The Areopagite

New Blog

2011-02-12T11:07:00.003-05:00

I'm about to migrate most of my public blogging life over to a new and fascinating land. As with so much that I've done in the last few weeks, I am starting to make the transition from (generally) private citizen to public figure in the form of pastor. New-form blog is likely to be a bit more engaged, a bit more exegetical, a bit more rockstar. A bit more often updated. That kind of thing.

People have been asking me the last few weeks: "I hear you're not doing the Gospel thing anymore." It's true - that's a part of the move. I am taking on the form of a person whose nickname will be slightly less arrogant. There will always be a portion of my life - college and seminary, mostly, which will be grounded in my time as Gospel. But it's a new era, a new day - I am called to still be Gospel, to live out the Gospel, but not to be called by that name.

The purpose of this post, was, of course, to get me blogging while I thought about a name for the new blog, which I think I've now done. I'll have a weekly alarm, to be sure I get one a week out at least (something to do while I'm not doing job-search things), and I'll pop a link up here when it's ready. But for now, loyal readers (there are none of you, I know, but still), think on this - we are not always who we once were. We will be who we will be. We are who we are.

Brueggemann

2011-02-07T21:08:00.002-05:00

The MRT and I were chatting through our homework for Isaiah class, and particularly going over our Brueggemann intro to Second Isaiah. She was distraught by an equation Brueggemann drew between Babylon and our modern consumer culture, and it took us a while to nail down why. Finally, it came down to the fact that we, as putative members of Brueggemann's Israel are also culpable in our exile. We were not captured - we have marched ourselves into captivity with shouts and singing. It does not necessarily change the responsibility of the Lord towards us - but it does mean that we cannot condemn Babylon with quite such vigor as the Israelites had some right to do - we took ourselves there.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.6

Job Search, Meet Bible

2011-01-27T01:26:00.002-05:00

As I've been working on all of this job search nuttiness, I've been finding that I keep coming back to Philippians to talk about my ideal work environment. I keep catching myself writing stuff like "I would like to work in an environment in which we all go about 'of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind' " (Philippians 2:2). I want co-workers who aren't just co-workers, but someone who is "my brother and co-worker and fellow-soldier, your messenger and minister to my need" (Phil. 2:25). I want to work someplace where we all rejoice, just as Paul does in prison.

Now, luckily, I am looking for church jobs, so I can sort of get away with it. And there are worse places to look for models for Christian fellowship and fellow-work than Philippians, so it's not really bad news. Just intriguing.

Where do y'all like to quote in your resumes?

Planning

2011-01-24T21:58:00.002-05:00

I've been planning services an awful lot lately. I volunteered to do monthly Taize services at Smirk Church for the year - I also have monthly preludes for Sunday worship there. I'm preaching there next month. And I find that every worship experience I encounter, I analyze and pick it apart - the benefits of taking a series of worship classes.

So when I had a skull session with the Seminary chaplain and music director this afternoon, it was surprising to me that I still had a little bit of a thrill making all the pieces fit - the anthem, the psalm, the hymns...the whole array just sort of collapsed into place.

That gratitude post - the key theme of the service - will wait for another day, but suffice it to say, as I struggle to revive this blog...it's always a blessing to recall that I was called to this crazy job.

Graven Images

2010-10-22T10:16:00.001-04:00

I love when smart people ask pointed questions about emotionally charged claims that other people make. It's fun to watch - fun to read, and it's good for America.

It's troubling, though, when they do it badly. When i found this one on HuffPost, I had high hopes. Let's talk about idolatry, I thought. Unfortunately, the author blew it, giving up on the gentle condemnations we need, and lifting up "freedom" as our new God...yet another idol, carved from our own social ideology.

This is the real message of the Second Commandment for our lawmakers and our society: God is God. Whatever else you'd like to pretend is God is not. Not the free market. Not the environment. Not even the Bible is God. God is God, and we are not. Humility is the true message of the commandment, and it's one I think we could all use as a reminder now and again.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.2

Back in Gear

2009-11-29T01:21:00.003-05:00

So. I'm vacuuming at work, just as we're closing. And I'm thinking, for whatever reason, about my customers that day. Many nations. Many cultures. Many ways of thinking, each of which is represented and explored by some of my product (I sell videogames now, parttime). But, I think with a rush of pride, this is what's cool about America. Room for every culture, and room for every gens on earth. And we (the "old" Americans, be they black, white, or brown), lap it up. People go out for pho and Thai noodles and Ethiopian food, and we celebrate the best elements (in food especially, but in philosophy as well) of every culture that has taken up residence in this great nation of ours.

And then I wonder. What are the "best" elements? Are they inherently good? Or are they situationally good? That seems sensible. Culture responds to environment and need. If you can't get just the stuff you need for the religious festival, you make do with what you have. Eventually, that becomes the tradition - culture is adaptive. So the "best" elements that America absorbs are those that function best, and for which there is most need. From there it's easy to extrapolate - the only inherently "good" thing about the American cultural ethos is its willingness to adapt (read: steal) culture from other peoples. There is no really "worthy" or "precious" American value (which is completely uniquely American) except the pursuit of the useful value.

Well, I thought, how does this apply to religion? Religion is the corporate or communal response to the experience of the divine (Johnstone, under Creative Commons). And our religion is shaped by the corporation or community in which we find ourselves worshipping. I worship quite differently from Christians in Zambia or in India or in China...but we are all responding to that divine experience. And all of us have worship quite distinct from that which obtained in the past - or which will in the future - but the response of religion, (even aside from your particular faith background) is common to all cultures.

All of that, however - the adaptability of culture, and the synchronicity of religious expression, seems to me quite distinct from faith (the daily actions we undertake on the basis of our beliefs) and from gospel (the universal message of divine reconciliation shared by the Incarnate Word).

Gospel knows no bounds of culture - it is as true in deepest darkest Antarctica as on the plana of Mars. God loves us and wants to be in true relationship with us. That can be true whether you worship with guitar or with organ or in silence or in scientific exploration.

Faith, our continuous response to the wondrous message, is likewise the same, however it is expressed. That we love our neighbours, and that we seek to be in that right relationship with each other and with God, and that we act that way is a constant, even if one culture's deep insult is another's highest revelation of love.

Faith and gospel transcend (and transform) culture. They surely are not isolated from it, and they are also not fundamentally altered by that relationship, just as the Immutable God can weep for His dead Son (more on this later).

Long story short is this:

I'm back, baby.

Pro tip: upcoming post, on how we interpret sacraments in light of the above.

Holiday

2009-11-23T18:53:00.002-05:00

It is that time of year again. Good, harvest food - gourds and root vegetables. Through the falling leaves, and into the first sounding of the trumpets of winter. It's a season when we consider our own gratitude - we give thanks for food, for our lives, for our families.

We give thanks for superheroes.

Thanksgiving of my sophomore year of college, I couldn't afford to fly home, so I just parked myself in my dorm room with supplies, and books. Everything I needed. I got bored out of my mind. I went to the video store. I rented something like six movies. By chance, they all happened to be superhero movies. And thus began one of my favorite holiday traditions. Every Thanksgiving, I rent or buy superhero movies, and pay particular attention to the philosophy, the literary implications, and (especially this year) the theology of superheroes.

Apologies to the uninitiated as it concerns superheroes - I'm about to get very specific in my examples. I invite you to look these cats up on Wikipedia, if you don't know who they are already. Suppose, for just a moment, that you live in the Marvel Universe (copyright the Disney Corporation, 2009). Where is the church? What sorts of sermons do you hear about those with special powers? How does the presence of truly exceptional people affect your understanding of, say, Romans? Is there a religious contingent speaking out against the Nephilim of Genesis? Do the sorts of hatred and fear that characterize the X-Men series spring not from political pressures, as the movies depict, but from the church? How does the church receive Iron Man? What about Spiderman? Colossus? The Beast?

There are, then, two sorts of questions that we can immediately apply, here. One is the question of power - a central issue in the comic book genre, and a concern of our churches everywhere. How do we integrate and accept the powerful into our churches - the wise, the strong, the brave, the influential, the rich? How do we preach the saving and humbling gospel of Jesus Christ to those who think that they have no reason to be humble, and feel that they have no need to be saved? How do we evangelize the Fantastic Four?

Second, and even more worrying to me, is the question of difference. I can see churches not having a problem with (and some churches being very excited about) having Tony Stark (Iron Man) in the pews. Likewise, out of costume, Peter Parker (Spiderman) poses no problems. But Bruce Banner (Hulk) in his more verdant state? Johnny Storm (Human Torch), in need of an asbestos pew? On the other end of the thermometer, is Iceman going to be able to take communion without a) freezing his grape juice or b) causing quite a stir? Can we, as church, truly be open and accepting of everyone - everyone - even if they are visibly different? Can we preach the good news to all, be church for all those baptized, administer our sacraments and truly engage discipline, even to the exceptional among us?

I'm not sure, yet. But Lord, do I hope so.

Creatio Ex Nihilo

2009-10-11T00:33:00.004-04:00

What is the lover without the beloved?
What is the vision of a lone man?

He is an empty hole in the desert,
Crying out for summer rains.
He is a broken pottery jar,
A jar of molded clay that holds no drop.

What is the lover without the beloved?
What is the vision of a lone man?

He is a lake that swells against a dam,
A flooding lake that breaks its banks all down.
He is a barrel, bursting at the seams.
Each crack gushes water as from a wound in all directions.

What is the lover without the beloved?
What is the vision of a lone man?

He is a cistern filling with the captured flow,
A reservoir for all the thirsty people.
He is a river, gurgling on its banks,
Filled and filling in a liquid dance.
He is a cup, into which pitchers pour
That kisses its brim, then spills to thirsty ground.

What is the lover without the beloved?
What is the vision of a lone man?

A Psalm of Water

2009-09-24T00:56:00.003-04:00

You own me, O Lord.
For who else has the right?
Only You, who send the waters.
Only You, who bring the rain.

The Lord is mighty in works and steadfast in kindness.
The Lord sends the rains, to baptize the land.
Stones and soil are cleansed of sin,
Rocks and trees are reborn in your showers,
The earth remembers its baptism, and is glad.

The Lord is mighty in works, and steadfast in kindness.
His voice is heard in the Mississippi
In the Colorado you may hear His words
Sing, ye waters, sing the Lord of Hosts
The Columbia tells of naught but his praises,
His glory is told by the Hudson's banks.
Sing, ye waters, sing the Lord of hosts.

The Lord is mighty in works, and steadfast in kindness.
His rains sing down the cloying air,
Their droplets shine in human lights.
Your waters drip down my back
On my very skin the raindrops fall.
The nightstorm speaks of the glory of God,
His mighty Love sings in my soul.

You own me, O Lord.
The right is yours alone.
You, the Author of the rainstorm.
You, the Author of my life.

My Summer Responsibilities

2009-06-10T19:29:00.003-04:00

So, I started this last Sunday at Fourth Presbyterian Church of South Boston, and thought I should add the catalogue of my responsibilities and related minutiae of that gig.

So here:

I. Activity Leader, Summer Meals Program, 20 hrs./wk.
In this role, I will be planning, preparing for, and executing activities at the "Imagination Station." These activities will span a breadth of styles and methods of learning, will connect with the broader themes of the Summer Meals Program, and will be specifically aimed at teaching a variety of different kinds of imagination (kinesthetic, visual, auditory, verbal, theatrical, musical, and anything else that I can finagle). These responsibilities to commence with the beginning of Summer Meals in early July.

II. Director/Coordinator, Wednesday Evening Worship, 5 hrs./wk.
I will be organizing and running the Fourth Church evening, outdoor worship service on Wednesday evenings. This includes structuring worship, consulting with musicians and worship leaders, selecting liturgy, assuring smooth function of services, occasionally preaching, locating other preachers, and generally being the go-to person for this event. I will also be double-checking and coordinating the food and cooking portions of the event.

III. Adult Sunday School Class Leader, 5 hrs./wk.
I will run an adult Sunday school class for most of June and part of July. I will frame each class's issue, provide a structure for debate and discussion, be available to answer questions, and facilitate a frank and earnest exploration of each week's issue. I will also ask around and encourage people to attend each class.

IV. Worship Leadership and Assistance, 4 hrs./wk.
I will provide any necessary assistance to the smooth running of the Sunday worship service, as well as preaching on three occasions over the course of the summer. This includes participation in choir, and any other tasks which require assistance.

V. Web Consultant, 1 hr./wk
I will update the church website, and then write a document instructing future users in how to make the same updates. I will also be available to answer web and technical questions for the church in general.

Ask questions if you got 'em!

-G

Return of the...Thing: Spring '09

2009-05-29T11:04:00.002-04:00

...testing. Are...are we live?

Oh! There you are.

Without further ado: the Rundown.

1. New Testament:

Have you ever been really excited about a class or seminar, and then gotten into it and discovered that you already had extensive background in nearly everything under discussion in the class? My background in Classics put me at a distinct advantage - we spent much of the class on the Greco-Roman context of the New Testament, which I already knew. This is not to say that I learned nothing. As I had hoped, I got a much more solid understanding of the Epistles: to whom they were written, when, and what their major thrusts were. Overall, it was a good grounding for me in the distinction of biblical texts.

2. Moral Formation in Children's Fantasy Literature

I believe that someone was asking why precisely I was buying books that had so much to do with wizards. This class was positively amazing - a real and sincere discussion of the cultural implications and use for church of this broad array of fantasy books, from CS Lewis to Philip Pullman. I got to read a bunch of fantasy I'd been meaning to get to, and to discuss the elements of good moral instruction for young people. I also got to work on a fantasy piece of my own - when the whole thing's done, all and sundry'll get a copy. This was a nice combination of light material and heavy conversation.

3. The Tempest

I got a chance to fulfill a lifelong dream, here - I was FINALLY in a Shakespeare play. I played one of the clowns, Trinculo, and got the line "Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows." There will likely be a DVD that I will bring home later this summer. I had a great time dusting off my acting skills, and getting to work on some Shakespeare was a true delight. I'm already considering working on the play next year.

4. SHORT TERM: Greek Exegesis of Philippians and Philemon

This was, far and away, the most awesome class of my term. A month of Greek, three hours a day, digging into the really hopeful book of Philippians, as well as the less hopeful, but deeply interesting book of Philemon. I reflexed my Greek muscles. I got to meet and work with some really neat folks, and read St. Thomas Aquinas' commentary on Philippians. Odds are good that I'll be preaching on Philippians in the near term. A very inspiring class.

5. Everything Else

I spent most of the spring working at the Bonner Foundation. That was a fine gig, but I'm quite excited to move on to both my summer and next academic year field ed. positions. I'm also hoping, next year, to work as a computer repair contractor, and possibly tutoring Latin.

I've located a really solid group of friends, theologically solid and helpful, people with whom I can relax and work. I'm moving next year onto a floor with a bunch of other good guy friends. Socially, all is well.

I'm at Fourth Presbyterian in South Boston this summer, and at Six Mile Run Reformed in Franklin Park, NJ next year, and I'll be taking Hebrew, among other things yet to be determined.

That's the news from Princeton. Do you have other questions? Need more detail on some part of the term-in-review? Comment here, or drop me a line at matthew.gospel.johnstone@gmail.com.

Top Three: Ways We're Doing Campus Ministry Wrong

2009-04-01T22:50:00.003-04:00

I realize that I should talk about all the benefits of campus ministry, and maybe sometime I will. But I think before I can talk about the upside of my experiences, I need a bit of catharsis. I have chosen to leave the name of my university, and the particular organization against which I have a beef, to the dust of history - if you're curious, go ahead and ask me.

1. We are not asking how our particular campus ministry furthers the efforts of the Kingdom of God. On a micro-level, this means there are tons of retreats, meetings, prayer groups, etc., but no vision at the leadership level of how this fits into a broader mission. At the macro-level, our major campus ministry organizations are at each others' throats, actively defending campus "territories," almost like a para-church gang war. I've seen it go down, and it made me sad to watch a committed Christian put his back more into the organization he works for than the mission of the Kingdom.

2. We are not providing good staff support for local chapters, especially at small colleges. Again - saw this first-hand. It is almost impossible for staff to afford being full-time, especially in their younger days. Later, they have a hard time connecting with youth. And, across the board, national organizations are not providing staff who understand local campuses. The disconnect between my local campus and the regional office was palpable, and founded largely on the fact that the regional director could not bring himself to believe that our group was truly student-led. His style may have worked at other colleges, but the way he talked over the heads of our leaders to speak to volunteer staff, as if we could not really be decision-makers, still puts my teeth on edge now.

3. We are not adequately expressing the fact that campus ministry is not church. While I was on leadership, we said it consistently, but even now, it hasn't quite sunk in. "I'll go to large group, and skip church on Sunday." This is disastrous for the spiritual formation of young people - I would much rather have folk go to church and be connected to God than have them go to large group, and connect some with God, but more with other people. Campus ministry is not sacramental, and the sacraments are too important to me to elide that way (yes, Barkeep, I'm affirming sacramentalism as being as important as preaching. I'll talk to you about it later).

So. Solutions?

1. Make campus ministry an attractive option for more young people (easier to find funding, etc.).
2. Provide real theological and prophetic training for staff, so that they can guide students with real zeal.
3. Get the word out - our campus organization is fine - church is better.

Those are preliminary thoughts...still in process...

Facts Under Attack

2009-03-30T16:59:00.002-04:00

Twice now, in the past week or so, I have had a conversation that has put my method and style of learning under fire. It's a profoundly uncomfortable place to be, and my apologies if I have ever derided your learning-style - I see now whence you are coming.

Today in class it was a "flip-flop," - we must move from semantic to experiential learning in our work with youth especially in the church. Prioritize experiential learning, start with it, and move then into semantic. Don't necessarily separate them, but remove the primacy that facts have heretofore held over our education of the young.

I would that I could tell you why this discomfits me so profoundly. Because, honestly, from a pedagogical perspective, I do not disagree. We should be emphasizing experiential learning. We should be giving our tactile, auditory, and kinesthetic learners a fair shake at what the church has to teach.

Maybe it's an incipient fear that we verbal learners will be left in the cold when the revolution's over. And maybe it's a hesitance - will we entirely lose the semantic content of our message? Will facts and truths become of secondary importance to experience? Will that last even be a bad thing?

But, mostly, I think, it is that I have never, EVER felt that semantic knowledge - facts and ideas, to my way of thinking - are disconnected from ME. I believe, to the level that I believe that God loves me, that all things are connected. My knowledge, the trees outside, the stars on the other side of the universe; everything is linked to everything else, by God's eternal will, if by no other string. When I read that Chuck Yeager was the first man to break the sound barrier, I connect it to Yuri Gagarin, and his first orbit, and to my deep and abiding love of space. I may not have a great deal of sports trivia on hand, but I know people who care deeply about this range of knowledge, and I care about them.

At bottom, then, it is this: intellego ut amam - I understand in order that I might love. And I love in order that I might understand. I love this universe in which God has placed me, and the people who surround me with their love. Why should I not understand more, know more, in order that I might love more? And I learn best, I find, when my newfound knowledge connects to something else I care about.

Thank God all things are connected.

My fear, then, is that we will spend so much time connecting our knowledge to our youth that we will forget - they are not the heart of the web. They are not the center of the universe - God is. And only through proximity to Him can we ever hope to perceive the whole structure of universal thought. Let us, by every rope of love we have, bind our young people to God - then, and only then, can they learn what binds them to every other thing in existence.

Pastoral Authority

2009-03-18T22:41:00.004-04:00

A friend of mine got hurt last night.

She's very okay, in case you were worried - took a bad fall and her muscles seized up. Which presented as neck pain and partial paralysis. You can see how this would be scary. But she's okay - this was a pretty standard sports injury, and everyone's doing fine.

No, what was fascinating was everyone else's reaction. Y'see, I'm here at seminary, where most everyone's training to be a pastor. And I swear to you, you have never seen a more pathetic thing than thirty seminarians, all of whom want desperately to help, and none of whom know what to do. We don't move, because we don't want to step on someone else's toes. What can be concretely done is being concretely done. So what do you do with this superfluity of help, gushing from our wounded hearts?

Well, we pray, of course. But who? How? Who decides that we will pray? Where? Whence the authority to make that kind of declaration?

I imagine it will be relatively easy, when I'm a pastor of my own congregation, to step up and say, "Friends, let's pray." But right now, I don't seem to have the authority to make that call.

TBTG, someone else did - the referee, actually. And as soon as he indicated that we were going to pray, EVERYONE joined in.

But I was left with this question - is ordination really just another step in a process? Like your first day of school as a teacher, just another ritual to endure? Or is it truly something more? An acknowledgement, by a church, that you do have the authority to lead a flock, to minister, to call us to pray?

I'm not sure. But I'm jazzed to find out.

In Defense of the Denomination - Interlude

2009-03-17T17:35:00.004-04:00

Someone asked me, not without justice, why exactly I'm promulgating this series. What perception do I have that the denomination is under attack?

I am not going to name names or point too firmly, but I'm getting rumbles of a few things that are bothering me. Firstly, and the reason I'm not naming names here is because you can find them on the internets pretty easily, my church is bleeding congregations. Local sessions and pastors are jumping ship, for largely one reason. Frankly, as it concerns that, God bless 'em. They are adhering to their consciences, and to their perception of God's call. I wish they had more interest in the unity of the body of Christ, but so be it - they have made their calls.

The second, and more disturbing rumor I'm hearing is that churches are withholding their per capita (for you non-presbys, it's like your Presbyterian dues. Goes to fund all sorts of neat things like having a national denomination and local oversight), not only from GA (a time-honored method of sticking it to those folks from Louisville), but also from their presbyteries.

I take very seriously the vows I swore when I was ordained as an elder in the church. I signed up for this. I agreed to uphold the Books of Order and Confessions, and if I felt that the church had lost its way from those documents, I would be the first in line to leave. Me. Myself. Leaving the church. What I wouldn't do is drag my congregation with me, or try and starve my governing body of cash (God bless all libertarians as well), while still trying to hold on to some illusion of authority in the church. The church granted you your authority when you were ordained, and the abuse of that authority distresses me deeply. If you can't speak with us, as one church, please don't speak at all. I beg you - go and find your calling in God's Kingdom. Don't ruin mine.

That's my cause for denominational concern - why I feel obliged to apologize for my commitment to my denomination. Soon, I hope to explain my second reason why having a denomination is a good idea.

In Defense of the Denomination

2009-03-05T15:56:00.003-05:00

I realize this is all uncited and has no historical proof. This is because I am lazy. If I ever try and publish this in slaughtered tree form, I will have footnotes and everything, I promise.

When folk first started the non-apostolic denominations (here I'm speaking most of the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Congregationalists, and their ilks) in America, they had one goal in mind. They tended to stick with their theological (and, therefore, to some degree, ethnic) confessional brethren, but the purpose of national denominations in the states was not a confessing church on the European model. Rather, they were hoping to do ministry.

A regular-sized congregation in this country has relatively limited reach outside their own sphere. Certainly, there are opportunities in their local areas, and sometimes they can afford to send mission trips to nearby/cheap nations, but they can't afford to build and maintain hospitals, schools, or any of the other staples of international missions as far away as Africa or Asia.

When this was recognized in the 18th (ish) century, local congregations of similar theological background banded together, not for governance, but to pool their resources, to send missions to the places that need them most desperately. These purely local movements grew into national ones, in which governance became folded into the more ministerial functions. But international missions were a prime goal of the American denominations.

I would that I had data to give you. I do not. But what I'm hearing these days is that, as denominations, our funding for international missions, and for mission work in our own country, is falling. We are turning inward, asking why we should give our hard-earned dollars to local governing bodies and the national conventions above them.

I am committed to the Church of Jesus Christ universal, and to my membership of it. I am also, to a lesser extent, committed to my national denomination - to the PC(USA), not because I think it's the most lucrative, or the most powerful, but because there are structures in place in my beloved presbytery meetings for trying to convince people, and for being convinced. Real dialogue is a possibility, and we can learn from one another even as we disagree.

So, my Presbyterian brethren, I beg you - stick with us. From the bottom up, we need to continue to be committed to the goals and ideals of a denomination concerned with mission, and with helping people, as Christ called us to do.

And from the top down, we need a revitalized call to missions, both at home and abroad. In these dire days, there is more need than ever for real engagement with our problems. Like President Obama's vision of government, let our churches be committed to solutions, not parts of the problems.

There is a second part to this story, coming soon to a feed reader near you...

Rational Thought

2009-03-05T15:40:00.003-05:00

Taking my daily dose of bile on Huffington Post the other day (I find it healthful to occasionally read the opinions of those who disagree with me. Keeps the blood flowing), I found this quotation on a comment, now lost to the seas of a changeable internet:

"Organized religion is where rational thought goes to die."

I've been trying to frame my rebuttal for a few days now, worrying this little line like a sore tooth. For there is something in there - I know people who have joined churches that tell them what to think, and are much happier for it. People who do not want or need to be engaged, but do need guidance in how to lead their lives.

I think what bothers me, then, perhaps, is the generalization. For, in my context (seminary), perhaps the exact opposite is true. We MUST learn to think rationally about our faith, and connect our faith with our reason, to survive the stormy waters in which we find ourselves.

There are plenty of other places where this dialectic applies. Someone was railing (again on HuffPost) about the fact that taxpayer money is spent on MarketPlace. I love MarketPlace, and I would see the guy's point if Marketplace consistently told people what to do with their money (a la Mad Money on CNBC, thanks Jon Stewart), but they don't. More than anything else, I think MarketPlace (and NPR in general) want people to THINK about everything.

I'll confess - sometimes I think too much. I feel like I've gotten better at balancing thinking, feeling, and being, of later years, and I am the better for that. I can't reply to my erstwhile internet opponent directly, so instead, I'll say it to all of you, dear readers. Willful ignorance is no prerequisite to faith - some of us try our best to understand, in order that we might believe.

Top Ten: Black (Not African American) Mix

2009-02-19T19:12:00.003-05:00

10. Tribute - Tenacious D. I actually like this song too well for it to be in this position on the list...except for the part where the title nor the "artist" has nothing to do with black. However - lead singer? Jack Black. Go me. A classic of my high school days, an intriguing little ballad, with the delightful point that this is not the greatest and best song in the world - this is just a tribute. Saw these cats live with Weezer and Jimmy Eat World in high school. They had stomp rocket pyrotechnics. Hot to death.

9. War Pigs - Black Sabbath. Although Cake's cover is pretty song, I know it best from Guitar Hero II. It blows my mind how effective their pauses are, and how the song manages to hold energy despite it being nine years long. Even so - another untouchable classic.

8. Little Black Back Pack - Stroke 9. Dude. Remember high school? Just a catchy little tune, light and playful on the chorus - perhaps a precursor to emo? This song is 100% pure high school for me.

7. Black Hole Sun - Soundgarden. And this one is middle school. An alternative classic - though I hear it might be "Black-eyed Son"? I'm not quite sure. Chris Cornell's voice rocks my mind.

6. That Old Black Magic - Spike Jones. An old family classic. Spike Jones' take is the most...soulful...I've ever heard. =P You can find other covers out there, but I think Jones has the definitive version.

5. Supermassive Black Holes - Muse. Not my favorite Muse song, but fits other criteria. Muse's harmony/backup work perpetually impresses, and this song is no exception. This album, and its key single, Knights of Cydonia, are college songs for me.

4. Welcome to the Black Parade - My Chemical Romance. For some reason, this song always tags in my head as "anthemic." Something about it hooks to nationalistic/patriotic music for me (appropriate, considering the parade imagery, etc. I heard this one on my radio station in WA...how do they come up with this stuff?

3. Paint it Black - Rolling Stones. A tune introduced to me by Guitar Hero III, with its irresistable Stonesian hook. Don't you ever just want to paint things black?

2. Heart Full of Black - Burning Brides. Another GH special, this one from GH1. This was the first song in GH that was uniquely mine amongst my group of friends. I still get pumped thinking about it.

1. Many Shades of Black - The Raconteurs. Preferable to racketeers, the Raconteurs bring a delightful retro feel (which seems to be on the resurgence everywhere I look) to the "I've broken up with you" song. Too addictive to be allowed - and I hope it's stuck in your head now.

Christ n' Culture II: Patristic SMACKDOWN

2009-02-12T22:58:00.000-05:00

So there are these two early theologians: Augustine (of whom you may have heard) and Tertullian (of whom you may have heard if you are a CHURCH NERD). They were chillin', doing their early church father thing, living lives as Roman citizens, etc.

Now, Augustine, from time to time, was seen down at the show - which, in Rome of the time, meant the gladatorial games. These were brutal blood sports - think Gladiator meets Saw III. Yes, the honor of the slave, of combat, blah blah blah, but seriously folks - if you think we're voyeuristic? At least we don't generally cheer on the spectacle of real people being eaten by real bears. But Augustine went to these things sometimes, and hung out with his boys, at least partially as a ministry to those same heathens.

Tertullian, on the other hand, avoided these entertainments like the plague. Christians, he argued, should avoid anything which might detract from their love for/of and devotion to Christ. The entertainments were pure evil (to some degree) and should be shunned. Christians should be separate.

These have be come, due to the offices of one Paul Tillich, to be called the "Christ in Culture" (Augustine, kinda) and "Christ against Culture" (Tertullian) models. Christians should be in the world, but not of the world...well what the devil does that mean?

My thing, after Tillich's argument, is Christ Transforming Culture. We are here, but we want to be different from the ills of the societies that surround us, and we want those societies to be as much better as we can. If that's through reading and espousing good literature, or even writing good films and books, more power to us. But the first step, as always, is to examine the culture in which we live, particularly (in my case) through film and the sci-fi/fantasy genres.

So, I hope that answers your question, Dawn.

Any other ones troubling you out there, O Internets? Shoot 'em. I got time.

Christ n' Culture

2009-02-06T19:35:00.003-05:00

So, Dawn quite fairly asks me the question that has defined much of the last few months for me. Why do I study films at Princeton Theological Seminary? Why am I reading Fantasy Literature for class? Whence the obsession with popular culture?

First: You are what you eat. Nobody seems particularly inclined to dispute the truth of this statement. The foods you input into your body will affect your body's overall health.

It seems logical to state, then, that you are also what you see. Films go into your mind - they're a visually powerful medium. How often have you seen a shot or an image in a movie that, later, you couldn't quite get out of your head?

Same holds true for books. You are what you read. This I can say even more definitely. In this one respect, I regret playing Dungeons and Dragons in my youth - I can never quite elude the paradigm of Lawful and Chaotic, Good and Evil in my own head. The books that I read as a child, and the books I read now, shape the way I see and interact with the rest of the world.

Therefore, it seems to me that I can be a better and more critical reader and moviegoer. I can consciously choose to accept or reject the worldviews of everything that I read, from a covertly Marxist opinion piece on the BBC today, to Fight Club, a favorite film of mine, to the Twilight series, which I thoroughly enjoyed, and about which I may have more to say later.

The best way I know of, though, to become just such a careful thinker, is to practice. I think a generation of pastors trained to think carefully about popular culture and how best to interact with it can only be of eventual benefit to the Church.

Second...well, I think second will wait a day.

Pathetique

2009-02-05T00:51:00.003-05:00

So how's this for a sad state of affairs?

I have a writing assignment for my Children's and Fantasy Lit. class. Gotta write 20 minutes a day. Doesn't necessarily have to be for my writing project, although that's encouraged, but I must write for 20 minutes, at the very least, every day.

I am so uninspired, not only by my fantasy project, but by EVERY OTHER PROJECT ON MY LIST that I have been forced to resort to my BLOG to fill out the time.

...

I was writing today (which doesn't count - work-related) on some good advice for bloggers - how to create and maintain a good blog. As a part of the project, I looked back over this blog and read some old posts, both good and ill. The only really embarrassing one was one where I got frustrated with the post towards the end and commented on how bad it was. Sort of tongue-in-cheek, I told these aspiring bloggers to not permit their audience to see the man behind the curtain.

And now I'm doing it again, in a neverending spirally cycle of self-referential doom.

Five minutes for this post. For the record.

DOUBLE FEATURE: A Trip to Bountiful / The Unbelievable Truth

2009-01-11T16:39:00.003-05:00

We have here a curious duality - one movie whose title is completely obvious, and another which, after two viewings, I still can't really fully describe. Let's dive in, shall we?

Vital Statistics:
A Trip to Bountiful, 1985
Rating: K

A Trip to Bountiful is based on a stage play by Horton Foote, which I was fortunate enough to see at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival in Ashland, OR. I don't remember much of the stage production, except a crystal image of the abandoned house, picked out in oranges and browns. The play I recall as being very autumnal, which the film is strikingly not. This movie is a summer movie, a summer movie set in southwest Texas of the early 1940s. It's the story of a highly dysfunctional family (which I recall being better played onstage), and one woman's journey to return to her roots. It's a film loaded with hope, a "creation" film. It has one of my favorite hymns in it, and one of my mother's as well - "Softly and Tenderly," a classic old rooter.

As for theology...there's a definite connection between the idea of Bountiful (this woman's hometown) and Eden - a sense of loss and a desire to return to her roots. There's a strong distinction drawn between loving your neighbour and not. Some characters are cruel and spiteful - all the fellow-travelers are kind and helpful. This is, of course, promptly deconstructed when you begin to see the good intentions behind the cruelty and spite of the "evil." I was struck especially by the rather wistful portrayals of the nameless girl on the bus, and the sherriff. Might-have-beens connect with the desire to return to Eden. And once you get there...it helps. It puts you back on a half-remembered path. The journey and the destination mingle to create a new person, once you've walked the road.

That may have sounded a bit maudlin. The movie's kinda like that.

The Unbelievable Truth, 1989
Rating KJ-13

Have you, ever had a conversation where you and the other person weren't actually listening to one another? Not just "waiting for your turn to speak," I mean that you're both essentially monologuing on unrelated topics.

Imagine that, only it's a movie. The whole movie. There's a scene like that in the movie, but, in fact, the whole movie is kind of that way. We've talked a bit in class about film as a conversation, but in this conversation, whatever I might have tried to say to Hal Hartley, The Unbelievable Truth was going to go the direction he wanted it to go.

There's a continuous refrain with the main character: "Are you a priest?" "No, I'm a mechanic." And it sounds absurd. But there seems to be something in common there. I couldn't tell you what, but something.

This, thus far, has been my favorite of the movies, and is a contender for champion overall. We'll see.

*A note on the rating system. These are intended largely for my mother - sort of an old joke. They are as follows.

K - Mom, you will object to nothing in this movie.
KJ - Oh, I'd forgotten that scene. Whoops. Sorry.
KJ-13 - Okay, there are a few bits we're gonna fast-forward through...
F - Sorry, Mom. I broke the DVD.

Babette's Feast

2009-01-05T21:25:00.003-05:00

So, the Barkeep would want me to mention that Babette's Gaestebud was directed by Gabriel Axel, and won the 1987 Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. The original short story was written by Karen Blixen (Wikipedia also notes Isak Dinesen, with Blixen in parentheses - I'm going with the name in the credits), who also wrote the (oddly) familiar Out of Africa. I don't think I've seen it, but I've sure heard of it.
It occurs to me as I begin this post that I don't know exactly what I'm reviewing for. I'm tempted to just start with numbers, because they're much easier to spout, but that's not real criticism, so in spite of my temptation to award the thing "Four and a Half Jesuses," I'm going to try to confine the discussion to each film's theological message for me personally.
So the big word of the day is "balance." There's a temptation in Christianity towards "antinomianism," that is, a complete reliance on spirit in the body/spirit divide. We've been having trouble with various sects of this persuasion since slightly after the death of Christ, while at the same time we try to react against the materialist obsessions of the (insert decadent civilization here). Body matters, we want to say, but body is not all. Christ had a body - he also had a meaningful divine spirit.
From my end, Babette's Feast is a classic walking of the line. There is no condemnation of the piety of the community (while at the same time not quite endorsing it), and there's no overt endorsement of the delightful banquet - just a view of the pleasant results. The film seems to imply that there's room for both perspectives in a truly balanced view of the world.
I realize that's pretty surface, but I'm running on empty - I'll see if I have more for you tomorrow.

Film!

2009-01-04T21:59:00.002-05:00

So, my class this J-term is "Theology in Film." I am the screener for the class, (I'm getting paid anytime there's a movie on, I think), and I get to watch a ton of movies, none of which I've ever seen before. Can't beat that with a stick.

So, this is my film review blog for the whole month of January. Expect multiplicities of posts! Scads of content! Ponies! Links! Ideas! Criticism out the Wazzoo From Which Criticism Should Not Come!

As a special bonus, the inhabitants of the House of Calamitous Intent have requested a movie outside of my class syllabus - I expect to oblige them on the second weekend of term. The Barkeep has been solicited for a further one - does anyone else have any theological film review requests? If you want me to talk about the place or treatment of God in a cinematic expression (including TV episodes), your wish is my command. I'm jazzed, you see.

So - that's the plan, starting tomorrow night, probably during my second viewing of Babbette's Feast.

(I might have lied about the ponies)

Guiltpost

2008-12-16T14:33:00.002-05:00

Dawn has guilted me into posting. With her guilty ways. Now I'm ashamed and covered in gold paint. Ah, well.

I've taken on the role of Super-Uncle for a chunk of this Christmas break. You learn things, in this process.

A) Three is an age that all actors should observe carefully. We talk a lot about objective and strategem (whatever the fashionable language about it is now), and three year-olds are practically case studies in objective and strategem. Stuff they want, but can't get. Tantrums, wheedling, all manner of different tricksiness. Parents are also a good study - how does a parent get a kid to do what she wants? Or what the kid needs, but can't articulate (a decent hissy fit usually indicates that you missed your window for getting them properly fed).

B) There is very little which cannot be endured with other, participating adults by your side.

C) It is difficult to type and hold a baby at the same time.

Since I currently have a baby on my lap, that's about all. More, perhaps, if there is break theology.

Teach 2.0

2008-12-05T13:28:00.002-05:00

So, I've been bouncing around a bit the idea that what I really am interested in is "technology in ministry." But, today, essentially, I've nailed it down even further. Hey - zeroing in on a life! It's like Zeno's paradox. With my soul.

So - the single thing about which I am most excited, and into which I pour most energy, is the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus, the Anointed One of God. Going to be a pastor, and praying that I learn more every day how to live and be the gospel for those around me.

Among the other things that get me excited (science fiction, games, romance, LEDs, semiconducting polymers, movies, books, etc.), one of the key elements recently has been technology broadly, and Web 1.5/2.0 specifically. (Yes. Web 1.5. Got a problem?). In the last few months, I have acquired twitter, del.icio.us, resurrected my blog, gotten neck-deep in facebook, and started communicating with my family and friends in whole new ways. (this connects to World of Warcraft, also, which is a whole 'nother post).

The best part of my day, though, is not compulsively checking twitter. Or facebook. Or my e-mail. The best part of my day is when someone says to me "what is twitter?" and I get to show them. The using of this stuff is fun. The teaching of this stuff gets me totally fired up. I had nearly forgotten that my best days at the Middlebury Helpdesk were the days when I got to explain a new concept to a student or faculty member.

So - I see myself, at least for a bit, traveling around, showing off new technologies to people, getting churches fired up about how they can talk to one another. Because, at bottom, that's the discussion. We, as people, as Americans, as Christians, have so many ways to speak now, even when we're far apart. We need to be sure not to lose the face-to-face interactions, but I'm thrilled about our new opportunities for building a wider community.

Finis Incepti

2008-12-04T15:04:00.007-05:00

The beginning is over. Just had my last class in my first long term at Princeton. A lot has happened in the last three months (my stars, has it really only been three months?). Since this post is, at least in part, for the benefit of my session, it'll be fairly full, but now's the time for good review. While it's still, y'know. Fresh.

On all of my class evaluations, they asked what the most important single thing you learned from the class was. I thought it was a great question, so I'm going to spend some time elaborating on the answers here, and hoping that that answers any questions you may have about the classes.

Systematic Theology: "Theology is a science of mysterious tensions." I wrote that on this blog a while back, and it keeps rattling around in my head. Theology - an argument or study of God. Science - a system of knowledge. Mysterious - as opposed to logos, impenetrable truth; knowledge that surpasses rational understanding. Tensions - a dynamic state existing between two bodies, in this case, two facts. A couple of quotations and thoughts to illustrate this point:

"God is light, but God is unlike any light that we know." - Irenaeus

"...one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation..." - Definition of the Council of Chalcedon

And the like. Over and over. To understand truly the doctrines of the early church, we must hold in dynamic tension many of the fundamentals of our faith. God is three. God is one. Yes.

Pastorally, I think this will show up in the moments when it's needed. In times when someone is considering an ill choice, it may be best to talk about human free will. In the passing of a loved one, it may be best to discuss God's providential plan. It sounds ludicrous, but it's how we must live our faith, in the space between the truths that God has revealed to us.

Theology of John Calvin: "Context matters - especially for theologians." I talked about this, too, in a previous post. Calvin's current context deeply affected his theology - predestination, the eucharist, church structure, all were set up in reaction against the excesses (perceived and real) of Rome. (Increasingly, by the way, I'd like to sit down with some Catholic friends of mine again and dig into why we disagree). So, how does my context as a theologian affect my theology? I'm very conscious of my American-ness when I talk to the Korean and Malawian fellows in my Calvin precept. Their theology has been shaped by their contexts - so has mine. How? How as a pastor can I faithfully respond to my own background in the proclamation of the gospel?

Introduction to the Old Testament: "Scripture is changed profoundly by the lens through which we look at it, and is itself our own lens for looking at the world." Disclaimer: I believe that the Holy Scriptures, as they are received and affirmed by the councils of the church and the great reformers, are the divinely inspired and authoritative Word of God. However, I also believe that humans are weak and error-prone vessels, whose understanding of the scriptures will always be imperfect, not because of any fault of scripture, but because of the faults of finite beings. We all bring preconceptions and assumptions to our readings of the Bible that we cannot escape. But, through careful study, consideration, deliberation, and prayer, we can come to an understanding of the positions of other wise interpreters, both modern and ancient, and to some sort of consensus about how Scripture must be read.

Introduction to Speech/Communication: "God has given you gifts - be sure you keep working on them. Don't let the important ones slide." Not too much more to say on that one. It's a really fun class - I'm looking forward, always, to more guidance about how to be an effective speaker.

So - that's the academic story. For the more personal side of life...well...come back tomorrow. I have to leave work quite soon.

PS - http://twitter.com/evangelius

Consistency? Ha!

2008-11-20T15:35:00.003-05:00

Yes, well, I tried. I really did.

Don't be too down-hearted, though. I'm not going to shut the blog down. I'd love to say that I've been too busy to post, but that would be a lie. It's more that I'm uninspired.

It was a revelation to me that blogging is actually writing. (I know. Who'da thunk?) It used to just be me sort of talking for a while. Then, I tried to systematize it, and suddenly it was work. And work like doing other kinds of writing. I was surprised. And I have, believe me, been doing enough writing. So. The blog suffers.

My big story of late has been that I've learned a lot. (More words from Proverbs' fool). My mother called and asked me about the Trinity. I talked about the Trinity for easily half an hour. I could have gone on. I know a lot about it. And the same is true of free will, grace, the Old Testament, and the works and life of John Calvin. I didn't know it, but it's true. I've learned a ton.

That's the good news. Bad news? Well, that will have to wait for another post.

Yes, as a matter of fact, we can

2008-11-05T18:06:00.002-05:00

The hour is now. The day has arrived. Our president-elect and the senator from Arizona have sounded the challenge. Are you ready for unity?

I am.

I want to work with you, whoever you are, to fix the deeply rooted problems in our country. We may disagree about how to go about doing so, but I desperately want this to be collaborative. We can't do this alone - we're too limited. We need to listen to one another, and whatever your perspective, I want to listen to you.

There are a lot of folk out there pretty excited, and I'm happy about that. There is American pride the likes of which I've never seen among my friends. But there is a seductive danger, my brothers and sisters. Do not be tempted by the sentiment "Yes, we did." I have seen it again and again today.

We haven't. Not yet. We've started, but now more than ever I wish to give praise to the power of possibility. We have opened doors long thought securely locked, and behind those doors we have found...more doors. More opportunities. More challenges.

Today I say to you, yes, we can. We are not finished. We may never be finished. We will keep exploring our possibilities, keep working together, keep listening and speaking until the final hour of human time. But to this story there is no end.

We have not. We did not.

We can. We will.

Comforting Reflections

2008-10-30T15:08:00.004-04:00

1) God loves me. Always a winner.

2) I have good friends. Here, in WA, in VT, in Boston, scattered through the country as only post-graduates can be, my friends and family support, pray for, talk to, and just generally are awesome in relation to me.

3) God will finish what he has started in me (Phil. 1:6). One of the most timely sermons of my recollection was today in chapel, and most of those there with me agreed. God will bring to completion the work He has set up for me, as is true for everyone.

4) Connected: Everything will be okay. This is one of the bedrocks of my belief, that even in death, so long as I cleave to God, everything will be okay. Not necessarily great. Not even necessarily at all good. But okay.

5) Even if I don't post on this blog for, like, two weeks...still, I can come back to't, and it's doing what it is supposed to do.

Prayers for:
Rachel, who is suffering from depression and poor insurance
Ruth, for healing following her surgery
Shannon, whose Philosophy exam is next Wednesday
Hebe, Hestia, Epione (formerly Updo), and Polymnia, all of whom are extraordinarily stressed

Oh - and a happy birthday to the Barkeep! He's a prime number!

Piratae Penzantiae et Puellae

2008-10-10T14:24:00.005-04:00

When I was three, I watched a tape of Sir William S. Gilbert and Sir Arthur Sullivan's The Pirates of Penzance or The Slave of Duty, featuring Linda Ronstadt, Kevin Kline, and the lady from Murder She Wrote whose name eludes me, into the ground (yes, I know I could look it up, but I feel it has so much more a personal connection if you guys know I'm fallible). The actual magnetic tape in the VHS physically broke, as I recall. Such is the power of a child with a pirate obsession.

I mention this because in just a few short hours, I am departing to New York to see a school friend in a production of this most sublime play. And that's pretty exciting. Also exciting - I get to explain to Updo and Hestia the short-attention-span plot. And I love this play so much, that that idea is pure pleasure to me.

Later this weekend, we'll have some soteriology (new favorite word), and some Old Testament maybe.

What I Learned This Week, Vol. II

2008-10-05T23:52:00.003-04:00

Phew...

So, Systematic Theology was the doctrine of the Trinity. And what do you say about that? I think I mentioned this, but at a certain point you have to just say, "Yes, the Trinity. Three in one. One in three. There it is," and move on, or you will make yourself crazy.

BUT

My Calvin class gave me the most interesting revelation, both about Calvin himself and, more broadly, about the value of considering audience in literary analysis. Professor McKee has been hammering at this, but she finally got it through to me on Thursday of this last week. I can some up the point in these few words.

Calvin didn't know anyone who wasn't Christian.

Calvin was never writing to a secular world. He was never writing to a non-Christian world. With the notable exception of reaching to the Roman church, he was never, ever, an apologist. That just was not in his conception. Ever and always, his concern was for his flock.

For that reason, the doctrine of predestination makes sense. It doesn't have to be defended to non-Christians. Except for some Jews, there aren't any around in Calvin's world. And, as a method of reassuring a population that was always in doubt about the surety of its salvation, Calvin's predestination is spot on the money - you needn't worry about your soul, you are of the elect, and so you're fine. Focus on your work, then, on God's work, and don't worry yourself about your hope of heaven - it is sure (this of course is later replaced by anxiety over how to know whether or not you are of the elect - but that's a different blog post).

That extends out even farther. If we consider the audience of any text, and especially any theological text, we will see that there is an impact of intention. A sermon to a congregation will say different things than a letter to a prisoner. But fundamentally, the message must always be the same - the story of Christ resurrected, and the remission of our sins.

Theology is a science of mysterious tensions. God is three. God is one. Christ is God. Christ is a man. God foreknows all things. God has made us in his image, to be like Him. All these statements are equally true in Christian thinking, but they seem contradictory. To be faithful theologians means explicating them all in different ways and at different times. But reading any theologian, it is absolutely worth our time to investigate their intended audience, to see what their emphases are.

...

Other than that, things are good! Next week is shaping up to be the doctrine of election and Joshua. Good times.

Res Publica

2008-10-03T11:22:00.003-04:00

This is one of the few times I think I will ever use this blog for anything overtly political. I might get critical of this or that issue, but I think I speak for a lot of folks when I say:

Please vote. Please register to vote, if you haven't. For everyone in this country, this may be the most important election of our lifetime.

For this reason, I offer a few interesting government terms - what they mean, and why they're important.

Republic - from Latin res publica, the public thing, the common affair. Our Republic is not for itself. It is not for other countries. It is public property. We own it, lock, stock, and barrel. And we all have a responsibility to contribute, not just our tax dollars, but our judgment, and our votes, to what this republic should look like. It's our country - let's have our say.

Government - from the Latin guberno, to steer, to navigate. The purpose of the government is to point the republic in a direction. When we have an election, we're choosing our pilots. Who do you want to be your pilot? Do you want someone else to pick who's driving this thing? Or do you want your own say in the process? Take it. Vote.

Democracy - democratia, Greek for "government by the people." The Athenians had some real trouble with oligarchies and dictatorships. This always remained their ideal - that all the citizens governed the country, all citizens had a vote and a say in what was going on. We still live in a democracy. You are the people. And you have the power. Use it.

Mkay. Classical soapbox completed. Please vote. maps.google.com/vote will help you figure out registration. God bless.

Trinitas et memoriae

2008-10-01T22:13:00.004-04:00

So apparently I've never mentioned the Trinity here. We're all of us allowed these little lapses, I suppose. We've been doing Trinity in my systematic class, and I feel a wee bit bad, because I feel like I had a trinitarian (blogger loses 5 points for not knowing the word trinitarian) phase a few weeks ago, and I feel a little Trinity-worn-out. There's only so long you can spend looking at a Moebius strip before your brain shuts down and you have to go have a nice tall glass of perspective and soda.

That said, I have a few more analogies I want to try out, that have come to me in the course of trying to explain the Trinity to some folks here.

Y'know how in an old TV, you had these pixels that were made up of red, green, and blue phosphors? The Trinity works like that. Turn 'em all on at once, and you have a white pixel. But each light, while still being light (this is the divine ousia, or being), is of a different color (the hypostasis, or person).

The Trinity is also like the Three Stooges. Yes, I'm serious. Three guys, right? But you never seem them when they aren't together. They always work together. They work in tandem, and are interrelated, but they each have a different personality. This one doesn't stretch as far.

Finally, I'll toss this out in a more practical way for me. When I feel a particular need to talk to God about a problem I have, I imagine myself talking to Christ. When I am praising the creator, I'm directing it in my head to the Father. When I am praying for inspiration, or for the blessing of my work, I have in my head the Holy Spirit. But they're all God to me - all of them always working together on whatever's up.

I know that's a bunch of little thumbnails, but, in my head, that's all we're ever going to get of the Trinity. It's worth spending time on a regular basis exploring our ideas of our rather unique Triune God, but a certain point you have to just say: "Yeah. That's weird," and get on with the business of loving your neighbour, etc.

In other news, had a conversation with Updo (she's going to kill me when she finds out that that's her blog name, but I've had worse) about the worth of memorization. Our Professor said something to the effect that we should be teaching the catechism or some part thereof to our youth, so that they will remain embedded in the church after high-school. He specifically underlined the idea that "memorizing something creates an ownership - we posses differently, we truly know things that we have memorized." He also lamented the destruction of memorization in our "sound byte" culture.

I would argue, briefly, that I could go into chapel tomorrow, go up on the pulpit, and say the words "Fezzik - are there rocks ahead?" and a rumble would reply to me "if there are, we all be dead." Memorization is by no means dead - it has simply shifted into secular and popular, rather than ecclesiastical, forms. I think if you could do "Theologian Celebrity Jeopardy," you might be able to sneak in long sections of the catechism. You just have to be subtle.

Updo's point, though, and it's a good one, is that forcing people to memorize things is precisely what has gotten the church to its current bad pass. I'd like Oriana to comment on whether she tries to have her kids memorize the catechism, and what kind of wailing or gnashing of teeth there would be if she did. My counter is that I don't think our professor is wrong - memorization is totally valuable. I just wish there were some way to inspire, rather than force it.

But it is only through iteration and reiteration that we can hope to impose a foreign concept upon a reluctant mind.

-G

What I've learned in the past week, Vol 1

2008-09-28T00:13:00.007-04:00

THEOLOGY ALERT THEOLOGY ALERT

I'll try and warn those of you less interested in the business-side of what I'm doing slightly before I talk about it.

1) So, apparently, according to tradition, the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible) were written by Moses. This opinion had not formed a central part of my thinking, so I was not much dismayed when I discovered that modern biblical scholarship posits no fewer than four (and possibly more) different sources for the text we now have. I'll offer my little piece of proof - compare the creation narratives in Gen. 1 and Gen 2 - the sharp contrast between THE LORD who speaks creation into existence, and the God who plants a garden and sews clothing for his creations. This hasn't created a particular theological problem for me - it's been pretty darned interesting, though.

2) What can we know about God? And how? Can we see Him in creation? If we can see Him in creation, how does that fit into our issue of true knowledge of God coming from scripture? In essence, I'm going to have to side with Calvin on this.

For as the aged, or those whose sight is defective, when any book however fair, is set before them, though they perceive that there is something written are scarcely able to make out two consecutive words, but, when aided by glasses, begin to read distinctly, so Scripture, gathering together the impressions of Deity, which, till then, lay confused in our minds, dissipates the darkness, and shows us the true God clearly. Calvin, John; Institutes of the Christian Religion I.vi.1

I find this image most powerful if I imagine not a book, but a light that is invisible outside of the use of this lens. Put the glasses on, and you see the light everywhere you look - at the world around you, or graven on your own heart. But the Scriptures reveal the light - they are not the light. Or, if you're of a certain age, do you remember using a sheet of red plastic to find the hidden text in an old hint book? Get a filter of the right color (Scripture) and you can see God's hidden text all over the place. But, again, the text is visible through the filter - it is not the same thing as the filter. That one breaks down a bit more - one of the brightest sources of knowledge of God is in Scripture, but the base point that I want to underline here, the heresy I feel especially called to speak against, is that Scripture is not God. God is found in Scripture and in the world of our own experience, both internal and external, through Scripture, but God is not the Scriptures. Equate the two, and you have set up an idol in the form of a book. 'Ware.

Next week, the trinity and the later Pentateuch!

News In Excess

2008-09-27T11:13:00.003-04:00

So, apparently people want to know what's going on in my life. I dunno, they're loving, and support you in your endeavour, and they want to know how things are shaking. This is what I hear.

For those of you of this persuasion, I am situated in 401A Hodge Hall (there is no B. I have two thirds of a suite to myself), but my physical address (as best I can locate it) is

SBN 598
Princeton Theological Seminary
Princeton, NJ 08542

Stuff sent to that address should get to me. If I find a better address, I shall correct it.

Classes have, thus far, been precisely what I expected. This is pretty high-level theological thinking, even in the intro courses, just the sort of chewy questions that really get me up in the morning. Professors range from brilliant/poor lecturers to just overall fabulous - one of them is part of an old Zaire mission family, and if this makes its way to Jonathan Cameron, you may feel free to ask Elsie McKee what a poor student I am.

I am managing to take good care of myself - the food here is pretty good, I am sleeping a sufficient amount, and there are numerous opportunities for exercise, including a swimming pool, a decent gym, weight room, and miles and miles of nice walks. The old Princeton battlefield is especially lovely at night.

Very little has caught me totally by surprise. There's a wonderful breadth of experience here, mothers and fathers side by side with newlyweds and recent graduates, different kinds of colleges, different theological backgrounds - we've all got something to say to each other.

So, now, if you're looking back over this archive, you'll find that it used to be a LOT more about what was going on in my head. That piece will still remain, I hope, but look here also for some more concrete life stuff as well.

At some point, in the near future, my take on the epistemology of theology.

Thank you all for your thoughts, prayers, and support. The knowledge that there is a community standing behind me gives me strength at odd times.

I'm headed out to lunch - peace be with you all.

Matthew "Gospel" Johnstone

Sadness, disappointment...love?

2008-06-26T16:22:00.004-04:00

First, a disclaimer.

Stuff like this makes me sad. Maybe, then, I oughtn't to link it, but still. Fundamentally, of course, I disagree with his "Anousia" neologism (the Greeks sure as heck didn't think of religion as mindless - cf. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus, Homer, and pretty much all of Greek culture, with the notable exceptions of Eurpides(?) and Epicurus), and his statement that while we can't outlaw religion (with a tinge of regret), we should argue vigorously against it.

Man, what did religion ever do to you? Or, more to the point, religious people? There are a bunch of us hanging out who give to good political causes, who love our neighbours, who do good works, who spend time thinking about people other than ourselves. The best of us, on our best days, give until it hurts, and then give some more, not even in terms of money, but of ourselves.

Now, sure, there are bad apples (as there are in any group of people, I would hasten to add), and all of us have bad days. This is, in large part, I think, the purpose of grace - to help us when we stumble. And the purpose of faith, by counter, is to inspire us to new heights of kindness and graciousness. But there are an awful lot of babies in the societal bathwater of religion, and if you throw them out, I think you'll find your society a poorer place than before.

Finally, I am moved to include the alt-text on this comic, as it expresses something I've been trying to nail down for a while. It is ALWAYS worth our time to try and understand why someone believes something that they believe. Whether it's global warming, religion, abortion, gay rights, or what have you, it is much easier, in my experience, to understand someone's motivations than it is their positions. Abortion is especially guilty of this, where the rhetoric has gotten so loud and persistent that it takes WORK to convince either side to understand the fears and desires of their opponents. Believe me, friends, when you grok the why of anyone's stand on an issue, their logic becomes either unfailingly impeccable, or non-existent. And the non-existent people you can freely ignore.

Even me.

The Barkeep's Blog

2008-06-24T16:40:00.003-04:00

The Barkeep is blogging. It is amusing to me to see if he will link MY blog (about which I'm not sure I've told him). So, here's his courtesy-link.

He's a funny man, but he doesn't use nearly so many theologically big words as I do. That's a big ol' fail.

Soon: What the heck to do about Romans 9:16.

The Egyptians had it coming

2008-05-16T03:27:00.003-04:00

So, I'm reading in my early church history (which I highly recommend) about how there's a phrase for stealing ideas from the pagans, Plato et al...they call it "despoiling the Egyptians." I then came across a part where the Protestant Reformers (my dear theological ancestors, the occasional thickheads) rejected many of the religious practices of the Roman Catholic west were adopted from local (pagan) religious practices.

Does it occur to anyone else that the Egyptians have some nice stuff? I happen to really enjoy various forms of pagan music, in which I include Audioslave, for a certainty, and very possibly Coldplay. Can I, as a faithful man, sing "I Am the Highway" or "Sparks" with God in mind, and make them worship for myself, if not for my community?

Christ is the saviour of all. His saving grace affects every person on His Father's blue Earth. The only road to the Father is through Him. But when we sing to him, I don't care if the right words, the words that express how I feel, were written by a drunken, philandering devil-worshipper. I'd be surprised, but God knows precisely what I mean. When Christ is in my mind, even if Black Sabbath puts him there, I'm fairly sure God smiles a little.

So much to say...

2008-04-28T21:27:00.003-04:00

Because, of course, I have a million things to say, but very little to say about them.

I'm going to Princeton in the fall. Finally going to be obedient to the call. Get the thing done for the people. Learn - humility if nothing else. I was actually foolish enough recently to pray for humility, and now I'm sort of waiting for the axe to fall.

I was over at classicalpresbyterian.blogspot.com, and aside a certain...firmness in some of his presentation, I found the list of pastoral types to be avoided both inspiring and a little nerve-wracking...I want to do or be (in some part) some of those things. Not so much the Veep, but the DORG and the DJ (a very tiny bit, and more for involvement in the denomination than in its word from on high), perhaps.

And then I get to reading up on what it means to be Reformed, and into other theological positions, and recognize (again) how fundamentally hollow they all are. What possible difference could the suffering of Christ versus the payment of penalty have to do with the case for a woman whose child has just died? Or for a couple looking to be married? Or for a regular guy, who wishes things were just a little bit easier?

All these things are important, of course - to me. I want to spend my hours and my days thinking and arguing about these ambiguities, because it is in this way that God calls me to worship Him. But, as a pastor, they make so little difference to the daily inspiration and passion of the communities I'm called to serve.

Keeps me up at night, I tell you.

The Map Is Not the Territory - the Bible Is Not the World

2008-02-20T13:08:00.006-05:00

Bibliomike over at Decently and In Order, my new interwebz addiction, pointed something out to me about the perennial homosexuality debate.

I've said it before, and it is not original with me, but it apparently hasn't been said enough: this has to be determined with theology, not polity

This, of course, sets off neurons firing over in my brain. As a Presbyterian, I find now that I must bow to a truth previously unacknowledged in my own mind. All of our polity, all of our business, has its roots in theology. The Book of Order did not spring fully formed from the forehead of John Knox, or of anyone else. It is a document detailing one church's attempt to make practical sense of our faith. Some of it is common sense - some of it historical tradition, and some of it is scriptural.

The problem is, of course, that there are things that go on now that Scripture flat doesn't cover. The Barkeep and I got into this the other night, as he pointed out that, as a Presbyterian and a Protestant, I confess sola scriptura. This makes me nervous from time to time, since I know some Christians who want to turn that into sola scriptura, non mundus.

I've heard a lot of words thrown around to describe the Bible. Inerrant, inspired, (never revealed, thank Him), divine, etc. I know some people take that to mean that the Bible overwhelms every other experience that we can describe. I'm nervous about that.

The language that seems to make most sense to me about the Bible is that of the guidebook, the owner's manual - or best of all, the map. Completely free from error - nothing on the map is wrong. The lands of Sin are clearly delineated, the wastes of the human soul, and the oases of Life are all marked down.

But an elemental truth awaits those who lift the text too high. The map is not the territory. The file is not the man. The Bible is not the world. We can't use the Scriptures to cover our eyes, denying the realities in front of us. The map is free from error, but it doesn't describe the whole of the earth beneath our feet. There are fossils down there on which the bible is silent. Are we to pretend that they don't exist?

We were put on this earth, with our living road map, to explore and discover, to worship and seek, and to love one another. God made the map, and he made the world. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd like to use them both as they were intended, and not make them into something they're not.

Princeton Application Essay, future of the church.

2008-01-15T22:19:00.000-05:00

From the Princeton Seminary Application

2007-12-18T06:52:00.001-05:00

In one paragraph, comment on a book, issue or theological idea that has engaged your attention recently.

I figure I'll be doing better if I can try this out before I send it to them - you'll probably get another one for the long essay, and another for the other short essay, but let's start where we are, shall we?

I recently picked up a text called "An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility" by Martin Luther. Having never before read Luther, I wasn't sure what to expect. I found his style confrontational, his points aggressive, and his position unshakeable. I was most struck, first, by his deep-seated anger at the Pope. I wouldn't characterize most of what he writes as a personal attack, but rather fury at the misuse of the Papal office. I noticed, then, that many of the proposals he made in the first treatise are now institutions of Protestant Christianity. Through consistent logic and thoughtful belief, one man was able to deeply affect Christian thinking. Finally, though, I was struck by the depth of his concern for Christians - going so far as to discourage pilgrimages, on the grounds that people should be invested in their own neighbours. Knowing more of the history of the church, and of one man's passion for the members of the body of Christ, helps me to see what I can do

Please, folks - comment. I need advices on this more than I was expecting.

Conversatio: Cantus Incantabans

2007-12-05T03:01:00.000-05:00

A draft section from A Pilgrims' Congress

Then, as I was walking, a man joined my road. We greeted one another - I told him my name, and he said that his name was Cantus Incantabans. He asked me where I was going, and I told him of my quest to find the foundation stone. He looked shocked and said:

"My dear boy, that's the very object of my travels! I hear that the road to it is this very path, and that to find that stone we must walk the path to its end!"

Naturally I was very pleased to find another traveller of my persuasion, and we talked for a time of our trials and the views of the road. He was very dry, and we laughed ourselves sick at the folly of my countrymen.

Wiping my eyes from tears of laughter, I asked him, "Well then, what of you? What manner of house will you build on this cornerstone of ours?"

He looked very surprised, and not a little ashamed. "Well, now...there's an assumption there that need not be made. Why should I need to build the thing? No, it's best..."

Here he trailed off, for my incredulity could scarce have been more clear had I cursed him for a fool, then and there. "Don't act so surprised," he said. "What need should there be of a house itself? The foundation is enough for me."

"Enough?" said I. "What is this stone of which you speak, so worthy of a grand edifice, that shall have none upon it? Why, then, do you seek it?"

Said he, "I would simply that I knew it to be there, to have that comfort in my life. To have it to rely on."

I shook my head at this, and was about to grant him the benefit of his opinion when he said, "If I were you, I should do the same. There's no need to muck about with all this tedious construction of yours. Let us simply find the thing, and have done."

I rounded on him, and faced him as a man. "You fool," said I, "you know not what you say. I take the journey to find the stone to build the house. I should not be other than I am if I failed in any part. Get yourself from me - I will have no more to do with you."

And so I left him standing on the road like a landed fish, gaping after me and moving his mouth in consternation. I, though, proceeded upon my way, fuming at the lazy believer as I passed.

Death by hilarity

2007-11-29T23:50:00.000-05:00

This site, which is now on my awesome list, pointed me here.

1: NSFW
2: Not to be read with a full bladder.

You have been warned.

In other news - seminary looks to be an impending disaster - the theological sword of Damocles. If any of the two people who read this have any advice on ille, I would appreciate hearing it. The good news is that the theological bent of this thing won't be going anywhere. Politics, academics, yes - theology until my dying breath.

Today

2007-11-25T21:27:00.001-05:00

Today I won life. Like all good games, you want to keep playing after you "win," and so the game becomes a series of victories, but today was clearly game point to the Good guys in the old tennis match of Humanism versus Christianity. The score stands, as it has for some time, at Humanism - 1,343,789,021, Christianity - ∞ .

I've been working for about a month on energy and economics. It seemed to me that there the problem lies, and that if we could solve the problems of energy and economics - the gathering of energy and the distribution of energy benefits - we could cinch the whole thing up tight! No one is hungry - no one wants - all is available - all is well.

Of course, to put that together, every human being would have to contribute to energy gathering and energy distribution - a sort of communism, if you will. Which happens to require universal participation.

This typically initiates my "gnash" reflex, but for some reason today...I just realized that it isn't going to work. All the effort and expense and Brownian motion of mankind - it's not efficient enough. The goal of humanism, futurism, communism, etc., is a closed system. The perpetual motion machine, perfectly efficient. And all these little "ism"s claim to be a path to a Perpetual Motion Mankind, provided everyone pulls together and puts their back into it.

Ben Bova, in his book Mars, talks about thermodynamics in a lovely homespun way. "You can't win, you can't break even, and you can't get out of the game." And where two or three humans are gathered for any reason, there is disagreement. Which then magnifies into dischord and strife. War. So, all the isms are fundamentally flawed - too much grit in the works, too much friction in the universe.

What we need, then, I reasoned, is something to believe in, a solution, which doesn't require universal human participation. Something that get us through the grinding ill, but doesn't need everyone's signature.

I started off pointing to religions in general - the Barkeep most rightly pointed out that Judaism and Islam may be exempted, the one promising reward only to a chosen people, the other's utopia requiring the religious conquest of the world. But, of the big five, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism all have that vast uncaring about what others do.

In essence, as I told the Barkeep, I needed to remind myself that I was a Christian first and a humanist second. I have a lot of good humanist stuff - I like what we're about. But Christ is the centre. There can be no other path.

So, Sugarbutt! That for your futurism! Let's watch, and see who wins.

We live in a phenomenal world...

2007-11-13T23:20:00.001-05:00

Yeah we do. Yeah we do.

I've been developing the language and the thought about this, ably assisted by the Barkeep and Sugarbutt (my shoulder angel and atheist, respectively), and it's time to take another stab at a theology of the phenomenal.

We live in a physical world. If you fail existentialism and accept some of the more obvious assumptions that we can make about living on earth (everyone else exists, everything we can experience with the senses is, to a greater or lesser extent, real, etc.), then you've got a nice duality of choices about the rest. Deity or not? Created or cosmic accident? Spiritual, inexplicable, mysterious, or methodical, predictable, Newtonian? Chaos and determinism on both sides of the crater, lava below, survival above.

But on either side of that question, and in every flavor of the middle, the world is standing there, staring you in the face, trying to get your attention. Every time I try to come up with an example of this, it sounds so banal, but think for a minute about trees. What? Why on God's/chaos'/Darwin's blue earth should there be life at all? Why should some of it grow tall, and somewhat hard? Leaves, bark, what's that all about? Burn it or build a bungalow, wood is bizarre.

And it's all like that! Bugs, electricity, humans (especially humans), we're all wired to simultaneously accept all this stuff that's in our faces on a daily basis, because it's always been there, but it's weird! It's weird just by being there, and whether it was adapted to fit us, or we to fit it, we live in a world to which we're ideally suited. The phenomena of our material universe, of which we are admittedly one of the strangest instances of the class, cry out to be acknowledged. This is smelling the roses on speed - take a moment and wonder that there are roses at all!

This is just a part of a larger idea - I'm still working on the unifying theme, but trust me when I say that levelling the accusation at the universe that it should be other than it is isn't helpful - the universe we have is a wonder, full of tragedy, triumph, and beauty. And it will be so, whatever the fate of mankind may be.

Only So Much Foucault

2007-10-20T15:02:00.000-04:00

I want to talk to you today about torture.

There's quite a bit of hullabaloo regarding torture in the news today, and there has been for some time. Any reasonable, liberally-minded individual living in America must be disgusted by images such as those out of Abu Ghraib, or any other vision of torment and inflicted pain.

And I am.

Why, then, can an evangelical, an avowed Christian, and this nation's spiritual and moral leader condone the torture, interrogation, and the privation of human rights that "enemy combatants" endure in our present conflict?

And I think I understand.

It is not the role of the President to be nice. It was not Secretary Rumsfeld's job to be popular. In both cases, the job is to protect and pursue American interests at home and abroad. I say that, knowing full well that right now, not so very far from where I am sitting, individuals could be tortured for information in pursuit of this war.

The problem is that that information may be vital to the national security. And Messrs. Bush, Cheney, et al., and Mme. Rice, believe it to be true.

And I don't have a problem with that.

Al Qaeda will have (has had) no objections, on a moral level, to torturing, maiming, and beheading innocents and journalists, as well as our combatants. It is asked, why should we treat them any better, and as an American citizen, my answer must be, we can't. This isn't that kind of war. For the safety of our children, we must take radical, unprecedented, unfortunate steps.

And I don't have a (big) problem with that.

Are you ready for the turn? Because here it is. The current administration is doing what they think is right and necessary, and they will continue to do so, and it is right that they do.

But I will call, after the end of the administration, for an investigation into the acts of the administration. At the end of the war, I want to know what happened during the war. And those who committed crimes should be brought to justice for them.

As he's walking out of the White House, take all of President Bush's files, and find out who did what. Take them to trial. Let them be held accountable by US law.

Because that's the thing that must make us different from Islamic extremists. And from Communist guerillas. And from every other force for murder and torture in this world. We live under the rule of law - it is for that we fight. I can allow for the use of extreme force in the face of extremism. But I cannot condone its going unpunished.

I see a human intelligence operative in the streets of Moscow. He has a job, and he does it cleanly, and effectively. There's a silencer, a dark alley, an unfound murder, unanswered questions, and American lives are saved. It's vile and reprehensible, but for the state, it must be done.

And on the day that the USSR fell, I see him going to his local police department, or that of the Soviet Union, and turning himself in. I see this in my mind, and I cannot smile. It isn't a good. But it is there, and it is better than the alternative.

This has happened but two times that I know of, that a man guilty of crimes undertaken on behalf of his own nation was willingly and legally punished. Both were honest men; both did what they thought was right; both paid for it with their lives.

But even having escaped judgment in this life, I know that President Bush, in his own heart and mind, will have to square every act of torture, every death he undertook, with his own God. And that may be the greatest punishment that could be devised for a man of conscience.

And that I can ride with.

Erro, errare, erravi, erratus

2007-08-16T14:53:00.000-04:00

This will not be the best-connected post in the history of blog.

I have an awful lot of tags. I felt bad about this until I realized that I had an awful lot of things I talked about. I consider eclecticism no more a sin then asceticism, and so, will carry on ballooning the wealth of tags at my disposal.

At some point I would like to re-do the style sheet for this page, and that may well be today. I like this initial style, but everyone does have it, and over-familiarity (as well you all know) breeds despite.

I understand more fully now than ever before in my life the scourge of poverty. It's not bad because some people have plenty and some live in want. That's a good objective measure for poverty, but I think JK Rowling says it best.

Probably the very best thing my earnings have given me, though, is absence of worry. I have not forgotten what it feels like to worry whether you'll have enough money to pay the bills. Not to have to think about that any more is the biggest luxury in the world.

I think one could extend that even further for true poverty. If you want to talk about the great tragedy of being poor (whose depths I have not nearly plumbed, and hope to avoid), I suspect that it is, above all, that of wasted potential. Surviving does not permit for thought beyond oneself and loved ones. Living lets you think about the plight of the world. When I worry about my job in a few weeks, and about what I shall eat and where I shall sleep (and yes, I am trying to keep Christ's words in front of me. What I wear is a matter of some indifference to me - food is rather a more important consideration), I cannot divide myself away from my immediate circle. Me, Penelope, the Barkeep, Sugarbutt, the Alchemist, the Hero and a few others I can consider and work with/for...everyone else seems to fall by the wayside. I wonder if, in Africa and Southeast Asia, in South America, if the social problems stem from that narrowness of circle, the refusal to open up to those outside, because of the need to survive.

It's not fully developed, I know, and me talking about poverty is Solomon bemoaning penury to a Nigerian slum-dweller. I will not swear, but I would that I could, if not redress the balance, than at least find a method for every person to live, truly live, rather than just survive. I think that life in Christ must be a part of that, but even Christ fed his people. When did Christ take an offering? Christ gave an offering, was an offering.

Now I have visions of being a pastor, of distributing bread, and meat, and water to all who come and ask, every Sunday, before worship. A glorious hope.

So. I have wandered a bit, as well I should from time to time. I'll be in touch.

Peace.

Unsettled

2007-08-06T16:32:00.001-04:00

We should all be unsettled every once in a while. We should read something that throws us for a loop. If not, why bother? Why assault the world?
And I quote:

The most that religion can accomplish is to provide a crutch for the weak or lazy-minded to absolve guilt or to negate inquiry, and to serve as justification for the exercise of baser instincts like aggression, territoriality, ethnic cleansing, bigotry, or sociopathic perversions.

I think that of the many flaws here, the one that jumps out most is the complete misunderstanding of a) absolution and b) Christ. Has our author (about whose anonymity I should be angrier, I think), ever read a gospel? Any gospel, I don't care which. I do not find my Christian walk a justification for the exercise of ANY of those things - in fact, I find in the words of the Savior condemnation for them all.
And further:

Christians absolve themselves of guilt by proclaiming that their God was a man in mortal form who died for the "sins of humanity." This is all well and good, but what exactly are the sins of humanity?

Christianity does not examine what the sins are, choosing to ignore them. But having had Christ die to have these vaguely defined sins forgiven, Christians have continued to wage war on both humanity and nature for two thousand years. Christianity brilliantly fabricated a belief system to forgive all transgressions thereby absolving the human conscience of blame for tribalistic expansion. The genocide of the American Indian was justified and rationalized because these were unbelievers who had sinned by not believing in a Middle Eastern thunder god.

Our author has clearly never met a Catholic. Yes. Absolutely. I find myself examining (and confessing) my own sins on a daily basis, including and especially my sins against my planet, and my fellow Earthlings. I bring me to mind an episode of South Park when everyone claims responsibility for the actions of a few.
My real problem: I am a Christian humanist. I believe in the positive power of mankind. I believe that we can make a difference, to one another and to the world. We can only do that, however, when we recognize our hunger for the infinite. The author accuses religion of failure, because we try to describe the infinite in terms of the finite. Yet, she/he/it hopes that we will tap into that very same infinite for a religion of peace and harmony with life. We cannot escape the infinite - it will hunt us down. Better to claim the infinite as what it truly is - a Creator and giver of love, as unlike a man as can be while still being the font of love, than think of life, the tiniest mass of the tiniest mass of a single planet, as the be-all and end-all of the universe.
So, dear readers; love your planet - love your God. Love each other. The hour is coming when we will need each other as we need to breathe.

Cloudborn

2007-07-29T17:57:00.000-04:00

Driving yesterday, I saw a cloud in the shape of the figure of an eighteenth century man - think the fim version of the Scarlet Pimpernel, or any French Revolution film, holding out his hand to a lady while dancing. The image was more vivid and lovely than I can describe to you.

Now, I've gone to school long enough to tell you that that's not really what was there. There was a nebula of water vapor attached to dust which was being struck by sunlight in a random pattern which happened to resemble this French fop to me. And, once more, I was made aware that this debate has gone on forever, between the phenomenal and the noumenal - in other words, that the scientific reality and the mental imagery are two different things. Of course, I favor the latter, being a poet and theologian. I want to say, and to believe, that I saw a man there because God wanted me to.

I think what struck me most particularly in this case was that from that angle, at that time, that shape existed. Just as, at this moment, from this angle, whatever the arrangement of atoms and particles on the screen, I am reading words. The underlying chaos of the universe doesn't, in my mind, preclude the reality of the either the phenomenal or the noumenal.

I regret that this point doesn't have as much point as some prior ones. It was tighter when I first saw it. I suppose I'll close with this: Next time you see a whale in the sky, or a star destroyer, or just a plain ol' Cowboy, let it make you feel. That, at least in part, is what life is about.

Oh, and a shout out to Penelope. Welcome to the blog. =)

mood: ring
album: WoW soundtrack

Postgap and ecclesiology

2007-07-27T02:29:00.000-04:00

So it's been plenty long since last I posted. Thought this would end up being one thing - I failed, signally. Maybe now that it's not a class assignment I"ll actually work it from time to time.

Anyway, I just got into a good one with Sister Mary [who is peacing (peaceing? Blasted made-up words) for points Southwest tomorrow] and had one thought re: transubstantiation that I wanted to share with the vulgar.

"I think we're getting bogged down in what's dragging Sugarbutt through the mire, and maybe that's a mistake of my phrasing. What concerns me is less what is right, and more what is true. With transubstantiation, that's probably as true as anything. The difference between "it's a symbol" and "it's the physical thing" is less important to me than the truth that in the participation in the Eucharist, we are truly eating Christ's flesh, drinking Christ's blood. Any Protestant who tries to shy away from the reality of eating and drinking Christ by hiding behind "it's a symbol" is blaspheming, to my mind - the purpose of the symbol is to make the object truer than it could ever be in reality. From a scientific standpoint, though there's a lot of allowance I can make for miracles, it's tough for me to reconcile a physical transubstantiation. That said, I believe that, whatever the physical nature of the thing in my mouth, I am truly eating the flesh, drinking the blood of Christ.
Apply as needed - I think the church is, in truth, more united than people have ever known, could ever know. I think the words of Augustine echo with me as truly as those of Calvin. Right and wrong are, as you say the concepts of legality. It's possible to be wrong and untrue, but it's also possible to be wrong and true, by any measurable standard - see miracles."

So that's a chunk of recent thought. In coming weeks, perhaps, a theology of the physical, long-running enough now to be my problem of the year.

Reason concerning the being

2007-03-16T07:53:00.000-04:00

See, now this I can get behind, as much as I can, in good conscience support any logos on the existence of God. Wasn't feeling the cosmological, but although I've heard them both before, I just feel the ontological more.

My one problem with Plantigna (sp? It's downstairs) is that the idea that if something is impossible in one universe, it must be impossible in all universes. You guys don't understand from universes, I think. You philosophers, me (that's in the vocative), have no problem with a universe which lacks gravity, electromagnetism, space-time, whatever, but propose for a fraction of a second a non-causal, illogical universe, and you all flip out. Philosophers, and (to a lesser degree) theologians, beware! Lest God should smite you for your hubris in setting up a false idol, called Logos.

This, of course, relates to Sugarbutt, who has decided that it is more important to have logic than to have God. I can't really fault that, as long as you realize that in some ways, you are merely replacing God with logic. Oh, that plus it makes you a godless heathen.

Class twice today...that's going to be darned exciting. Oh, well. Little nap 'ere that begins.

Argumenta

2007-03-13T14:31:00.000-04:00

My head spinneth, having been moved by an unmoved mover. I read the Anselm because, you know, I was interested, and...why not?

It's interesting to me that the proposition seems to hang on the issue of things being impossible. This leads to this leads to this which can't be true - it's obviously impossible. We seem to set about saying that the root of all philosophy is in eliminating contradictions.

I'm not saying that contradictions are necessarily good, but I'm not saying they're necessarily bad, either.

"And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare,"

or

"I hate and I love - why I cannot say.
But it is so, and I am in torment."

That's human life - there are contradictions, paradoxes, things that don't make sense. I understand the philosophical drive to combat contradiction and impossibility, but every once in a while, I suspect that a logical impossibility captures the essence of a thing much better than any book of sensical descriptions ever could.

Which may, of course, be why I believe in God. God is not a good explanation for the contradictions, and He contradicts a good few things by his existence, but He does say: mystery is necessary and good. Theologize, but don't get so caught up in thinking about Me that you forget what you and I are up to. We have work to do, you see.

And I'm down with that.

Veritas non posse scire

2007-03-09T07:14:00.000-05:00

So this is my elemental criticism of Martin, that he thinks it's possible to understand unknowable truth in logical terms. I was reading, there, thinking that he might endeavor next to explain Shakespeare or Coleridge in logical terms. It's worth our while, certainly, to try and interpret poetry, and religious experience. I would be beyond foolish to deny it.

But he accuses mystics of attempting to explain the ineffable, and calls their definitions and distinctions internally inconsistent, if not paradoxical and contradictory

My skills at simile fail me entirely! It's...it's explaining purple to the blind, explicating the clarinet to the deaf! Brain surgery!

The reality we're endeavoring to discuss is clearly not the reality with which we deal on a daily basis. There is no reason why it should necessarily play by our rules, by any stretch of the imagination. There's no reason why it shouldn't, either, which is his purpose in his negative principle of credulity, but just because our language and thought are presented with a universe we can't explain is no reason to stop trying.

My favorite accusation, and I use that word with care, is when he goes after mystics for saying something can't be explained, and then trying so to explain.

He's missing, of course, the human drive to try. Just because something is indefinable doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to make the attempt. Those of us blessed with religious experience and with liberal arts educations should endeavor to give every account that we can, until reason breaks down and faith alone remains.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't always be trying to reason further, but a world entirely run on logos ends with the darkest visions of Huxley, Orwell, Bradbury and Plato (if you don't think Republic is Dystopian literature, you need to take a careful re-examination of your life).
You need mythos, and philos, and eros, and all those messy human desires, emotions and stories for mankind to maintain its humanity.

Bah! Silly people with your desire for a fully explicable universe!

Fall?

2007-02-27T22:53:00.000-05:00

Troubling reading, very troubling. I like much about it - I'm very inclined to agree, at least that there has historically been a progression of moral and ethical development. Moses knew more than Abraham - Jesus knew more than Moses. This is the only explanation for the "change" in the character of the Deity from the Old to the New Testament (or the only explanation I'm willing to accept, perhaps).

My problem with't is twofold. I have trouble chucking the Fall with the ease of Iranaeus and guy (guy's name escapes me). It's very textual, and it's a significantly better explanation for the existence of Satan than the (non-)explanation that is offered. Satan (and the Fall) are in the text...this thing isn't in the originals, as Iranaeus thought it was, and text, even if it tells us things implicitly, is still the source of Christian faith. I have to hunt a bit, before I can give that any credence.

I'm also inclined to agree that his vision requires global salvation. Again, there are some pretty firm textual precedents to say that this couldn't be true, at least from a classical Christian perspective. Thick and troubling, in truth.

That said...it's appealing. I'd like to think that all are saved, and have no real emotion one way or the other as regards the Fall...just pretty standard textual uneasiness. We'll keep wrestling, but I don't think my answer lies here.

Why they gots to be after my God?

2007-02-26T00:30:00.000-05:00

So, not the same evening. I lied.

Then shining Siderus, the man of bronze,
Replied in cold, metallic, winged words.
"Imagine, then, this justice for our God:
That he should for one soul this ill create.
We know the long-lost lightborne star to be
An angel fallen, once-knight of the Throne.
On seventh day, he faces all that is,
The scope of grand creation, shining suns,
Aetherial voids and wide, terrestial orbs,
All things most worthy of his praise and awe.
But in his heart he finds a deeper space,
A vacuum where the Word of God is null.
Thus Satan, questing in unfriendly dark,
Found in himself unLove, unLife, unGod.
This done, he turned his aspect from the Throne.
Th'eternal Deity, though, struck accord,
That th'Accuser, as he now was styled,
Should have his chance to prove the worth of ill.

That's all I have for this, and I'm not sure yet if I will maintain the perspective. I like it from a story perspective (it may well remain in the Epic. Incidentally, the poetry you've reading is from a work-in-progress called Dux Argens, the Silver Duke. Who knew my epic would end up this didactic? That said, this piece is from a book, yet unnumbered, which may contain the Pilgrim's Congress), but I'm not positive that it's my final solution - I think there's something more to be said. We'll track it down yet.

It's an odd confluence, but what do you say to a man who desires that you should abandon the things you hold dearest, and believe with greatest hope? Who would have you give up faith? I can accept with equanimity the failure of his belief - I can even applaud his conviction. But I cannot be what he wants me to be, believe what he wants me to believe, even as I face the questions that concern him most in this course.

All that said, I'm sure I'll find an answer - else what am I here for?

Responding to Augustine - the beast defeated

2007-02-21T14:27:00.000-05:00

…within his grasp, the hated creature’s head.
This loathsome load he cast before the throne,
Availing heart and soul of burd’ning words.
“You kings and princes, ministers of worlds,
Look well upon this shattered, bestial cap,
And speak to me of evil’s whelming floods.
I have beheld the weary eyes of sin,
Have gazed on fuming demons and their looks,
But stand here, bold, triumphant ‘gainst their wiles,
Not through my petty strengths, but God’s own will.
Yet still you ask how God could make such pain.
I claim to you the victory of love;
I sing the triumph of my mighty Lord.
For love’s sake will I grant the mystery,
For love alone can make life’s tortures joy.”
The kings and princes, ministers of worlds
Looked down on hated foe, defeated, pale,
With all the chit’nous beetles shine and hate,
Withdrawing, then, they whispered Argent’s fate.

This I wrote just after reading an excerpt of St. Augustine's Confessions. I have been (and am still) arguing with a friend regarding the existence of God (this post goes out to you, Sugarbutt). He has a fair point, that the logic must drive us towards the non-existence of God in the face of evil. I, however, am, in the face of that traitorous lady, logic, still opposed.

It seems to me that for the sake of love, which I accept as the very highest of naturae (essences), and which is, in its essence, mysterious, we must be willing to accept a little mystery in our universe. I believe in the love of a deity for his people. That love is a mystery. Why there is evil in the creation of a loving God must also be a mystery - else coldest logic wins and heaven is dead.

More to come - probably this evening.