on a comment

Juanis Chanis said...
i guess the question is...why is it excuseable just because it's a biological process? After all, the end result is the same, and shouldn't that be the basis for our criminal justice system? If it's happened once, it could happen again, after all. And just because we can observe the biological processes doesn't mean that it wasn't the perpetrators' fault...

At issue is the question: can we hold someone responsible for, an event over which they had no control?

This question is at the heart of Christianity. Sin, we are told, entered the world through one man. Through his action we are all dead to sin. And many people are never given the chance to repent of their sins or turn to Christ, and yet ane damned.

But we don't like that idea. In, "not guilty by reason of insanity" is a valid plea in a court of law.

Besides all this, what should we do when we can figure out that someone has a biological predilection to murder before they actually murder someone? Should we take preventative measures & lock them up?

On prayer

"What can I tell thee thoudost not already know? What can I ask of thee thou wilt not give unasked if that's thy will? Yet I must ask thee even so."

Did you hear me as I called upon your name? Or do you hear and mark me now, sweet king? I have to hope that hope or else my heart will crack.

On Free Will

Modern science ha: of late delved into the study of the brain. Despite our seeming wealth of knowledge concerning the organ that forms the center of our consciousness, until recently we had relatively little knowledge about the biological processes involved in our thoughts and actions. It is now conceivable that we can figure out the biological causes of psychopathic behavior for example. We can determine Biologically why a person turns into a serial killer. What effect will this hare on the criminal justice system?

More and more, science is leading us down the road towards biological determinism. We have long accepted this sort of argument in the case of animals we have long accepted such thinking. Instinct weare told governs the actions of animals. And survival of the fittest is the rule. Animals are competing for resources and act without free will.

But humans are supposed to be different. A relatively large part of the history of philosophy is devoted to studying free will, At the most we have been willing to accept divine determinism. Very few philosophers have been willing to ever entertain the idea of biological determinism. As human beings we want to think of ourselves as somehow different, and virtually every religious tradition, including Christianity include in their origin story something that sets human beings apart from the rest of creation. In the case of Christianity , we are created in the image of God.

So the idea of biological determinism is a very difficult one to live by. In Fact I would argue that it is impossible to exist and function on a daily basis as human being and believe that everything you do is predetermined by biological processes. Yet we accept this as fact on a practical level every day. Much of modern medicineis based on this view of our relationship with our brain.And we allow these views into the courtroom to explain criminal behavior. After all we wouldn't want to hold Someone responsible for killing another if they did it because there was a tumor growing in their brain.

So my question is this - as we continue to learn more and more about the brain and its functioning , how do we maintain a sense of personal responsibility? for, without the understanding that each individual is responsible for his or her own actions the social order will collapse.

This is a problem that is only going to grow starker as we discover more about the working of the brain. Pressure will grow to let criminals go for stranger and stranger reasons. We are already told often enough that we are not really responsible for bad decisions we make. We Must find a way to combine our new understanding of Biological processes with the knowledge we cannot deny, that we act and make decisions every day and that we can be held responsible for those actions.

An existential dilemna

"Am I daft, or is it true there's no such thing as hours past and other hours still to pass, but all of them instead are all at once and never gone?" Godric

What is time?

This is a question I have often pondered in hours of philosophical gambol. I have talked and thought about it quite a bit over the course of my life. It is always fascinating and always unproductive.

So what is it? The units of measure we use to judge time are artificial constructs that we have constructed to give order to our lives. But what do they signify really. They identify periods, cycles. They also help us to classify changes that we see around us.

So time is really about change. But what really changes? This is a question that human beings have asked since the dawn of thought. The idea of reincarnation is based on the perception that nothing really changes, that ultimate reality is static.

As Christians, we claim that ultimate reality is in some sense static. One of the characteristics of God is that he is immutable. And a very popular description of God is that he is outside of time.

Even in physical reality there is a case to made for the ultimate changelessness of reality. Nature is about cycles: daily, monthly annual, biannual. Matter moves from one state to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed (well sort of).

So what is time? We live in it, our lives are defined by it. But is it real

A Nativity Reading

And my choice for the best nativity reading of all time. Of the best summary and explanation of the incarnation:

John 1:1-18

In it are summarized the purpose, method, scope, and outcome of the incarnation of Christ. I think that we should read this every Christmas to remember what we are celebrating. I myself read it when I woke up this morning as a certain little girl ate cereal and everyone else in the house slept.

On a song

I heard this song on the radio te other day. I enjoyed it. Something about it seems true to Christmas.

There are a few things I like:
First it doesn't stop with the birth of Christ. It encompasses Christ's time on Earth. To me the Christmas story is not just about a birth, but about the incarnation, death and resurrection or Christ. I like the nativity reading for Christmas day in the Anglican prayer book: John 1:1-18.

Second, I like the emphasis on the fact that Jesus associated with less than holy people. I think we often ignore that even though it is often proclaimed. Certainly the actions of the church today don't reflect the interests of Jesus in this regard.

Third, I like the line " Why in all this hatred do you fill me up with love?" This is a feeling I have often struggled with (not to equate myself with Christ).

One thing troubles me:
The line "the blood of all the children all around." I don't understand this and I have the unsettling feeling that it is a veiled attack on Christianity.

That said, I like the song. Perhaps it is Mr. Matthews voice. I have long thought that his voice is his primary attraction, though most tend to gravitate to his guitar playing. So here it is.

"A Christmas song"
Dave Matthews

She was his girl; he was her boyfriend
She'd be his wife and make him her husband
A surprise on the way, any day, any day
One healthy little giggling dribbling baby boy
The wise men came, three made their way
To shower him with love
While he lay in the hay
Shower him with love love love
Love love love
Love love was all around

Not very much of his childhood was known
Kept his mother Mary worried
Always out on his own
He met another Mary who for a reasonable fee,
less than reputable was known to be.

His heart full of love love love
Love love love
Love love was all around

When Jesus Christ was nailed to his tree
Said "oh, Daddy-o, I can see how it all soon will be
I came to shed a little light on this darkening scene
Instead I fear I've spilled the blood of my children all around"

The blood of my children all around
The blood of my children's all around

So I'm told, so the story goes
The people he knew were
Less than golden hearted
Gamblers and Robbers
Drinkers and Jokers, all soul searchers
Like you and me
Like you and me

Rumors insisted he soon would be
For his deviations
Taken into custody
By the authorities less informed than he.
Drinkers and Jokers all soul searchers
Searching for love love love
Love love love
Love love was all around

Preparations were made
For his celebration day
He said "eat this bread and think of it as me
Drink this wine and dream it will be
The blood of our children all around
The blood of our children's all around
The blood of our children all around

Father up above, why in all this hatred do you fill
Me up with love, love, love
Love love love
Love love was all around
Father up above, why in all this hatred do you fill
Me up with love, fill me love love love
Love love love
all you need is love
you can't buy me love
Love love love
Love love
And the blood of our children's all around

A review

Normally when I sit down to watch an Adam Sandler movie I expect to be entertained by mildly offensive humor and offended by mildly humerous entertainment. So I expected much of the same when I sat down with my wife to watch "Click", his latest effort. I was suprised though. It wasn't really that funny. There were to be sure a few funny parts fueled cheifly by Sandlers penchant for irrational exuberance. Yet strangly the oxymoron that is serious Adam Sandler turned out to be not that bad.

The movie is about an architect who is struggling with modern life. He is stretched thin by the demands on his time--primarily family and work. As many do he tends to see large parts of his life as obligatory sideshows of little interest--dinner with his parents, traffic, showering, even work. He is stretching for a promotion, and stretching his relationship with his family in the process.

Into this steps a man who offers him a universal remote of suprising power. He is now able to fast-forward through things, pause life, and go back to watch his memories. It is the first of these that he makes the most use of. He begins to fast-forward through life's little nusiances. But like a born alcoholic he quickly begins to move through bigger and bigger sections of life. An argument with his wife, an evening with boring dinner guests, a long night of work. Then in a fit of frustration at the failure to achieve a long hoped for promotion. He wakes up a year later; his body having moved through on autopilot while his mind skipped over. His marriage is falling apart, and he doesn't remember anything that has happened. He is understandable scared and resolves to use the remote less.

At this point the remote begins to take on a life of its own, fastforwarding through parts of his life automatically. The man who gave him the remote explains that the remote memorizes patterns and automatically anticipates his desires based on past actions. What follows is a miserable decline in which years go by at a time until he is an old dying man isolated from those around him by his years on autopilot.

So he gets what he always wanted, moving through the dull bits of life from high point to high point skipping the rest and dies a dispirited old man.

This movie is fascinating as a commentary on a certain part of modern life. Many of us tend to focus on making it through. If I can make it through to Christmas break then everything will get better. If I can get just get into medical school then life will be better. When I make it through medical school then I will have arrived. Like the never ending song we are always approaching the end in life, but never arriving. As human being we have been endowed with a sense of purpose. I am here for a reason. We assume that this nagging sense of purpose plagues us because we are meant to accomplish something. We carry an unresolved contradiction;we want to accomplish, yet are rarely satisfied by accomplishment. And so we push forward always focusing our eyes on a goal, near or far. When it is met or deemed impossible we pick a new goal on which to fasten our hopes.

The point of the movies is that our purpose is met, not in the end, but in the means. When we lose sight of this as our young hero did, we end up unsatisfied as our old hero did. There is a valuable lesson here for many in our society, but as Christians we can do better. We do have a purpose.

What is the cheif end of man?
To glorify God and enjoy him forever.

We have a sense of purpose because we have a purpose. We were created by God to glorify and enjoy him. And we tend to be unsatisfied because we latch onto the wrong goals. As Paul said--press on towards the goal as a runner in a race. This movie reminds me that I am to continually keep this in mind--not because it says so, but because of the twisted way inwhich my mind works.

Note: I include this last bit, not because its not obvious, I know it is. But because I personally am prone to forget it.

Note: The movie left several possibilities unexplored. I personally couldn't imagine using the fast-forward button, but boy would I be tempted by the pause button. Think of what I could get done if the world was on pause for a few hours. It would be great. I couls have a 26 hour day. Also I would have used the review function a bit more. I am fond of memories.

A tribute

This picture makes me think of my brother--for reasons beyond the the obvious. Or perhaps I should say this picture represents how I see my brother and the things I like about him.

His intensity, his seriousness, his thoughtfulness, his devotion...they all come through in this picture. He is, despite his frustrating stubborness and occasional self-righteousness, a man of prayer and of God, and I love him.

I also like the fact that it is black and white, because more than perhaps any person I know this is how my brother sees the world. Right is right and wrong is wrong, intellectually, spiritually, personally. I appreciate this about him, because he helps remind me, that there is truth and there is falsehood and that they can be recognized.

Of an interesting experience

Last Sunday I went to Sunday School (First time in a few years). It was an interesting experience. I went to a fairly conservative (theologically) church where my parents were married with my aunt and uncle in Ann Arbor. The class was about science and Christianity and taught by a professor at the University of Michigan.

I have been to many churches over the years, and most of them have dealt with the question of science in the same way: the earth was created in six days a few thousand years ago no matter what evidence science presents. In fact I held this view for a long time.

But for many years this issue has troubled me. In fact it wa a (relatively minor) factor in my exodus from Christianity. The weight of scientific evidence comes down on the side of evolution (there are of course difficulties, but overall the evidence makes a young earth view seem silly) and so I was left by the dichotomy presented in the church to either abandon the infallibility of the Word of God, or to embrace the view that God deliberately deceived us (in terms of what we can see) as to the age of the earth. This was an untenable position for me.

Eventually as I began to return to the church I realized that God often speaks in parables and allegory. The Bible besides being the Wor of God is a literary work. And so I came gradually to see the first few chapters of Genesis as an allegory or fable or some such literary device to help us understand God's relationship with the world and with man (that doesn't mean I understand fully what it means).

So it was interesting to me to be in a class of relatively conservative (theologically) Christians and hear my own view espoused as the general consensus and as the view of the instructor. As I left I couldn't help thinking, "Only in Ann Arbor..."

On Dostoevsky

Of all the Russian authors I've read, I think Dostoevsky is my favorite. I read Crime and Punishment a few years back, and I've been reading the Brothers Karamazov recently. His stories center on the issue of guilt. Both stories are about murder. In C and P the main character (Rashkalnikov?) kills and old woman and robs her to regain a pawned watch. This happens relatively early in the story and as the novel unfolds he is eaten away by his guilt until he confesses to the murder at the climax. BK is more of a mystery. Fyodor is killed and robbed, and all of the evidence points to his son Dimitri. As Dostoevsky presents the case, there is no conclusion we can draw other than that Dimitri has killed him despite his protestations (I'm not done yet, the trial is about to start).

These two characters are worthy of disgust, and are presented in the most unfavorable light. And yet it is impossible for me to do anything but sympathize with them and pity them. This is masterful storytelling at its best. I'm still trying to figure out how he does it. Somehow he manages to link these characters to me by their humanity, to open a window into what is universal in the human condition (guilt) and to convince me without saying it that I am them but for a matter of degree (don't worry Dad, its a pretty big degree).

Tolstoy on the other hand fails in this very exercise by my estimation. In Anna Karinina for instance, though I am told by Oprah that I should pity Anna, I can't. Instead I identify with Levin. Though I did enjoy the book.

Of planes

Tomorrow I leave for Michigan. Why is it hard to sleep on the eve of a voyage?

Here's the thing about having a blog: I feel like I have to post on something approaching a regular basis. This week has been kind of a down week. Sometimes I just get in a funk where my mind kind of goes numb. So I haven't had a lot of great thoughts this week. So I apologize for wasting the time you have spent checking my blog to see if I've posted anything new. (How's that for narcissism?)

Of Blood and oil 2

The discussion surrounding the blood diamond thing got me thinking about a couple of things.

1. Do we have a responsibility as Christians to use less oil? This is a pretty divisive question. I tend to shy away from moral imperatives. So I think broadly, no. But on a personal level I think it is an issue we need to think about in light of our faith. We are the stewards both of our own resources and of the earth's resources. On both counts reducing oil use makes sense.

Using less oil saves money and allows us to put it towards more productive uses. Not only do I save money on gas by riding my bike or carpooling with my wife, but I also save money on the second car I don't have.

Using less oil also conserves more oil. No matter how much oil there is inside the earth there is a finite amount. There won't be any more--but maybe Christ will return (P.J. O'Rourke disagrees with me--he points to the example of whale oil. In the late nineteenh century we were running out of oil to power our lamps, but we still have whales and energy. So presumably when the price is right we will figure out an alternative.) There is also the issue of global warming, which I personally don't put much stock in (twenty years ago the scary prospect was global cooling. The same people fretting now about the whole earth being turned into a tropical paridise were then fretting about the whole earth turning into an Eskimo village.) ( The earth was significantly hotter than even the most extreme predictions at many points in its history and somehow species survived.) But burning that much of anything can't be good for us or for the envionment.

That said I think that using less oil is a good thing. I also think that the argument about being a good steward of my own resources is more important than the other.

2. Who decided that diamonds cause wars? Africa is the most war-torn area on the planet, and most of those wars aren't even in areas where diamonds are. Look at Chad, the Sudan, Somolia, these places don't even produce diamonds. The ones war that were ostensibly caused by diamonds were about a whole host of issues. Most diamond miners outside the major companies are self-employed diggers who dig for themselves not to fund a war. And DeBeers is a major force behind the anti-blood diamond movement (speaking of conflicts of interest). I just haven't seen any evidence that diamonds in any real way actually cause wars. It seems to me like what I said it was--western guilt at work.

Furthur thoughts

My feelings about Christmas and gifts is the result of years of evolving thought that have suddenly come together in a rash of disgust and horror. But I think I need to make it clear that my feelings about gifts and Christmas are a result of personal conviction, not moral imperative. I know from experience that there are people who can enjoy Christtmas and gift-giving this time of year without the feelings I have expressed. In my first blog about Christmas I was making a gerneral commentary on our culture, and posing a question: Have we destroyed gift giving? In the second, however I was answering that question from a completely personal perspective: emphatically yes, I have destroyed gift giving in my self through my attitudes about Christmas.

There are at least three important factors in my personal musings about Christmas gift giving. First, I see gift giving, unwillingly, in a transactional way: I will give you a gift if you will give me a gift. Second, I see gift giving, again unwillingly in a competitive way: I want my gift to be the best one you receive. Third, I find in myself an insatiable greed and gluttony around this time of year as I wait in eager anticipation to see what new things I will get. Fourth, because of the way our culture is constructed I find myself disappointed because, no matter how many people there are to give me gifts, there's always something I didn't get.

This, I know is not how everyone sees Christmas. I realize that I am confessing to some rather unsettling psychological issues. But I also recognize that ther is, or there should be more to Christmas. It is a celebration of the Incarnation of God. This is one of the greatest mysteries and one of the most sublime truths. God became man. Somehow, I never notice it anymore. My parents certainly raised me to see Christmas this way. But somewhere along the way, as I came of age, I allowed the culture of our times to subvert it.

And that is why I made the request I made. I admit that it is a wrenching thing to ask for nothing for Christmas. But I think that I need a year off. I need to see again the beauty of the nativity. I need to find the joy of the season in celebrating tradition and spending time with family and friends.

My Chrismas list

Here's the other thing that I always struggle with around Christmas. I don't need anything. I have everything that I need for a complete and fulfilling existence. In fact I ave an exhorbitant number of things. I am proud of one thing though. In the last year I have thrown or given away more than I have purchased or received. That means that for the first time in my life I have fewer things year on year.

At last count I had 42 button down shirts. I realized this as I was going through my closet the first weekend in October, I decided to wear each one without repeating. I should get through the last of them this week. I can go a week without repeating a pair of jeans, three without repeating a pair of pants. I can go two and a half weeks without doing laundry and not have to worry about dirty underwear, t-shirts, or socks. I have over 700 books. For about three years I cultivated my library, buying three-four books a week. I haven't bought a book for myself since I got married. I haven't been inside Borders in six months. I have 65 coffee cups. Some I haven't used--ever. You can imagine how a thiry percent discount at Starbucks helped this collection.

This sickens me, when I look around and recognize the gluttony. That's what it is. It's not greed, because it's not a conscious drive for more things. It is an inability to stop consuming. Around Christmas this feeling consumes me. As I go out to stores, ostensibly to buy presents, I look around and I see all of the cool new gadgets and gizmos--the new styles and books. I look around and I want. Oh do I ever want. The hunger fills and consumes me. I start making mental lists of the things that I want so that when Mom calls I have a list ready. I am engulfed in the flood of desire and swept away in its raging waters. I am sucked in chewed up and spit up a driveling beggar eager for Christmas morning.

This is not what I want, this is not what I want to think about on Christmas morning. I don't want to sit in glassy-eyed anticipation wondering what my haul will be, while trying not to show how gluttunous I am.

Every year I make a new resolution: to lead a simpler life, to consume less and to allow myself to go without things I think I need. And every year Christmas comes around, and I am thrown back into the revolving door of consumerism.

So here is my Christmas list: I only want one thing:

Your help. I don't want any Christmas presents. It will hurt, and I will suffer on Christmas morning. It is nigh on to impossibl;e for me to write even now. I can't describe the thoughts running through my mind.

If you want to give me something that I can open on Christmas morning make a donation to something you think I support in my name. You know, a llama for a peruvian family or a lama for a Tibetan one. Or give some money to the Village or th Fre Methodist Mexican Mission. It will be put to better use.

If you see something you just have to buy for me save it. Give it to me in six months when I won't associate it with Christmas.

So make my gift this: Christmas. Help me to regain Christmas. Help me to understand appreciate, and love this holiday again.

What have we done?

Has Christmas destroyed gift giving?

I have long had an unsettling feeling about Christmas. It seems to grow stronger every year as I discover more and more the joy of giving gifts to those I love. Why? It is a hard feeling to describe. It seems like I would love Christmas more and more as I love giving gifts more since it is the season of gift giving. But herein lies the problem I think.

For me a large part of the joy in giving gifts is in the unexpectedness of the gift. When I come home on a random day from the store with flowers for my wife I enjoy it because it is unexpected. It is a pure expression of my love for her unencumbered by any expectations; however, when I give her a gift for her birthday or Christmas, there is an element of obligation. This sours the experience for me. The fact that if I didn't do it I would engender offense and hostility sours the experience somehow.

This I suppose is my problem with Christmas. It institutionalizes giving as a form of even exchange. I'll get you a gift, but if you don't get me one, I'll be offended. This thinking has ingrained itself so deeply on our Christmas spirit, if I don't get you something, I will know you are hurt, even if you don't show it, because I would be a little hurt and wouldn't show it. This is what Christmas does to me. It transforms me from a joyous gift-giver to a shameless transactional givver. It reduces gift giving in me to a set of obligations. How much should I spend on so and so's gift? How little can I get a decent gift for? Can I combine a couple of gifts? This thinking is also related to the cost of giving the number of gifts I am obligated by the Christmas spirit to give. The stress of having to squeeze the budget to meet a huge number of financial obligations placed on me by the spirit of Christmas deadens any hope I might have of enjoying the holiday for what it is.

So now I'm off to the mall to buy all of the gifts I know I have to give and won't enjoy giving nearly as much as if they were truly given so that I can feel at peace about receiving a bunch of gifts that others won't enjoy giving as much as they could so that we can uphold the traditional spirit of the season and not be seen as that scourge Scrooge.

Jesus is Lord?

A comment made to me the other day started me thinking. It was just an off-hand comment: "Was Jesus omniscient?" But it was asked in such a way as to imply that this is a real issue that deserves discussion. So I will discuss it, not because I think it deserves a hearing but because I believe it deserves a refutatation.

My first issue with this is purely scriptural. I think that it should be clear to us that Jesus was God. Take John 1:1-18. Here John lays out the foundation for the story he is about to tell. In this preface he describes the characteristics of Jesus in unambiguous terms. He is God, come to make God known to man. In addition, Jesus displayed his omniscience at various times throughout his ministy...think of his knowledge of the samaritan women or of Lazarus' death, or of Nathaniel standing under the fig tree. I think that it is clear that though Jesus didn't always put his omniscience on a pedestal, it was there.

My second issue is on mainly intellectual grounds. Many have tried to claim that there are mistakes in Jesus' teaching that show that he was limited by the ideas of his time. This casts all of his teaching under a shadow of unreliability. If he wasn't omniscient can we trust any of his teaching?

Finally, Jesus claimed to be God. One of the characteristics of God is omniscience. If we deny him that, we make him out to be a liar.

Part of the beauty of Christianity for me is the utter reliance on faith. I have searched for answers to the meaning of life and found nothing satisfying (or forty-two). One thing that helps maintain my sanity is the realization that I don't know everything and am not meant to do so. When Jesus says that he is God, I find comfort in the faith that he meant it.

Of blood and oil

So over te last few weeks my thought has lacked focus and the relentless purposefulness of this blog's early days is, as you are undoubtedly aware, missing. Be forewarned, this is my usual mental state. So I have had lots of ideas about what to write, but I keep forgetting them. So anyway, I'm going to indulge my fancy. and write about something trivial.


So I've been hearing a lot about this new movie, Blood Diamonds, and about how great it is, and about how evil I am for having diamonds put in my wife's engagement ring ( though perhaps I can be forgiven for thinking that the empty settings looked a bit plain),

But I'm confused; the logic escapes me. So most most of the wars that diamonds ar accused of starting--or funding, since nobodies actually fighting over the diamonds--are in Africa. These wars are fought with machetes and the occasional AK-47. Machetes cost less than 10 cents apiece, AK-47s with hundreds of rounds of ammunition cost less than fifty dollars(I actually looked this up). Forgive me for thinking that even in resource poor Africa, these wars could be funded without diamonds (of course I could be wrong, you'll remember how peaceful Africa was before the we started buying all its diamonds).

This is a classic case of Western manufactured guilt. I wrote about it a couple of posts ago. The thinking goes that I am well off, and they are not, so I must be somehow guilty of exploiting them. At least I think that's how it goes. Many people have told me this in much more circuitous fasion.

Anyway, if we're going to use this logic, why not boycott somethink that actually contributes in a major way to war. How about oil? Think of how many ruthless dictators are propped up by oil. Think how much money has been made by selling oil and given to terrorist orginizations tha are out to kill me (you can see
the added benefit here of personal salvation). Plus, oil is essential to the conduct of war--try running an F-16 on diamonds and keep your hand on the emergency eject button.

So if you really want to help the world put your car up on blocks, buy a bike, and ride it to the mall to buy a diamond necklass with all the money you saved by not buying gas.

Dietrich says

"Our community with one another consists solely in what Christ has done to us...because Christian community is founded solely on Jesus Christ, it is a spiritual an not a human reality. In this it differs absolutely from all other communities...The basis of the community of the Spirit is truth; the basis of human community of spirit is desire."

I like this. Perhaps this is the point of the church, to show what true community can look like. To paint a contrast between the community of human desire and the community of the Spirit of Truth. In this we are what the Pilgrims (fitting reference inserted as a tribute to the holiday recently observed) envisioned themselves to be: a City on a Hill, shining out the light of Christ as a witness to the work of God in this world.

A confession

In my previous writing I was guilty of projecting my own feelings onto my generation. It was ill-disguised in unnecessary hyperbole and the odd mixed metaphor, and framed with the self-righteous question, but in its essentials it was my cry out into the wilderness. I don't know how to answer the questions it raises, but I do know fom observation that there are a lot of people who think like me.

I left the church for a few years because I didn't know how to face these issues. I still don't. The contradictions, the void within, the sense of purposelessness, the inability to say confidently to myself, "I Know". These things still haunt me, and sometimes, like last night, they flare up into outright depression. I was afraid, and so I hid my personal feelings in a general diatribe.

I do think that these are pressing issues for the church, because I don't think that I am alone (or rather I do feel like I'm alone, but at least I'm not the only one) in this pattern of thinking. I think that it is a product of our time. I left the church because I found it was easier to avoid these questions than to seek their answers. I came back at least in part because I found that even when unsuccessful, the search for answers was more rewarding.

I don't know why the world is the way it is. I don't know where God is, or how to know if he is. I don't know where God wants me, or what he wants me to do. And so I struggle forward, or backward as the case may be, and seek God.

I really feel like the church needs to figure out how to reach individuals who feel this way. The church tends to project a very confident aura, but I think sometimes people need to hear that its okay to not know. They need to hear that I feel the same way, not that I have all the answers they seek.

I don't know. This post doesn't make any sense to me so you should probably just ignore it.

Who are we?

What happens when the weight of the world collapses on your shoulders? What happens when the hidden contradictions that sustain your sanity crash together? What happens when you know to much, and can't make sense of any of it?

This is the state of my generation--at least of those who face themselves. Mystery and certainty ebb and flow in the history of the church at different times in different places. Our culture has explored the limits of technological progress. We have seen how far knowledge and certainty can take us. And now as we look around we wonder--what's it all worth? How has "progress" helped us?

We feel guilt. Why was I born amidst plenty that I do not deserve, while others were born into penury they did not deserve? We are the generation of the social gospel.

We sense contradiction. We know more about the way the world works han any generation in history, but we still don't understand it. We see a certainty in many parts of the church which we long for, yet abhor. How do you know? How can I know? How can you presume to know?

We are stranded in a spiritual desert. Many of us have no knowledge of even the basic facts of the gospel; others are rooted in the sandy soil of dumbed down Christianity. We don't read the Bible because we don't read; we watch TV and blog about our existential despair. Where is the beauty of the gospel?

We have left the church or never belonged to it. Why? The contradictions are too great and weigh upon us. We belive in our parents without believing in God, and when the dust settles we are left with an unsettling question, Who is God really? A fable? An invention? A soothing balm? We don't want these things. We want reality, harsh and unforgiving. We want relationship. We want to revel in the void of our existence. In the end, Pascals wager is too great for us. We are the generation of the world.

We don't really believe in reason. Logic is a quaint notion. We seek emotional experiences, bright lights, voices from heaven. We have abandoned the life of the mind in favor of experiential learning. If you haven't felt it, is it real? If you have felt it, is it real? Reality and nonreality have become confused in our minds. Is there truth?

We feel empty, devoid of purpose. We have no desire to carry on the exploits of previous generations. Their value is questionable at best. And so we live with the void and accept that it is unfillable. We don't even want to fill it, so wrapped up is it in our identity. We are the empty generation.

We are the generation of Kierkegaard's leap. We just don't know it. We want to know without being able to know, to believe without understanding belief, to be saved without comprehending what we are saved from.

And so, how will you minister to us, who have grown up, aChristian, areligious, empty, experiential, questioning? How will you show us the gospel of Christ? How will you bring us into the church and show us what true relationship can be? How will you help us, the wanderlust generation, to put down roots in the soil of the gospel? How will you show the love of Christ to us, who are not concerned with rational arguments and theology, but with relationships, experience and emotion? We are different. How are you going to react?

Comments on a comment

The commentator Jedi said: "What if you view you home - your life - as manifestations of the the Kingdom of God in the world? Could the reward in relationship simply be the joy of seeing someone touched by the Kingdom."


Yes


My home, just as much as the church is a manifestation of the City of God in the world. It is in my home that true relationship occurs. Relationship begins outside the home--at church, at work, at the park--but it is brought to fulfillment in my home and in the homes of my friends. This is where the bonds of relationship are forged. When I invite a friend into my home I expose myself, and open myself to relationship. When I spend time with someone around my dinner table, or working in the yard, The connections we have are magnified. This is where God's work in relationship is accomplished.

When this friend is outside of the City, the part of the reward in bringing them into my home is seeing them encounter the reality of the Kingom of God that is present here. But and important caveat must be made. The joy I feel in seeing a friend encounter the City, even for a short time, is not an abstract joy. It is concrete, rooted in the fact that this is my friend, that we enjoy each other.

Thus the reward is not "simply the joy of seeing someone touched by the Kingdom;" it is "simply the joy of seeing the one that I love touched by the Kingdom."

Thinking of Boethius again

He really was a pretty smart guy...


By every measure known to man, this is the best time in history to be alive, and this is the best place to live. Try to argue that it isn't (why does "it's not sound diffrent from "it isn't"?) and you will quickly discover its truth. We are richer, more educated, live longer and healthier lives, have more free time and less work, than any generation in history.

And yet the proper name for our time may very well be "The Age of the Psyhotherapist". We are, in addition to being the best-off generation in history, the most depressed generaion in history. Why?

I think that the two are inextricably linked. For most of human history, substinence has been the rule. Outside of a few individuals, greed has traditionally been a pretty distant sin. It's hard to aquire material wealth when all you have is what you make with your hands. When something is completely out of reach we tend to forget about it. But as our society has produced unparalleled wealth, we have aquired the habit. This is not a fundamental change in human nature, but rather a shift in emphasis. Through practice, our greed muscles have been strengthened to such a degree that they dominate our lives to the point that we can't imagine living without them.

It is importan to point out however, that we don't notice it. It is not, in most cases, an active pursuit. It is a passive process thaat has grown with each generation. I am more tied to material posessions and less likely to wait for what I want than my parents are..

So where does Boethius come in? He arugued rather convincingly that the source of human unhappiness is the pursuit of same in fortunes gifts. In other words, the reason we are unhappy is that we have pursued happiness in all the wrong places. As we have moved from substinence to extravagance we have seen this shift as a goal in and of itself. This increases our anxiety level, because even if we don't admit it, we all know that what fortune has given fortune has taken away. This leads to the rash of hyperanxiety and depression that has swept out culture.

Perhaps we have all become the rich young ruler to whom the idea of surrendering his wealth was such a foriegn concept that he walked away from the Kingdom of God.

Or maybe not, maybe all this material wealth really has made our lives better and depression is just a sign of civilizational decay.

What does God know anyway?

" Misunderstanding what God says when it says 'God is love' they think God itends [a painfree life], and hence they conclude that anything [that brings pain] indicates either that Gods wisdom, or power, or both, have broken down...God's wisdom is not and never was, pledged to make a fallen world happy , or to make ungodliness uncomfortable." J.I. Packer, "Knowing God"


I struggled with this for years, and eventually came to the same conclusion, though I could never put it in words as elegant as this. Pain in my life is not just a symptom of sin. It is a part of the plan of God for my life. God uses struggle and pain as a tool to teach me the lessons I need to learn in order to serve him and to glorify him. God is clear in his message that the purpose of my creation is to praise him and to enter into relationship with him. But just as pain is often an integral part of lessons learned in how to deal with this life for children (children in the house have taught me that almost no lesson learned is completely painfree), so it is also often an integral part in learning the lessons God has to teach me about how to live with and interact with him.

So what

A healthy church is a veritable Gordian knot of intertwining relationships that easily expands to introduce new strands...so what? Couldn't that just be the way any healthy organization looks? Why discuss the church specifically?

The church differs from other social institutions in one important respect: it is established by God. The church is the goal of creation. Our purpose on Earth is to know God and to enter into relationship with him. God created each member of the church with specific abilities and gifts and called them into the church. The formation of Christian community is therefore both one of the tools God uses to call us into relationship with him, and the goal of that calling. We are not islands separated form each other in our relationships with God. As a church we form what Augustine refered to as the City of God.

What is this? The death and ressurection of Christ and the commision of the Spirit of God established an outpost of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth--the church. We are therefore the emmisaries of Christ, and the church is to be the model of true human relationship. It is, along with the Bible and the Spirit our key to forming relationship with God.

So then if our goal is to know God and enter into relationship with him how do we do that and how does the church fit in? I think that relationship with God is not so different from relationship with other human beings as we would suppose, though there are differences due to our complete unworthiness.

When I walk into a new church I don't walk up to the pastor and begin to talk to him expecting to enter into relationship with him. Why not? He is above me, more important in the church and probably a very busy man. I am merely a passerby. Out of respect for his higher position, I wait for him to seek relationship with me. This is natural in human relationship not just in church but in all human activity. The new hire doesn't expect the company president to want to talk to him and the average voter doesn't expect the President to want to talk to him. Position is an instinctive calculation for all of us when we seek out relationships, even if putting itt his way seems repugnant.

These are models for our relationship with God with a few important provisions. First, he is so far above us as to be incompareable to us, and second we have renounced every claim on relationship with him. We have no right to form a relationship with him.

But, the great thing is, he seeks out relationship with us, and calls us into the church to enter into communion with him. And he continually calls us into deeper relationship. The difficulty is that in this relationship, invitations to a deeper relationship are not as directly perceivable as in human relationship. But the parallels are there. We enter into relationship with God at his invitation--this is the beauty of the gospel.

Thus the importance of the church. Along with the Bible and the Holy Spirit, it is one of the avenues of relationship with God. The church was created to showcase human relationship and human-divine relationship. The point of the Gordian knot is to strengthen and enliven the bonds which link us to God and through encouragement and intervention to sustain us in that relationship.

Please like me, Please

In our culture today the church is often treated with contempt, particularly in intellectual and cultural circles. Why? Perhaps the church has lost respect because of its shameless pursuit of respect. In many ways the church has been reduced to groveling for approval at the feet of our culture. It has transformed itself in an effort to appeal o te culture with rock-band services and a new glitzy face. We try to appeal to people by becoming like them. Have we given up a piece of ourselves to the mob in the hopes that they would like us?

This is a rough idea, and needs polishing. But I think there is some truth in it. It may germinate for a while and pop up again.

On a completely different and much lighter note

I have always been fascinated by the way legends grow and spread. Among the most interesting are the semi-mythic figures that take on different forms in different places. My personal favorite is St. George. Did you know:

That he is he patron saint of England where he takes the form of a victorious dragon-slaying crusader?

That he is one of the most important saints of the Coptic church where he is Egyptian and still a dragon-slayer, though not a crusader?

That he is the saint of the Ossetians in the Caucauses region of Russia where he is half-man and half horse, though still a mighty warrior and the spirit of the mountains?

clarification

The previous may have been a little unclear...

There should be a clear distinction made between longterm relationships, and short term associations. The former are the glue that bind the church together, sutaining it and giving it vibrancy and resiliancy. They are based on a deep commitment of dedication sacrifice and mutual appreciation. The latter may be based on any number of things--circumstance, common interest, or unilateral initiative. They do not bind the church into community because of their transitory nature, however, they may have some value. They bring people together and increase the level of human interaction and they offer the chance to form long lasting relationship.

The problem I see in many programs designed to bring people into the church through relational outreach, is that in their haste to act, they fail to make the distinction, or at least they fail to teach the distinction to the participants. This leads to an emphasis on short term associations, without a clear understanding of how to build these into deeper relationships. Thus the deep relationships that bind a person to the church and sustain them are often left to chance.

So how can we build up the deep friendships that are the life of the church? Should we pick a person at random from the church and decide to cultivate that relationship? I think no. This type of relationship is an organic growth that proceeds naturally. The trick is to learn to fertillize the associations we have that have a chance of turning into a deep relationship. This is the type of relational growth that cannot occur solely at the behest of hurch leaders. It requires a commitment of the church body to build the church through relationships.

Take for example the church I currently attend.


For starters it encourages the members to spend time together by providing food after the service so that people can stay and talk to each other. This increases the level of encounter and interaction and makes the rest possible. It also encourages members to carry this practice of eating together on during the week by having others over to dinner. Because this is done independantly, it works to increase the interaction of people who are inclined to have a relationship with each other. When forced to choose how they spend their time individuals generally tend to spend time with people they enjoy. Over time this builds strong bonds that criss-cross the church. This also acts to strengthen the bonds between people and creates multiple layers of relationship. Perhaps most importantly, the church leadership consciously tries to avoid leadership on most day to day affairs. It has set itself up to play the role of encourager in most activities. This encourages the members to take an active role in creating the type of activities in which they want to participate. Bad ideas and ideas that have outlived their time are allowed to die, while good and fresh ideas are built up and encouraged. This creates a wide range of options from movie night, to men's group, to Bible study, to study group, all led by the people who are most passionate about them. This gives the members a wide range of options and tends to build stronger relationships between like minded people.

The result is a messy unkempt organic growth. A web of connections of various strengths that intertwine and sustain each other. This gives the church a unique strength and appeal. It works naturally to build relationships at every level, and it provides a slow steady growth in committed membership. And it is slow--this is not the model for a megachurch. It is like the qrowth of an oak--slow, but well-rooted, strong, and lasting.

misconceptions

Relationship is a two way street.

Lots of churches and Christian organizations have programs or mission statements that talk a lot about forming relationships. We are encouraged to form relationships with people who are new in the church or with "unchurched" people. It is a popular method of evangalization. This is great. In its formulation this model is a marvelous improvement on slick advertising campaigns and shout-it-from-the-corners. But is it practiced correctly? Do people understand what they mean when they say "I want to form a relationship with a non-Christian to bring them to Christ."?

Human nature requires us to act in our own self-interest. Altruism in its pure form is unattainable. Try doing something that brings no benefit to yourself. If you succeed you will have accomplished the goal of your quest and gained self-respect by having proven me wrong. Joking aside, we are incapable of forming a relationship with another person without the prospect of getting something in return. So, if I go out to form a relationship with someone in order to bring them into the church, "What's in it for me?" That depends, the danger here is that many people who participate in the relationship model don't understand this.

Why is this a danger? Can a constructive relationship form if the only thing one member is going to gain is a warm fuzzy feeling? Maybe, I know it happens, but in most cases, no. Especially in programs that have a target audience, like high school, the evangalist goes out and seeks a relationship with someone for the sole reason that they fit the profile. This is not the way to form lasting, valuable relationships. Why does the church have such a high attrition rate? I think the answer is twofold. The first, (which is not my subject today) is that many people are drawn in by flashy services with high advertising budgets, but little substance behind their facade. The second(which is), is that many people are drawn into the church by relationships which are transparent and single fibered. A member of the church goes out to form a relationship with a non-Christian, finds one, talks to them for a while and brings them to church, but there is little substance to the relationship because neither has much to offer the other.

Does this mean that the relationship model of church growth and evangalism is bunk? No! It is the most valuable and oldest method of evangalism. But in order to work it must be approached with eyes wide open. We should seek relationships with people, both within the church and outside of it. But instead of seeking relationship for relationship's sake because our pastor thinks its a good idea, we should be seeking relationships for what they offer. Relationships tend to be much more constructive if both parties enter asking not "what can I do for them?", but "what can they do for me?". True relationship is difficult business. It requires commitment, sacrifice, and dedication. How much are you willing to sacrifice for someone you don't understand or respect? Consider the ultimate human relaionship--marriage. Or the ultimate relationship--Christ and us. These are the models that we should look to in forming a relationship. I can't form a relationship with someone I don't understand or enjoy. You can't pick a friend out of an unknown crowd. When I become friends with someone, it is an organic process grown in mutual appreciation. I can fertilize it with conscious effort, but I cannot create the seed.

So what does a healthy church that emphasizes relationship look like? It is one in which the members understand what friendship is--an exchange in which both participants win. It is one in which the members seek to cultivate relationships both within and outside he church, not randomly, but consciously at every level. It is one in which the members spend their time wisely, cultivating relationships with people that God with whom God has connected them. Relationship is supposed to be fun. It is a duty and an obligation, but its rewards should be rich. It is a sacrifice, but the sacrifice is worth it. It is one in which members quickly work to strengthen new bonds to new people. When I bring a friend to church I hope that other members reach out to that person and weave them into the life of the church, welcoming them with open arms into the family.

A healthy church is a Gordian knot of interweaving tightly-bound relationships that is impossible to untie. I am friends with different people for different reasons, and the diversity of my own desires ensures that I am conneced to the church in many different places. In a healthy church this is true of every person so that the web of relationship is impossible to untangle.

A house divided will not stand

The church is the body of Christ. If this is true, can we segregate it into distinct units and hope to achieve growth? It seems that the answer should be no, so why do we do it? If you don't believe we do look around. Step into many churches and ask yourself if the youth are connected to the body. Do highschool and college ministries give the same message that the rest hear? Are they connected to the rest of the church? How many only attend youth programs and eschew the general gathering? How many organizations are there dedicted to a particular age group? Are they connecting the youth of the church into the body through the bond of relationship?

A phenomenon has swept the church in the past few decades. Around the age of twenty a suprisingly large number of people stop going to church. Why? Why does the church seem powerless to hold them? What pulls them away? Is it a lack of training? Are we not bringing up our children in the way they should go? How are we failing the youth of the church? We have sought to dam the breach with programs designed to appeal to youth. And yet the hole tears itself wider. Why?

I was a part of a church for several years that for some reason didn't lose its youth to this phenomenon. They continued to play a vibrant role in the church through highschool, college, and beyond. Contrary to popular reason there were no youth programs to speak of. The high school had its own Sunday school, and occasionally met on Saturday nights, but that was it. In fact, young people were drawn into this church. Many of their families did not attend any church. Why? What was the source of its success? Where is a large part of the church failing?

A Hypothesis

What is the purpose of the church? Why don't the followers of Christ each have a solitary direct line to God? What function does the church serve? Community. The church is to be an example of what God intended for human beings--to show what true relationship in community can look like. It provides a support system for Christians that allows them to face reality--we live in a broken world. We live with an emptiness that cannot be completely fulfilled in this life. We sin and yet are declared holy in the eyes of God. These are tough issues to grapple withand it is only through community that we can do so. The church also helps us to grow spiritually as others speak into our lives.

So what happens when we segregate the church into distinct age groups? This denies the reality of the fullness of the community of God and cuts out a large part of the community. This denies the unescapeable reality that relationships formed accross age lines are not only possible, but essential to the vibrancy of the church. This denies that Older Christians carry a treasure trove of wisdom and experience that can and should be mined by the youth in the church and segregates the two so they don't interact.

Can relationships form across age lines? Yes. We pander to popular culture when we deny this. The church has a responsibility to encourage relationship. This is the tie that binds us to the church, gives us strength when we falter, and makes it possible for us to live as God's children in a fallen world. God has given us the church as a means of butressing our faith, how can we deny this?

The model of the church I spoke of was that of a family. About a third of the church was from one large extended family. But the astonishing thing about this church was its openness. They had taken the kind of relationship you expect in a family and extended it to everyone who walked in the church. Church was not an event, but a way of life. They ate together, spent time with each other, and they extended to bond of family to everyone who came. The youth continued to take an interest in the church because they had the bond of relationship with everyone in the church. It was their life, their support system and the place they came to speak and to listen.

Boethius said

"Anxiety is a necessary condition of human happiness since happiness is never completely acheived and never permenantly kept."

What he meant was that in order to be truly happy you must not be dependant on the whim of Fortune--the vision that appeared to him.

Its truth can be seen around us. I've had a number of conversations lately about the consumer culture we live in. If you hang around a church long enough you will hear it condemned. But technology has made our lives safer, longer and more comfortable. We actually have free time.

So is our consumerism wrong, or right? Is the evil in technology itself? Or does our unease come from equating happiness to material wealth?

Somewhere in the shift from sustinence to extravagance our definition of the good life changed. What is it now?

The Kingdom of God

I live in the world. I move through i on a daily basis. And I am called to be a part of the Kingdom of God. What does that mean? God has called me and set me apart, but for what?
How should the Kingdom look? What is the alternative that I am supposed to display? Where is grace? Where are rules? What should I expect? Where do I fail? Where do I fit in? Where does the Kingdom of God fit into the world?
A lonely, isolated, secure, comfortable life has been replaced. I am called into community for the Kingdom cannot be an archipelago. I have a specific purpose within it...A purpose that requires interaction with other members of the Kingdom of God. But what is that purpose? What does the Kingdom of God look like? What is a community of believers supposed to look like? How is it to interact with the world-at-large? How am I, as a member of the City of God AND the City of Man supposed to act? If my first loyalty belongs to the City of God, to the community of believers, what does that mean? What am I striving for? Where am I going? What is the goal? What is the end that I seek? What does God want from me? Even if I knew what God wanted, how do I get there? What means does God want me to use? Christians in History have used every conceivable means to reach every conceivable end. Everyone manages to justify their own actions. How do I know that where I'm going and how to get there? What does God say about it? What do I say about it?