Princeton Application Essay, future of the church.

More from the Princeton Application.

In one paragraph, state your hopes and concerns regarding the church and its mission.

As I read the writers of my age, talking about their faith and the calls of God in their lives, I am perpetually struck by the divisions between us as a united Church. From the right I hear of righteousness, and of family, and from the left I hear of freedom, and compassion. All these are values I hold dear. So, when I think of the church, my hopes and concerns, I am driven to point us at the only thing that truly matters, and the only path. Christ must be our center, both the road and the end of the road, and centuries of philosophy and theology have taught us that the best paths to virtue are paths of balance. We must, while flying to Christ like an arrow to the target, strive to find a balance, not so that we all agree, but so that we can love each other, as Christ has called us to do.

Today

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.

Unsettled

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

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

Reason concerning the being

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

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

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?

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?

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

…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.