view Jesus?
A very broad question, one which I can cover only briefly. First, Jesus was most definitely an incredible human being. I stress that 'human being'. There's this quote I came across in one of the books I just read: to rob Jesus of his humanity is to rob him of his greatness. The compassion and love he showed, the barriers he broke down, his teachings, his healings, all of them are marks of a great man. Moreover, Jesus intimately encountered and experienced the Sacred. I agree with Marcus Borg in that Jesus' whole ministry and life was driven by his deep, intimate, relationship with God. And the compassion and love that he found in the presence of God, he showed to those whom he came across in life. Jesus was a person saturated by the Divine.
What about the incarnation then?
I think this is one of those areas where human language and understanding fails us. What does it mean to say that literally Jesus is God? I have no idea what to make of this language. I think Jesus shared an intimacy with God that few humans have experienced. In many ways, to look upon Jesus is to look upon the Sacred itself. This doesn't deny that other humans in history could have played similar roles. However, there is something else about Jesus - people still encounter him, to this very day. Those who are Christians personally encounter God in the figure of Jesus, they have from the very beginning. There is something about Easter, boy I tell ya.
What do you think the Bible is?
I do not think the Bible is revealed text: I don't think that God dictated the contents of the Bible to the people who wrote it. I see the Bible as a human document. Written by humans, edited by humans, compiled by humans. The Bible is a collection of texts resulting from the encounter between ancient communities and the Divine. It is a human response to Sacred experience. And so I do not see the Bible as a book about doctrine and dogma, but rather of experience and story. The Bible testifies to God and Jesus; it is the one whom the Bible speaks of that is of utmost importance to Christianity; the text itself is just a medium, a messenger, a pointer. In the words of a fellow blogger: there will be no Bible stand in heaven.
Why are you a Christian?
The question you've all been waiting for, my faithful readers. Well, there are a number of reasons. First, I think that Christianity is a valid path for bringing people to encounter God. In Christianity, in it's way of life, it's rituals, it's forms of prayer, it's stories, it's Scriptures, it's community, I am brought into a transformative relationship with God. I think I genuinely do, and will continue to, encounter the Divine within Christianity. Second, I am captivated by Jesus. I just can't get away from this guy. Trust me, I've tried. There is something about who Jesus was, and I would say, still is, that seizes me. Third, I have found a sense of community and belonging within my particular Christian community. Fourth, I think that Christianity has much to tell us about God, humanity, and the nature of the religious life; and I am willing to stick with it to listen and follow.
Here I will raise the same question that Pagels does in her book - why is being Christian today virtually synonymous with believing certain things. Why is Christianity defined by 'belief'? What about all the stories we tell? the values we hold? the rituals we perform? our church communities? our life of prayer? our life of self-giving love? the central place of Jesus in our lives? the Way of Jesus that we follow? Are none of these markers of 'being Christian'?
If Christianity is all about believing certain things to be true, then I might just be S.O.L. (Shit outta luck). But if being Christian is more than that (e.g., following the Way of Jesus the Messiah/Christ), then I'm home.
Why are you so liberal?
The question that I'm sure is in all of your minds at this point. The short answer - it's the path that my life has taken me. It is the result of my experiences, encounters, thoughts, feelings - everything. The somewhat-longer answer. I don't think Jesus would be so quick to condemn people. He offered forgiveness to people outside of the established system of ritual purity, that is, apart from the temple and the sacrificial system. Jesus also associated with the people that society marginalized: the unclean, the impure, the poor, the prostitutes. He did not come to them with a message of fiery judgment, but with compassion and love. He didn't go around telling people what to believe in order to be saved; rather, he healed the sick, loved the unloved, and told them to follow in his footsteps. But his fire, oh yes his fire was reserved for those who marginalized others and condemned them to lives of misery. What would Jesus think about the Church today? We are so quick to label who is 'in' and who is 'out'. So, ironically enough, it is my view of Jesus that makes me so liberal.
This is a difficult post. It is both hard for me to write so openly and honestly about such a controversial topic - a topic that may (will?) marginalize me - and also I bet it has been difficult for some of you to read. I first drafted this post a couple weeks ago and let it sit and simmer for a while, then came back to it last week to edit it, and now finally return to publish it. I welcome and look forward to your comments. Please, don't bother yelling 'heretic' and quoting scripture at me, you'll get nowhere. But if you do, I will appreciate the fact that you are motivated by my eternal well being - in fact, I will be flattered! However, blogging is all about dialogue and discussion, so please, comment with that aim. Don't forget my warning right at the beginning: all of my thinking at this stage in my life is still 'in progress'. I have changed my mind many times over the past few years, and I don't see that process ending any time soon.
Grace and peace,
Kev
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)