Silly Anti-Evolutionism

Okay… so my wife was talking about her weight today. Not in a negative way, but just mentioning how over the last several years she’s maintained a constant weight. Go her! Anyway, after she left for the evening (some meeting for work), curiosity got the better of me. I stepped on the scale and…

Humble Pie

Okay so I normally have maintained a pretty constant weight, I’ll grant slowely increasing, but dang! Now its been a year or so since I weighed myself, but I’m 20 pounds more than I expected. I guess being back in school has had more of a drastic effect than I thought!

So here’s my idea about evolution – why is it that natural selection decided that foods that are bad for us are more tasty and desirable than foods that are good? Wouldn’t it logically be more consistent with natural selection for foods that make us stronger, healthier, and generally more fit to carry on the human race be more desirable?

For that matter, wouldn’t exercise and things that make our body be in better shape and better capable to live (and for that matter find the most ideal mate) also be very appealing and desirable? I know a couple of athletes, and while they seem far more motivated to work out, even they admit that the notion of sitting around being a bum is desirable, while exercise is not so much.

Really when you think about it – humans are just so naturally lazy and unproductive. Some people surely are, but it seems as a whole, we tend to want to degenerate.

Now I suppose a counter argument could go something like, well pleasure is the result of leading us to things that are good (food, shelter, mate, etc.), and that in our fattened rich society, this has been perverted because we already have all that we /need/. However, This definitely is not a new development in humanity if its true – because I think as far as history records its been the case of all societies and cultures and class.

But then I’m making a lot of generalizations based on not much information, it just seems intuitive J

Read more...

A New Philosophy of music

I still haven't quite figured out where I stand on music in worship, but I have had some recent thoughts on the issue. I used to be very frustrated about the idea of using music to facilitate worship because I felt that music can be manipulative. How can it be true genuine worship of God if the music creates an artificial emotional feeling (which it does)? Music is very powerful, it can evoke a wide range of emotions, feelings, sensations, memories, etc. It is very addictive for this very reason.

However, I think I’ve changed a lot on this issue. Basically, I now question why even use music? I think that this emotional response from music is its purpose: good music is supposed to send shivers down your spine at a climax or modulation. It’s supposed to make you want to sing along, and its supposed to be pleasurable.

This is not something I’ve ever questioned, but then it hit me: if we think music in worship is ok, then there shouldn’t be anything wrong with this being part of the worship experience. I don’t think biblically there is a good argument to rule out music entirely, and maybe this is alright.

Maybe the benefit in music facilitating worship is just because of this. It draws us in, opens up our emotional poors and allows us to express feelings, experience feelings, and ultimately offer up praise to God in a way we might not naturally be able to.

This is manipulative, for sure. But not necessarily wrongfully so. A good preacher has the ability to give a convicting message. This is not manipulation, but a tool for the Spirit to work.

Now, it may be countered, that the Spirit is the one that /should/ open up our receptivity to worship, the Spirit should be the one who convicts us, etc. This is very true. However, if we’ve all heard a badly presented sermon, or heard a bad worship set, it is obvious that the Spirit’s moving in our hearts is contingent to some degree (sometimes more, sometimes less) on the human element. This simply is the way that God has chosen to work.

One last thought: I think there still is a point where music in worship can be too manipulative. When the worship leader is trying to bring glory to himself (which believe me is EXTREMELY easy to fall into), there is a certain degree of hollowness that is conveyed. In fact, when the whole presentation of a service is just that: a presentation, this really can bring a deep sense of shallowness, emptiness, and fakeness. Unfortunately, for most in our culture I think this often feels more desirable and ideal than the more ideal situation.

In this ideal situation, the worship leader is simply humble before God. While often times this accompanies a simpler set (acoustic for example), I do not think this is necessary. What is necessary is for humility above all, and submission to God. When this takes place, I think that the element of manipulative music can be there (given the quality of musicianship), and the Spirit is least hindered to move. The result can be quite powerful, and very enjoyable.

Of course, this is a simplistic perspective: if a worship set goes bad, it could be any number of things. It does not necessarily mean that the worship leader wasn’t humble, or the band sucked. The spirit of a worship set often is determined by far more than we can comprehend, (both spiritually and physically).

But anyway, I'm not sure if this is where I stand, but its a new way for me too look at things.

Read more...

Balance

I have been finding myself lately always harking on balance when in theological discussions. I think I want to write a book intitled “A balanced biblical theology” or something less cheesy. My dad has been big on “symphonic theology”, which from what he says seems to play on the same principle. At first I thought the notion that all theologies bring something good to the table, some element of truth, seemed too relativistic and pluralistic. In any case, I wanted to try and flesh out some of this, so a lot of this is more theological.

Recently I’ve been challenged on Protestantism vs. Catholicism. While I by all means see more right with Protestantism, I think it is often very easy to loose the good and truth in Catholicism.

Some recent examples: reading an article by Alister McGrath on a place for tradition in Protestantism. He argues that we should stand humble before the teachings of the church for the last 2000 years, that unlike Catholicism tradition isn’t over scripture, but should stand in some role of authority over us.

Interestingly enough, I saw a good example of that today. One of my professor's unique interpretation of why the law is in the Pentateuch pretty much goes against the church’s understanding since the early church, and he even openly admitted that it was a pretty scary thing trying to go up against that much tradition.

A second example is in biblical study. D. Hart argues that in Protestantism most people are “biblical egalitarianists”, meaning that we believe all believers have equal footing when interpreting scripture. He argued that while all believers should study scripture, those who are trained to interpret (ministers and some scholars) should be recognized as having that authority. While he didn’t try to refute the clarity of scripture, he tried to limit it, so that the clarity of scripture is not that all scripture is entirely clear for anyone to understand, but I think he would say for understanding salvation (which I’m pretty sure goes back to the reformers). He gave the good example of a small bible study: what insights everyone brings to the text are often treated as being equal.

Holding to any theology seems to often cause people to force some area to fit that grid. While I don’t want to be agnostic, I think this is very important to keep in mind. Calvinists bring good things to the table, so do Armenians and Wesleyans. While I personally still think the Calvinist brings more scriptural support, I cannot call myself a 5-point Calvinist because I think some areas are not quite right. Same with dispensationalism vs. covenant theology: a progressive brings much to the table that is good, but I’m not ready to sign on due to the fine print.

So back to balance: I cannot say that all theologians and systems of thought are right, nor can I say that they stand on equal ground. What is important here is to realize though,that like people, (because they are from people,) there is some truth, some falsehood. I want to be at a place where I am willing to modify my system when confronted with truths of another system that my system lacks.

One good example of this is in postmodern thought. I think post modernism, like modernism, has several large weaknesses that prevent me from signing on. However, it brings several important observations on communication, culture, and truth that I’ve been challenged with and have had to adjust my thinking. I’ve noticed this even at Talbot, that the more honest people will admit the same thing.

The biggest problem here is humility: if I call myself a dispensational Calvinist complementarian, I think I will naturally be a bit predisposed to trying to defend the tenants of each of those systems. Unfortunately, it seems that when you want to modify certain areas, it’s hard to define yourself. Maybe this is a good thing.

One final thought: I don’t want to give the impression that I think “picking and choosing” is a good alternative. I’ve heard that this is one of the bigger faults to the emergent church. Whatever you believe, it still has to “work”. Not simply in corresponding to reality, but that it has to be internally consistent. To have it otherwise denies that each area of theology and life that you develop a belief in doesn’t have interconnections. Life is symbiotic, and I think theology is the same way. Whatever your understanding of pneumatology affects ecclesiology, and of soteriology affects eschatology, and so on.

What is unique here about theology is that whatever you decide in one area must then be worked through with other systems you accept, however at the end of the day all of these, including their symbiotic relationships, should still be grounded firmly in the text.

Finally, I think this is the chief problem with systematic theology. The text is not primarily a book of theology, so it really doesn’t outline things clearly. A lot of issues are clear, but a lot are also vague. Because biblical theology doesn’t leave us in a satisfactory place, I still think systematics is important, but I also think that when treading those vauge areas, humility is key.

Read more...

Musings from the Shower

First: I want to forwarn that all of the below was written this morning right after jumping out of the shower -- meaning more important than the fact that this was early in the morning, that my thoughts here reflect what I think about while showering in the morning. I'm weird -- I already know this.

Second: A lot of this is out of my league, I am no trained philosopher, so I probably have made some embarassing blunders.

I think most would agree it is hard to dissolve the notion of the existence of evil. All of us are painfully aware that this abstract notion of evil exists, that evil is done in the world, that we experience the effects of evil, and hopefully the honest fellow would admit that we participate in evil.

My concern is the latter case. Are we really evil? Well, what first must be established is can people be evil? An important qualification here is the notion that most traditionally evil folk are far from 100vil. This means, that while there may be a lot of evil in their actions, thought, and life, probability dictates that there is likely some good, albeit a small percentage.

My thought is this: it seems that while we are naturally receptive to this small part of good in a person, there is a threshold in man that decides at some point, the level of evil is so great that one must respond to the person as if they were wholly evil.

My example is a reaver: lets remove for the sake of argument that they actually kill people. Reavers rape, eat, and defile the flesh of a dead person. In addition, they defile themselves by tearing on their own flesh, sewing the flesh of a dead person to their flesh, and adorning their body with various metallic contortions (not of the piercing type, but random metal fragments). I seriously doubt that anyone would be naturally inclined to find the good in such a creature. While from myth, it is possible there is some good here. Perhaps he feels such treatment of others is their salvation, or perhaps I don't know. Most are more creative than I. The point is, goodness may be found.

However, were one to come across such a creature, I feel that the only appropriate response would be one of disgust, and to treat such a creature as evil. I think this is a simple fact: we have a choice of how to treat a person, as good or bad. If we choose the latter, it is not that they are in of themselves entirely bad, but that they are bad enough to warrant such treatment.

Hitler is a second example. Hitler clearly did many evil things. While he had some good (unifying and rebuilding Germany, being an excellent speaker), clearly, if any allied individual were to come across him, the morally right thing to do would be to stop him, to treat him as evil.

This threshold clearly is not a well-defined thing, but definitely involves the prevention of harm to others, the corruption of innocence, and the willful subjugation of others (slavery, hunger, etc.). Clearly, in the presence of such things, one must act for the sake of the other. Issues such as "it is right for him though" based on his culture, upbringing, and social circumstance. All of this becomes rubbish though in that moment of choice.

The abuse here though is that some lower this threshold so that the presence of particular kinds of evil warrant complete rejection. Capitalism, conservatism, and liberalism all fall here.

I think there are two types of response to evil: there is the above-mentioned threshold, and then there is separation. Wrongness and some evil can be tolerated. I mean not accepted, for this would be contradictory, but does not warrant the full force of complete rejection. If we see a man steal something of little consequence, we are not faced with whether or not to take his life, but rather with whether or not to call the appropriate authorities (or possibly venture to tackle the fellow).

These differing layers of response are due to our own imperfection. At some point, the evil of others is not seriously afflicting bystanders, yet the evil present in our own lives prevents us from responding. To do so would make us a hypocrite.

My point, while having been a bit scatter brained, is simply this. If it can be agreed that such a threshold exists, let us turn to the idea of God. Lets assume that God does exist, and that God by definition then is perfect. The goodness of God is inconsequential, because the very concept of good and bad finds source in His nature. For it to be anything else, then God would be a contradiction and consequently cease to exist.

What must be grappled with is if God is perfect, (all powerful, all God, all knowing, etc.), what of evil in the world? I do not want to get off track here: so I will simply answer that in order for there to be true freedom (i.e. to choose to accept or reject God), He had to allow the possibility of evil in his creation. This is a common conservative answer, and I think is sufficient.

However, could God have such a threshold? Could there be a point were God is morally demanded to respond either positively or negatively? Evangelicals do not like to discuss the wrath of God often, because it makes us sound like the fundamentalists of last century. Fire and brimstone and such.

However, putting this aside, could this be the case? I think the perfection of God demands such a threshold. Because he is all good, /any/ evil of any sort demands negative response. Our limitation here is because we have evil ourselves. While it would be nice to say let God focus on the good in people, as we should, however, I do not think this statement does justice to the idea of a morally perfect being. It is trying to constrain the nature of God into human terms, something that is natural for us to do yet I think would still impose an impossibility on God.

So then, if I am right, God is morally free to condemn the entire world. This is where the grace of Christianity shines brightest. The notion that God would solve this dilemma, and find a way to purify a person so that such a person could actually come into contact with God is mind-boggling.

While knowing this can be of little comfort to the person suffering, I think that such an experience of God can.

Read more...

Nostalgia

I've been experiencing a lot of nostalgia lately. Maybe it is because I am back in school again (though I only took a year off!), maybe its just because it is fall.

It is not a feeling of desire for any particular time period of my life, just that distinct feeling that you associate with particular times of your life. Last week, I picked up a game I hadn't touched in years (StarCraft), and literally couldn't put it down for a few days straight. I had forgotten how much fun I had with that game, and how much of my first 2 years of collge centered around it (and surprisingly enough how many good friendships I developed in the dorm with fellow gamers).

I have been looking at a lot of pictures from my life back in Georgia lately. I wish I had more. What is funny about it is that most of my teen years I always was distracted with some minor difficulty, now I wish I had really enjoyed some of the experiences I had.

I wonder if in 10 years from now, I'll look back on my experience at Talbot with the same feeling. Perhaps I'll miss studying Hebrew paradigms, or debating over subtle nuances of Greek genitives. I guess I wonder if I think I missed out on enjoying life back then, am I really enjoying the abundance of blessings I have today (like being in school again, being involved in a church, having several solid friendships, and above all : having a godly wife!)?

Oh I forgot to mention -- part of this is because I have gotten into the "Christmas spirit" a bit early this year, probably because the weather finally has started to cool down a bit. Only relitively though.. gosh I miss the snow, the large amounts of rain, the really cold days, building fires in the fireplace, etc. Back in Georgia I could never have imagined why somebody would want to enjoy cold weather, or stand out in the rain with utter glee, or being put into a good mood by gloomy weather. It took coming to California to discover how wonderful these things are.

Read more...