(formerly) private thoughts of a wandering mind

Three Years

2011-06-29T23:24:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, year three of marriage gave way to year four. It hardly feels like any time has passed, yet over a thousand days lie between here and there. And however we perceive the passing of time, we are different now than when we began. (And by that I mean a lot more than just that appendix that went missing three weeks ago.) It may only feel like the journey just started, but that's okay: I never want it to end.

Finished

2011-05-07T22:26:00.002-05:00

Missouri Proposition B Myths

2010-11-05T16:25:00.006-05:00

With emotions riding high, both sides of the Proposition B issue have put out a lot of rhetoric. Several myths keep popping up, so I decided to record a few and explain what’s wrong with them.

Myth #1: Existing regulations will be weakened under the new law.

Fact: the law states the following:

The provisions of this section are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other state and federal laws protecting animal welfare. This section shall not be construed to limit any state law or regulation protecting the welfare of animals, nor shall anything in this section prevent a local governing body from adopting and enforcing its own animal welfare laws and regulations in addition to this section.

Anyone with basic reading comprehension can see that no existing laws are affected in any way. People who make this claim either haven’t read the law, don’t understand the passage I quoted, or are being dishonest. This claim is completely false. If existing law is stronger, it still applies.

Myth #2: Cats, sheep, or other livestock kept near a house would be covered.

Fact: the law applies to “covered female dogs.” That is, it applies only if you are breeding more than 10 female dogs. And it applies only to dogs, not to other pets or to livestock. And it applies only to dogs being bred: personal pets and even puppies are not covered. Any spayed or neutered dog is not covered.

Myth #3: Penalties aren’t any stronger under the new law.

Fact: under existing law, once a breeder has a license they are very unlikely to be charged with a crime. They may be fined or even lose their license, but it is very difficult to bring criminal abuse charges. The new law applies equally to licensed and unlicensed breeders. The specified penalties may not be worse, but they make it much, much easier to get a conviction.

Myth #4: It’s hypocritical because it doesn’t regulate shelters. It shouldn’t have exceptions.

Fact: shelters have dogs because of excess supply and irresponsible owners. Regulating shelters isn’t going to fix either of those issues. While Prop. B only addresses the supply portion, it is still a non-trivial factor in the equation. One law can’t do everything. Shelters aren’t for-profit operations, large-scale breeding is.

Myth #5: Enforcement costs will go up unnecessarily. Let existing regulations work.

Fact: existing regulations aren’t working, as audits from at least as far back as 2001 show. Part of the reason is that regulators are underfunded. So it’s going to cost more money regardless. Shelters are spending millions every year to care for the excess supply produced, so if that supply is reduced, money will actually be saved; that money can be directed to improving enforcement. There are already costs, and if we fix the problem, those costs will go down. Short-term thinking isn’t going to fix this problem.

The other problem with doing nothing is that we can’t necessarily trust the Agriculture Department to accurately report enforcement costs. There are former breeders who work in the Ag Dept. and in the past some of them managed to actually be involved in regulating other breeders. Often the regulators have greater interest in industry profitability than they do in enforcement of legal and ethical standards. The department has said that the cost will go up, but gave no reason why. Personally, I’m waiting for the next Auditor’s report before I believe any cost figures.

Myth #6: It’s an unfunded mandate and therefore unconstitutional.

Fact: it specifies criminal penalties for violations. It doesn’t specify in any way how it is to be enforced. Standard law enforcement is not an unfunded mandate. It does not force municipalities to do or pay for anything, therefore it does not constitute an unfunded mandate. Put differently, the state is not required to allocate funds every time it declares something to be a misdemeanor offense.

Myth #7: It’s all an outsider plot by Humane Society of the United States. They are just interfering in local business to push their animal rights agenda.

Fact: Over 100 veterinarians and clinics support Proposition B. There are businesses and non-profits that support it too. Thousands of Missourians who are directly involved in caring for pets that are not their own are in favor of the measure. Over 100 animal protection charities support it. That includes the Humane Society of Missouri, which has a budget of $15 million.

Myth #8: Puppies should be kept at 90°, so the 85° limit is actually harmful to them.
Fact: existing law has had an 85° limit for the last 18 years. Keeping puppies at 90° for a week does not mean that all of the dogs should be kept at such temperatures. Otherwise puppies should only be born in the summer, but that’s obviously not the case. Newborns are normally kept in a small, enclosed area, which is easy to heat. This has nothing to do with things like keeping dogs caged in a sweltering barn all summer, which is simply cruel.

Further, the law does, in fact, make exceptions for "individual treatment" and "recuperation." There is no sensible reason why this provision would not apply to a mother who has recently given birth. Hysteria about the welfare of newborn pups is, in short, unfounded.

Going along with myth #7 are assorted complaints, including a “slippery slope” argument and general conspiracy theories. (Apparently HSUS wants to ban all animal ownership and force us all to be pet-free vegans!) Of course, dogs are companion animals, so the only logical alternative to keeping them as pets is really extinction. That's not going to get any political traction in the foreseeable future.

Well, I think that’s about enough logic for one post. I hope my investigations have turned out to be informative. Politics can be messy. I feel dirty already. Time for a break.

2010-07-30T21:22:00.000-05:00

On Saturday the in-laws came over for breakfast, the pleasure of which is entirely ascribable to the efforts of my wife. The food was so good, in fact, that I ate too much too quickly, setting a bad pattern for the rest of the day.

Afterward, I was able to help my father-in-law recharge the coolant for his car's air conditioner, which has been non-functional for some time. (I know very little about cars, so take the next part here with a grain of salt.) When charging an air conditioner, measuring the pressure is very important. But we were not able to do so, because the compressor wasn't starting up. So we took a wire and used it to short the connector that plugs into the to the refrigerant tank, which caused the compressor to start up. Having obtained a useful pressure reading, we emptied a can of coolant into the system.

It feels good to be able to help someone, particularly when they are in need. My in-laws are retired and not in the most comfortable position financially. Last month we were able to help my father-in-law pay for eye surgery, which he really needed. With the heat and humidity of summer, it's pretty hard for them to drive much, and this eased their 30 minute ride home.

Sunday I had a friend over, and was hoping to fix his air conditioner also. Sadly, his car was made in 1992 and uses the old R12, which I am not remotely equipped to deal with. I guess you can't help everybody.

Tonight we dropped Franklin off with a very nice family. They fostered him before we adopted him, and of course they miss him. From what we've heard, he's doing great, but we will miss him.

Tomorrow we leave for vacation for two weeks, and I will probably have very little time in front of a computer during that time. I am inclined to think of it as a much needed break from my obsessions. I can only hope I have some small amount of time for quiet contemplation, and of course, time to spend with my wife.) When I get back, I will have pictures, and probably a story or two.

Catching up

2010-06-14T02:04:00.008-05:00

Life has been pretty hectic lately. This being one of my bouts of undue optimism, I'll try to sum up the last 3 months in a single post.

We've managed to do a bit of cleaning up around the house, but also picked up some new stuff to take up more space. Eventually we'll get rid of some things, hopefully a lot of things. I've got packrat genes, but I will overcome. We've also got a garden going: small, but nice. We have a leak by our front door, and all my efforts at sealing up potential problem points on the roof have been in vain.

We have two cars that won't start. We only own two cars. One broke down a month or so ago, the other just last night. Good thing my dad has a spare he can lend to us. This week we're going to be trying to buy at least one car, hopefully two. We need something. Did I mention I hate cars? The joys of car (and home) ownership abound.

We also adopted a dog and named him Franklin. His mother was a beagle, his father a deadbeat. (That's not a breed.) In between peeing on the carpet and pooping on the porch, he brings us much joy. He'll be 7 months old this week, so he's still a puppy. He's scared of (among other things) the rain, the neighbors, and the dark (which explains the occasional loss of control with bodily functions). He hates being alone, often refusing even to go to the bathroom without one of us tagging along. He can eat just about anything, and he destroys all but the toughest toys in mere minutes. Oh, and he loves kids.

Work has been quite busy. We are nearing the end of the quarter, which means deadlines. I'm also working on a training presentation/session for my department, which is exiting. It's also a ton of work, because I have some pretty talented co-workers, so if this is going to be useful I really have to put together something good. On Friday we cleaned out the refrigerator and nearly died. Some stuff was so moldy as to be unidentifiable. Seriously. My wife has been graciously driving me to work every day with the car that just stopped working last night, and for that I am thankful.

I'm hoping to get an EVO phone soon. Time to dump my worn-out and highly unreliable Series-40 phone and move into the 21st century. Andriod, here I come.

Akademische

If you're primarily interested in my posts of a personal nature, you can stop reading here. The rest is about books and academic stuff, which, despite its length, consumes far less of my time than I would like. I'm sure this is because I have so little free time, given my many other responsibilities, of which I am certainly shirking at least one or two in order to write this post. What follows is not comprehensive by any means: I'm too much of a generalist.

Given my last post, it seems superfluous to state that I've read St. Patrick's writings. Several times, actually. I spent a fair amount of time researching and note-taking, doing some tedious but rewarding work. Perhaps someday my efforts will be of value to the world, but I rather doubt so, particularly since I don't know Latin and am relying on English translations of questionable quality.

Next, I should mention that I finished one of my Christmas presents, Three Views on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, wherein Peter Enns makes a pretty solid case that the hermeneutic of the NT authors is quite evidently not that to which we are accustomed, even dogmatic of. In sum, he uses the historical-grammatical method to demonstrate that the historical-grammatical method was clearly not the tradition of the New Testament authors.

On a much lighter note, I bought The Teaching of the Twelve, a new book about the Διδαχή (Didache), and it proved to be an easy read. I'll probably post an in-depth review on Amazon eventually. If you're completely ignorant of the first two centuries of Christianity, it's worth checking out, counterfactuals and abundant argumenta ex silentio aside. I'm of the opinion that it predates the bulk of the New Testament, and certainly no claimant of the historical-grammatical method should ignore its importance to New Testament hermeneutics.

Origen

One of the more difficult subjects I've been tackling is some of Origen's writings. I have barely been able to skim the surface, such has been my free time. Most of my attention has been on Scheck's Origen and the History of Justification. Last year I read Oden's The Justification Reader and was quite disappointed at its structure and lack of depth. Scheck's book is a welcome alternative: more difficult, but very much worth the effort.

It is quite common to hear attacks on Origen, but his anti-Gnostic (and I'm using the term very broadly here) writings, commentaries, and homiletics are tremendously valuable. A great many of those who criticize Origen really lack the capacity to do so adequately, having only the vaguest notions of what he actually wrote. Despite his flaws, he continues to be of significance nearly 18 centuries after his death.

Additionally, I've been skimming Origen's Commentary on Romans, Books I-III and IV-VI. Again, the quality of his writing is simply amazing, his masterly observations and insights demanding attention, if not always acceptance. His attacks on anthropomorphites are withering and detailed. His also demonstrates subtlety and thoughtfulness. Consider this statement:

It is my opinion, in fact, that even if someone could escape God's judgment, he ought not desire to. For not to come to God's judgment would mean not to come to correction, to the restoration of health and to that which heals. (p. 105)

Luther, Melanchthon, et. al

I've also been reading the Augsburg Confession, from 1530. This is a tremendously important historical document, one given far too little attention these days, I think. For fun, I'm going to quote and comment on some snippets. One very sobering point worthy of mention is that it has mostly failed to live up to its stated aims:

"…we at least leave with you a clear testimony, that we here in no wise are holding back from anything that could bring about Christian concord…"

They also say:

"If the outcome, therefore, should be such that the differences between us and the other parties in the matter of religion should not be amicably and in charity settled, then here, before Your Imperial Majesty we make the offer in all obedience, in addition to what we have already done, that we will all appear and defend our cause in such a general, free Christian Council"

Some 15 years later, the multi-year Council of Trent was convened, but I don't think that things played out at all the way they expected.

Next are a series of slightly modified quotes that reflect some of the authors' logic. I consider these to be quite interesting.

"For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith… [We] condemn those who think that the Holy Ghost comes to men without the external Word…"

"Both the Sacraments and Word are effectual by reason of the institution and commandment of Christ…"

Baptism "is necessary to salvation, and ~~that~~ through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and ~~that~~ children are to be baptized…"

"[T]he Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord…"

They also appear to condemn postmillennialism as being of "Jewish opinions." Anyone want to guess what they would think of theocrats, theonomists, or reconstructionists?

Other curiosities include seeds of doctrinal (not just ecclesial) relativism:

"…it is necessary that the doctrine of Christian liberty be preserved in the churches…"

"[I]t is lawful for bishops or pastors to make ordinances that things be done orderly in the Church... So Paul ordains, 1 Cor. 11:5, that women should cover their heads in the congregation, 1 Cor. 14:30, that interpreters be heard in order in the church, etc."

"It is proper that the churches should keep such ordinances for the sake of love and tranquillity, so far that one do not offend another, that all things be done in the churches in order, and without confusion…"

"Some dispute that the keeping of the Lord's Day is not indeed of divine right, but in a manner so… What else are such disputations than snares of consciences?"

"if they [the Bishops] make no concession, it is for them to see how they shall give account to God for furnishing, by their obstinacy, a cause for schism."

Money quote:

"The Apostles commanded Acts 15:20 to abstain from blood. Who does now observe it? And yet they that do it not sin not; …For in this decree we must perpetually consider what the aim of the Gospel is."

Perhaps even more interesting is Melanchthon's defense, which counters many objections raised to the confession. For example:

"Baptism is necessary to salvation, and ~~that~~ children are to be baptized… [the Anabaptists are a] wicked and seditious faction [of] robbers."

"…it is manifest that God approves of the baptism of little children. Therefore the Anabaptists, who condemn the baptism of little children, believe wickedly. That God, however, approves of the baptism of little children is shown by this, namely, that God gives the Holy Ghost to those thus baptized… [For there have been many holy men in the Church who have not been baptized otherwise.] This reason, even taken alone, can sufficiently establish good and godly minds against the godless and fanatical opinions of the Anabaptists."

Future reading plans

I very much want to read Gadamer's Truth and Method, because I need to further my hermeneutical and epistemological horizons.

I've also been thinking of a selection of works by Girard that I really want to dig into. His works on mimetics and religious violence look fascinating, with far-reaching implications for ideological, political, cultural, and dogmatic fields.

My other recent book purchase, which I have barely begun, is McKnight's Praying with the Church. Calling not simply for a more "authentic" self-expression, autonomy, or individualism, the authentic is in fact seen as being the traditional. "Fixed-hour prayer is praying with the Church," he says. A couple quotes:

From their earliest moments, the three monotheistic religions of Abraham… have all shared certain common assumptions about, and disciplines of, religious and spiritual formation… [A]ll three have, from their very inception, assumed the practice of fixed-hour prayers as part and parcel of the observant life. (p. IX)

…as a part of its own emergence and re-configuration, what post-modern, post-denominational, post-Reformation Christianity now calls us to is the reclamation by all Christians of fixed-hour prayer and of the spiritual richness that comes from this most ancient and holy practice. (p. XI)

I grew up in a church that did not teach fixed-hour prayer rhythms. We did not pray with the Church. Instead, we prayed in the church. (p. 3)

The Bible, Jesus, and the Church teach that we can learn to use set prayers at set times and pray with the Church and mean every word we say and, as a result, grow both personally and as a community of faith. (p. 4)

Each of us makes our way in life with a "prayer tradition"—the one that comes packaged with our family and our denomination and friends. This tradition teaches us what to pray, how to pray, and when to pray. (p. 24)

He goes on to make the point that Jesus prayed daily, at set times, repeating set prayers and psalms. If you haven't been raised to do things like that, or if you've been raised to see such things with disdain, it can take a while for the implications to really set in. In case you missed it, the aforementioned Didache's insistence that the Lord's Prayer be prayed thrice daily fits very much within this way of thinking.

Enough

I'll close with a new (to me at least), shocking thought: granting Jesus Christ a human will pre-resurrection implies that will is retained post-resurrection. The meaning and implications of that statement are far-reaching. It has not been meaninglessly subsumed into the divine will, a la monoenergism…

Saint Patrick

2010-03-17T04:00:00.007-05:00

Some sixteen centuries before the birth of my youngest brother, Saint Patrick was born, but today we recognize his death.

He seems from his writings to have been very interested in the spread of monasticism. Those whom he baptized were after, as was the custom of the day, dressed in white robes and anointed with oil (chrism). His Confession and his Letter to Coroticus are his only surviving authentic writings. From them we also know he had been a deacon and was later appointed bishop (perhaps of Armagh or “of the tribe of Conchobar”), and that there was some opposition against him after he received that office. The Letter seems to be excommunicating Coroticus for killing and enslaving Christians.

Patrick is also known for his Lorica, which seems to be a prayer that can be sung or chanted. It may be authentic, or perhaps it is pseudepigraphic, but like his Confession it is thoroughly Trinitarian. When Latinized, his name means “father,” and thus to say “Saint Patrick” is to say “Holy Father.” I am not sure that the Irish corollary, “Naomh Pádraig,” carries the same meaning.

Update: I changed the link to the Letter (so it can have accompanying footnotes). Also, one of Wikipedia's footnotes is James Henthorn Todd's 1864 book/dissertation, St. Patrick, Apostle of Ireland. It's on Google Books and worth reading. (I've only read a couple pages so far, but it seems pretty good.)

To Kalila,on the occasion of her first missed birthday

2010-02-14T21:16:00.000-06:00

i fear someday
when i will be old
as my grandfather was
and all of my friends
will be no older than my children
and existence will become
inescapably overwhelming

but you, my friend,
leave me much too old
too soon, much too soon,
for there were friends for you to meet
words to share
and limitless potential
inventive explorations

someday perhaps
i'll likewise walk unchosen paths
with, i hope, as much grace
and friends around
however helpless they feel
yet choosing not to fear
vexatious lamenting

i was never sure
how to be proper
i missed the chance
to say a proper goodbye
and substitutes don't seem the same
when you're heavyhearted
and everything seems so

unfinished

Delta Airlines: Incompetent?

2010-02-07T08:37:00.000-06:00

This morning I got up before 4am to take a Chinese student to the airport so he could return home. In spite of the sad story that led up to his last moments in Kansas City, we had a good time on the trip to the airport (4 of us: my wife and his friend came along).

So we said our goodbyes and went to the car. 10 minutes out, we get a phone call, and apparently, in spite of the fact that his bags were checked and he had a boarding pass, Delta wouldn't let him board the plane without a ticket. I even spoke briefly to a woman working at the gate, and couldn't figure out why it was a problem that he didn't have a "ticket." I haven't the slightest idea what the difference is between a ticket and a boarding pass, and further, why he can't board when the computer system shows that his passport is connected to his ticket, he has his passport, and his bags were checked. Anyway, the stupidity only got worked out by giving him a different flight, two hours later, taking a totally different route home. He and I were both pretty angry about the situation, and it's particularly difficult for him since his English skills aren't great.

I'm genuinely perplexed. As far as I know, he didn't do anything wrong. Did Delta screw this up, or is it some TSA regulation they're following? Why would an airline check your bags and hand you a boarding pass and then refuse to board you? Can anyone make sense of this? So stupid.

Haiti

2010-01-15T15:18:00.001-06:00

Events of this sort tend to leave me speechless. FT republished David Hart's tsumani essay today, so I read it again. I am, of course, opposed to "metaphysical incoherence"—as he puts it—but for the moment I can't seem to muster even mental coherence.

It seems a strange thing to find peace in a universe rendered morally intelligible at the cost of a God rendered morally loathsome. Better, it seems to me, the view of the ancient Gnostics: however ludicrous their beliefs, they at least, when they concluded that suffering and death were essential aspects of the creator’s design, had the good sense to yearn to know a higher God.

Read him. And share, for a moment, in the grief of a devastated nation. And donate money.

Christmas 2009 Recap

2009-12-28T12:11:00.000-06:00

I've got a couple vacation days I have to use or lose, so I've got some time off work today to post. The last week has been pretty eventful, but we've also had time to just relax and enjoy our house. These are just some observations: I'm not complaining about anything.

As I mentioned previously, we had a (comparatively brief) trip to the ER with my in-laws, which fortunately was completed before the incoming ice and 9+ inches of snow hit. Now my in-law's car won't start because it's been too cold, so sometime today we're going to take them some groceries and finally celebrate Christmas with them.

We spent most of Christmas Day at home by ourselves, but that night we took some Chinese friends over to my brother Jeremy's house and had a good time. The guys all got in the hot tub; this year it was colder and windier and snowier than usual, so it was a bit brutal. I and Jonathan and his friend Jordan made snow angels, and Josh slid down the snow-covered slide. Did I mention it was cold? Ah well, every once in a while it's okay to go to extremes. I got my first introduction to Wii Fit; it's a ton of fun when you play with other people.

We've also had a couple friends get their cars stuck in the snow, and I've seen many cars parked on the street and buried in snow because of plowing. In the last week seen a bit of our living room ceiling fall down from long-ago water damage, and last night we got to mop up a bunch of water that leaked in through a window. Our gutters are filled full to overflowing with ice, and at the back of the house the water manages to leak between the gutter and the house, rather than over the outside part of the gutter. So, whenever the weather clears up my dad is going to help me do some work to make sure this type of thing doesn't happen again.

Yesterday, my wife noticed what may be my first gray hair. Based on the length, I'm certain it was there before my 31st birthday, so I guess I'm officially wise (or old, or something like that). Except I yanked it out to get a better look at it, so maybe not. We bought a Wii Fit (and a Wii to go with it) on impulse Saturday (just like we did on Black Friday with the TV) and we've been addicted. I'm old and out of shape, or at least that's what the game (and my now very sore muscles) tells me. It can be rude at times (or maybe just blunt).

And I'm way over the limit for personal information for a blog post, so it's time to end this thing.

Advent Meditation: Magnificat

2009-12-25T18:41:00.003-06:00

Today is Christmas Day (unless you're not on the Gregorian calendar). (I know, I'm such a nerd for saying that.) It's been quite a challenge to put together a blog post, so I'm going to take the long way to get into what I've been working on.

Yesterday morning (Thursday), just as we were getting ready to go through the day's activities of food preparation and wrapping of presents and all that, we got a phone call from my father-in-law. A short while later, we were in the car, off to take him to the emergency room, which we really should have done on Tuesday. (Not all problems can be solved by antibiotics, as the doctor we took him to on Tuesday should have known). My mother-in-law isn't supposed to drive, so we couldn't just meet them at the hospital.

So there we were, fighting holiday traffic by the Independence mall, trying to get to the hospital, me behind the wheel of their Jeep, which I'm not at all comfortable driving. Cold and rainy, but I'm glad the snow and ice held off while we were there. The hospital had him in a room inside 5 minutes, which is quite amazing. In all we really only spent around 3 hours there (tack on 2 more hours of driving plus a couple pharmacy stops and it makes for a long day). If we had been there much longer, we would have missed my family's Christmas celebration, so even though we were late and we didn't have time to pick up the last-minute presents we had planned on, we did manage to get our food there and only delayed dinner by an hour. In all, much to be thankful for.

Now, to what I've been trying to get posted for some days now...

Advent

Throughout Advent, in the back of my mind, I have been pondering the mystery of union between the human and divine. The cooperation of wills, cooperation of natures. Today we celebrate the birth of Christ, the perfect union of divinity and humanity in a single person. Before this event could take place, however, a prior cooperation between humanity and divinity was necessary: that involving Mary.

Wednesday I awoke singing the Magnificat to a Mike Crawford tune. The second or third time I ever heard it, it struck me in a new way, bringing hints of clarity. “From now on all generations will call me blessed,” Mary claims—quite boldly. It's easy to miss the force of those words, and that they point us back to Genesis 9. The end of the song makes the reference more clear, and indicates how much hope is wrapped up in the child whose birth we celebrate today.

For her to be called blessed suggests that she is in some sense a source of blessing. Significant about this blessing is that it does not come from wholly outside the world. Rather, it comes from within, in the seemingly mundane form of a teenage girl giving birth to an infant. Yet neither does it come wholly from within, for the world can never completely fix itself. The myriad implications of this I will leave to another time, content for now to dwell in the moment, in the mystery of that which really cannot be fully explained.

My impression is that Mary tends to be overshadowed by figures like Ruth and Esther. While I've mentioned this inclination before, I think this passage should help awaken our dulled senses. So much depth is to be found in these few words sung by a teenage girl, words which even today Christians sing along with her. She is (or ought to be) astounding, full of understanding. Her example shines from generation to generation.

From her came forth the hope of Israel. Out of her came the hope of all peoples. He rules from his throne. His kingdom will never end. Christ is born, glorify him!

Thanksgiving Meditation

2009-11-30T23:22:00.001-06:00

In Matthew's gospel (ch.5), you may notice this passage:

“Your Father who is in heaven makes his sun to rise on evil and good and sends rain on righteous and unrighteous.”

What struck me about this was the lack of definition in this passage for "righteous" and "unrighteous." We tend to justify ourselves, and people we agree with. Worse still, we justify people we disagree with, so long as we can use the agreement that does exist for pragmatic gain. We get sun and rain (become prosperous, get what we want, whatever) because we are righteous, but those other people (it's always those "others") receive good despite the fact that they are not. It's always we who are the good.

Why this struck me is this: we idealize the Pilgrims, but from another angle we could call them schismatic and rebellious, rejecting legitimate authority figures in favor of personal pride and mere opinion. We prop up the Founding Fathers as "Christians" to maintain the conceit that America is a "Christian nation" even though probably half of them would by the standards of Νίκαια (see Bithynia in 1 Peter 1:1) be more pagan than Constantine. We gloss over the twisting of scripture in the name of "freedom," in support of rebellion, in the myth that hermeneutics don't matter when "proving" capitalism and western democracy are "biblical" (we like our culture; naturally we defend it).

I could go on about how these words are contrary to receptionism, how they shows the goodness of God, and many other things, but there is a simplicity here—and also love—that needs few words. There is goodness in creation, even in the face of all we do not understand and see as horrible, thoroughly a-teleological, even maddening.

We don't want to believe he might be talking about us. We don't want to believe that our interpretation is little more than making scripture conform to us—an act of self-validation. And yet, we should be thankful, even if we are in the wrong, for we are blessed in spite of ourselves. We receive good, even when we are not good, even when we are self-deluded.

Even as I call for introspection, I realize it's not enough: it cannot reduce self-love to equality with enemy-love. Perhaps more importantly, it cannot raise love of enemies to the equal of self. We live on the land of our enemies, but do we thank them? They have given—or we have taken—but they, they receive... what?

Closing on a House

2009-10-29T15:24:00.000-05:00

I'm about to write the second-largest check of my life, in order to purchase a house. The largest was for federal taxes one year, so at least this check will constitute more of an investment. All-told, we've spent as much this month on travel and the house as we did on our wedding and honeymoon.

The good news (bonus good news, really) is that we're able to do this without credit card debt. As painful as it is to spend almost all the money we've saved up since getting married, it's great to finally have a bigger place to live. Not so we can fill it with stuff, but rather that we can have more (and more frequent) guests.

Housing Update

2009-10-05T10:40:00.000-05:00

For those handful of readers in the know, my wife and I have been searching for a house, and our search has reached its conclusion. We've found a house in the Waldo area, and provided it passes inspection, we'll close by the end of the month. So this blog will probably be even quieter than normal for a while, but I promise to pick the pace back up once I'm not spending my free time dealing with housing issues (which has been the case for a good 5 months now).

Postmoderns Need Saints

2009-09-09T09:42:00.007-05:00

Chris Armstrong is promoting his new book, Patron Saints for Postmoderns. I wouldn't normally plug a book I haven't read, but he said some interesting things in his blog post that are worth reflecting on. Here's a quote:

We live in a secularized age in which all traditions, commitments, codes of life have been exploded and the bits lie scattered over our psychic landscape. The church hasn’t escaped this holocaust of traditions either, of course, and our church lives have a ramshackle, cobbled-together feel too. (emphasis added)

The (Western) church hasn't just failed to escape anti-traditionalism, it has actively participated in, enabled, and even promoted it. This is nowhere more true than in America. To me, rehashing the works of Mark Noll feels like beating a dead horse, but if you're an American and you haven't read any of his books, you're missing out. To some extent, this is a problem of our own making.

I think he's right about the reasons for renewed interest in Reformed theology, however he is wrong that it represents, in totality, coherence or seamlessness. It is factious—I believe inherently so—and represents stability only to the extent that it functions within the Modernism which it was partly responsible for birthing. However, it has a sufficiently developed propaganda that it will hang around for quite some time. For postmoderns it has short-term viability, but I am not convinced that it will maintain its appeal long-term.

I'm also thinking that the ideas within this book are more subversive than even the author realizes. The saints represent a different worldview, and often very different theology, from what we have known. If their ideas are taken seriously and not superficially (and I haven't read the book, so it may indeed be superficial) the priorities and practices of churches will be significantly different. Pragmatism, short-term goals, individualism, and popularity will be deprioritized. Mystery, ritual, and wonder will increase. We will admit that we can "know" things that cannot be rationally explained or even put into words. We will be creatures again, and not rational machines.

And the author is certainly right about this: understanding the saints will transform our understanding of scripture. And that is perhaps the most subversive thing of all: the idea that our recent traditions (which are unreflectively labeled as "biblical") might be less-informed than those of the less-educated ancients. Indeed, at least the first two saints in his book would not accept his view that the bible contains a mere 66 books, but that is too subversive a thought to further reflect on.

Quiz Results: What's Your Theological Worldview?

2009-08-13T16:39:00.003-05:00

I took this quiz called What's Your Theological Worldview? Unfortunately, I don't think it asked enough questions, and some of the questions are non-sequiturs. It needs a way to tell it to exclude certain answers from its calculations. 3 of 5 stars.

That's enough complaining I guess. If you would be so kind, please take the test and share your results as well. It would be nice to know where my readers stand. Oh, and I easter-egged some comments in my results...

You Scored as Emergent/Postmodern

You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this.

Emergent/Postmodern

89%

Roman Catholic

82%

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

64%

Neo orthodox

61%

Classical Liberal

43%

Charismatic/Pentecostal

25%

Fundamentalist

14%

Modern Liberal

Reformed Evangelical

Leafy Peanut Butterito®

2009-07-12T18:47:00.009-05:00

I know what you'll be thinking when you read the directions... this sounds gross. Trust me, it's tasty. Actually, it's sort of like celery and peanut butter, but better.

1. Take a flour tortilla and warm it up slightly (takes about a minute).

2. Coat the tortilla with a thin layer of peanut butter.

3. Add honey (optional).

4. Wash 3–5 large romaine leaves, wrap them together tightly and place inside tortilla.

5. Roll up tortilla. Slice in half if you wish.

6. Eat!

You can, of course, substitute spinach in place of the romaine or add other vegetables. I also suggest trying almond butter or hazelnut butter. Experiment, because that's how this thing was invented in the first place.

Correcting Some Common Misconceptions

2009-06-24T00:37:00.000-05:00

I have come to realize that a great deal of the misunderstanding of my writings (and by implication a great many other things) comes from foundational misconceptions. Rather than blame the educators (too easy!) I will endeavor to educate (however poor my execution thereof). Fundamentally, we are finite creatures, and I think part of the reason for the existence of that which I write against is an overly optimistic view of human capacity. In writing this, therefore, I first say that we must understand our condition and make humility our first response.

The first misconception to tackle is this: the idea that relationships can exist without rituals. In fact, communication itself cannot ordinarily happen without ritual ^[1]. Participation in ritual is intrinsic to human existence. The evaluation of rituals is therefore qualitative; not a question of having or not having, but rather what kind of having.

Consequently, learning requires ritual, whether verbal or non-verbal. Learning (also the various forms of "knowing") is a subject too complex to properly address here, so my point in mentioning it is simply that you will take note of it and remember it later at some advantageous time.

Now, this does not mean that all rituals are good. But it certainly means that not all rituals are bad. Likewise, religion, being a set of beliefs and practices (rituals), is therefore unavoidable for those who would have a relationship with God. Placing it in conflict with relationship is a false dichotomy, untenable, and a diminution both of creation and the creaturely estate.

Rituals, in fact, are inevitable, making it all the more funny to observe those who renounce them. Lacking rosaries, they make prayer bracelets. Rejecting scripted prayers, they consume and consume repetitive (often cliché) music. Inveighing against supposed superstitions, they treat the Bible (in varied manners) as magic, some supposing that the answers they seek are to be had if only they can open to the right place at the right time, others supposing it a textbook for anything they might encounter in life, and so on. Ritual, like tradition, cannot be eliminated, only replaced.

The second misconception is that communities can exist without structures of organization and authority. At present I am only dealing with a few subsets of this view, so I do not mean to imply that those who fit a subset are susceptible to the whole. If my statement of the category as a whole is not helpful to you, feel free to disregard it.

Leadership is a vacuum that demands to be filled. Leaders need leaders above themselves. Power requires checks against corruption. These are but some of the characteristics of human societies. As such, the Church cannot escape the necessity of taking such matters into consideration. Questions regarding authority must therefore inevitably arise; those who reject authority make themselves the authority.

The foundation Christ laid is one of mutual submission and servant leadership. This does not annul the reality that maturity is not equally distributed. While no individual is more important than any other, clearly some are able to function in ways others cannot, just as children, while persons, differ from adults.

A symptom of this problem is found in those who believe that God has spoken with regards to the human condition (particularly that of the individual), perhaps even has said something of political order, yet has remained silent regarding ecclesial order. If anything, the mission of the Church is far greater than that of the state, and the orderliness of the Church more important than that of society in general. Is it really true that God chose to remain silent? Would not such silence be a tacit invitation to theopolitical syncretism?

Related to this is a selective denial of merit or advancement. Saints are sinners, just like everybody else. All believers are saints. Both true statements, but they are not opposed another truth: that some are more mature than others, and, yes, some are more saintly — sometimes much more. Clearly we behave as though this were true. We know implicitly that others are more advanced than ourselves because we look up to them, go to them for advice, and emulate them.

Sadly, many grant consideration only to those having bodily existence. The Saints, dead yet living, are too often ignored entirely. Consequently, those who could be seen as great examples of faith, patience, and even martyrdom are often unknown (made all the worse by sectarianism), or else debased by radical egalitarian impulses. Certainly this is a broader cultural phenomenon, but why should it be so thoroughly embraced?

(The saints that are given respect tend to be found in the Old Testament. They also tend to not be seen through the proper incarnational, Trinitarian perspective that should be foundational to Christian thought. Taking up your cross, forgiving your enemies, and enduring persecution don't seem to be themes that come up often. Such is the result of chopping off church history at the end of the first century and resuming it over a dozen centuries later.)

In closing, I will simply note, in case you didn't make the connection, that these faulty ideas pervert how one understands the nature, function, and value of tradition.

Ode to my Grandfather

2009-06-08T08:12:00.006-05:00

My grandfather has always been a tinkerer. He also likes to find creative ways to save money. The two frequently go together.

Yesterday my dad brought up a memory from his childhood, which Grandpa was able to shed some light on. Having a push reel mower and an old washing machine that was powered by a gas engine, Grandpa saw possibilities. He took the engine out of the washing machine, rigged up a platform for it, and used it to power the push reel mower. Sadly, I can only imagine what it must have looked like.

For further information, check out a history of the mower. And for good measure, read the history of the washing machine too.

Scripture and Tradition

2009-05-19T00:35:00.008-05:00

Imagine (and I trust this is not too difficult for my readers) a scenario where everyone agrees on what constitutes the Scripture, but cannot agree on how to interpret it. If you thought I was speaking of late-modern Protestantism, you would be wrong (but on-track, sadly). Prior to the writing of any portions of the New Testament there was disagreement over interpretation within Judaism. For the early Christians, it was the Apostolic interpretation that was authoritative.

Later, as the New Testament writings (and many others) were produced, there was a need to evaluate which writings were authoritative. How does one evaluate the claims of a writer? For the early church, it was, in part, based on how the writing lined up with the tradition they had received.

We return again to Retrieving the Tradition...:

Canonicity was, from the beginning, a theological principle inherent to the church's Tradition; the "canon" (i.e., rule) of the church's faith was not a set of authoritative texts, but an authoritative teaching. (p.45)

Debates over "text types" or individual words, what constituted error or alteration of a text, and so forth was simply not an issue. (Such a debate makes little sense in a largely aural society.) They did not receive just a text, but an encompassing Tradition of interpretation and praxis, which was applied to text (Old Testament) and evaluated against text (New Testament and disputed Old Testament books). The closer and more verifiable one's connection to an apostle, the higher the validity of one's teaching. The more a text matched the Tradition, the more it was valued.

It follows, then, that what we call doctrine ought to be the apostles' doctrine. At the least, great care and caution should be exercised in formulating doctrine, and failure to consult tradition is dangerous. We should not assume we have more insight than those who were so many centuries closer to the writing of the New Testament.

"But", you will say, "the Spirit will lead me and guide me to truth," ignoring the fact that the passage you quote speaks to a group of apostles for a specific purpose, and does not provide the untethered individual such guarantees. Indeed, the passage seems unable to be legitimately applied individualistically at all. To use the passage in such a way actually entails denying that the Spirit is instructing individuals who have differing interpretations.

Humility, then, is the first requirement for understanding.

Why the Church Needs Tradition

2009-04-25T23:15:00.011-05:00

Could it be that the problems the church faces today comes from a lack of historical depth? Why do so many Christians see so little connection between their faith today and the faith of the ancients? Before I can answer the why, I must first present the what.

I have decided to start with D. H. Williams' Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism. He writes:

...[T]here can be no faithful use of Scripture or practice of the church without [Tradition].

...I have been repeatedly encouraged by evangelical catholics... who have sought to confront the problem of a Christian faith which has attempted to stand tall without the deep roots of its history. (p.7)

... That God is sovereign means, among other things, that there must be grounds for confidence in the church's history unfolding as a series of acts divinely superintended. (p.22)

So first of all, we confront a Scriptural problem. The history of protestant theology in the English-speaking world is one of biblical innovation. This is not a good thing. New doctrines, (supported by scripture, of course!) unknown in history, are not to be looked on approvingly. Purported recovery of Apostolic (that is, first-century or New Testament) truth, hidden until recently, ought to be treated with great skepticism. For example, failing to make distinctions (Old Covenant vs. New Covenant) and making improper distinctions (Jesus' Gospel vs. Paul's Gospel, Kingdom of Heaven vs. Kingdom of God) have been the source of much disagreement and disunity, and such disputes arise in no small part because of an attempt to approach Scripture without Tradition.

The problem of a rootless faith is evident throughout the church today. Christian self-identification is often based on political affiliation (yes, there are liberal Christians), social status (income, skin color, etc.), age and musical tastes, or other cultural factors. Most have ideas about tradition involving organs, hymnals and other recent inventions, and only vague notions about liturgy, creeds, monasteries, and so on. Is it then any wonder that culture dominates when the American church considers the problems it faces?

Finally, we confront a mentality and set of theological presuppositions. I was raised with the general sense that the church had sort of fallen apart after the death of the apostles. One of two narratives followed from this: either we were the (lucky) inheritors of an unbroken line of persecuted minorities (with little evidence to say so) or we were the inheritors of the Reformation, which recovered the apostolic faith. I did not get the sense that we had reconstituted the lost apostolic faith, which is good in that such thinking underlies Mormonism and many other heterodox groups.

The root of this type of thinking, as Williams states, is that it fails to recognize a huge portion of God's work in history. Those who have not shared our notions of private, individual spirituality and largely personal experience of the Holy Spirit are simply off the radar of our thinking. Without a sense that God has been doing big things for all of the last two hundred decades (and in fact for all of history), we find ourselves fighting over and trying to defend "Truth," rather than trusting God's work. Tradition is what contains, preserves, and transmits the truth, and thank God, because it is bigger, wiser, and more experienced than any individual. Prophetic voices that wish to challenge its veracity must first prove their own authority.

Circumcellions

2009-04-23T14:29:00.005-05:00

Who were the Circumcellions? An early Christian sect in Africa, they started off with Robin Hood-style idealism, then became associated with the Donatists. This is unfortunate because the Donatists (probably due in part to Tertullian's unfortunate association with them) had a very high view of martyrs. This caused the Circumcellions to come to regard martyrdom as the highest possible virtue (rather than typical Christian emphases, such as humility, sobriety, charity, etc.). Thus they began to actively seek martyrdom, to the point of beating people with clubs in an attempt to provoke a deadly response. When that failed, they would throw themselves off cliffs. Eventually they achieved their suicidal goals. Let us hope no one attempts to revive this tradition.

A Brief Note on Tradition

2009-04-13T05:59:00.007-05:00

The new eventually becomes tradition. Most, even typically the inventors of the new, are delusional on this point (I say this by observing actions, not words). Americans, for the most part, seem content with rather recent traditions, but this may be changing.

Consider what Wolfhart Pannenberg says in Christian Spirituality:

People are prone to look for something new, and all too often the new lacks the profound, substantial, meaning enshrined in traditional forms. What is most significantly new, therefore, sometimes occurs as a new look at something one has known long since.

Perhaps if our society is to recover a sense of cohesion it must first seek tradition — something larger than itself. A departure from the individualistic ways of the recent past requires either the invention of new traditions or the search for old ones that have been ignored or overlooked. Because individualism infected Christianity so thoroughly, it rendered its present, most visible form an unlikely candidate for consideration by many. A more thorough look at implication of Pannenberg's statement must, however, be put on hold.

Interpretation: a Subset of Tradition

2009-03-30T00:49:00.007-05:00

All interpretation is tradition. All acts of interpretation are either following a tradition or creating a new one.

Nowhere in scripture is the Trinity directly explicated (if 1 John 5:7 were it, it would have been used against the Arians), so why do we call those who deny it heretics? They have a different interpretation – one that places them outside the Church, because they are part of a tradition that is so at variance with ours that the two cannot be reconciled. Its denial can never be normative: its affirmation is required of all who would be part of the Church.

Some have interpretations saying that baptism is not for the church today; baptism is an explicit command of Christ in scripture (Matthew 28:19, [Mark 16:16]), so their interpretations must necessarily work around this fact. Because they are circumventing the clear, plain teaching of scripture, clear, plain arguments from scripture are insufficient to combat their teaching. How does one oppose an interpretation such as this? Tradition. At no point in history has anyone been considered part of the Church without being baptized. From the beginning, unbroken, until these teachers arrived, baptism was a given, and its necessity unchallenged.

1000 Years

2009-03-09T09:18:00.007-05:00

What if you thought about what the world will look like 1000 years after you are gone? Would it change your priorities - how you live? What if you lived 1000 years ago? If you lived 1000 years ago - how would you answer these questions now?

Would you be interested in making bible prophecy fit current events? You would get most of it wrong.

Would you be so concerned about having a "perfect" bible translation in a dead language, rather than one that is easy to understand in your heart language? Only academics will be concerned with it.

Would you hold to your scientific views as tightly? Your framework for viewing the universe will be completely replaced.

Would your job have greater significance? It affects future generations in ways you can't fully imagine.

Would the direction of society (including justice, economics, military and many other issues) be worthy of your attention? Pointless wars, racism, desire for wealth and empire, conquest, injustice - how much evil took place because so many did nothing?

How many questions must be asked before someone starts listening?