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

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.

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.

From the Princeton Seminary Application

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

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

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

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...

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.