When I woke up this morning, it interrupted a dream I was having. In that dream I was singing in a band. The sound was super cool, like a really good Flaming Lips song. But the words were s-t-u-p-i-d!!! So stupid, in fact, that any flicker of hope that I may have had about being in a band is now completely snuffed out. And now I present to you exhibit A:
"If you need a boat,
Don't steal a boat.
'Cuz if you steal a boat,
Someone's gonna steal your boat."
See, I told you so.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Thursday, February 4, 2010
If Stranded On A Desert Island ...
Living half a world away, we're sometimes a little slow with American pop culture. While all of our friends were raving about The Office a few years ago, we didn't know what they were talking about. We've since come to love it, as well. We've now watched seasons 4, 5, 1, 2 and half of season 3, in that order.
In a more recent (for us) episode, everyone is stuck in the parking lot and a number of the employees are playing, "If stranded on a desert island ..." They started off with what 3 books each person would bring but had to move to movies due to the lack of literary depth in the office. In any case, when discussing books, Angela—the stereotypically conservative Evangelical of the group—lists the Bible and Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Life. She refuses to list a third book. It's a really funny Office moment but, I feel the compulsion to make a list that does a little more justice to the Christian tradition. So, for the sake of a fairer representation of my faith and the faith of millions, here are the 3 books that I think any Christian should take with them if stranded on a desert island:
Augustine, The City of God
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion
I've read each of these authors but only a little of the above titles. However, the history of Christian thought would be drastically different if not for these monumental works. So, for their historical import alone, I'd make room for them. However, they are also all amazingly lengthy and would keep a reader busy for a long time, and a long time is presumably what you have in this kind of situation. Lastly, they are well known for their spiritual, theological and philosophical depth and insight which would be especially important in this case. Hmmm, the more I think about it, the more I'd like to be stranded on a desert island for a while so that I can invest some time in these classics.
[Note: For the person wondering why in the world I didn't choose the Bible, there's no need to worry about my Evangelical commitments. I take it as a given that a Christian would bring a Bible with them. So, I'm fudging a little by choosing 3 since I'd have to make room for the Word of God. But maybe I could get one of those microscopic Bibles that they used to smuggle into the former Soviet Union. There's probably one around here somewhere.]
In a more recent (for us) episode, everyone is stuck in the parking lot and a number of the employees are playing, "If stranded on a desert island ..." They started off with what 3 books each person would bring but had to move to movies due to the lack of literary depth in the office. In any case, when discussing books, Angela—the stereotypically conservative Evangelical of the group—lists the Bible and Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Life. She refuses to list a third book. It's a really funny Office moment but, I feel the compulsion to make a list that does a little more justice to the Christian tradition. So, for the sake of a fairer representation of my faith and the faith of millions, here are the 3 books that I think any Christian should take with them if stranded on a desert island:
Augustine, The City of God
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion
I've read each of these authors but only a little of the above titles. However, the history of Christian thought would be drastically different if not for these monumental works. So, for their historical import alone, I'd make room for them. However, they are also all amazingly lengthy and would keep a reader busy for a long time, and a long time is presumably what you have in this kind of situation. Lastly, they are well known for their spiritual, theological and philosophical depth and insight which would be especially important in this case. Hmmm, the more I think about it, the more I'd like to be stranded on a desert island for a while so that I can invest some time in these classics.
[Note: For the person wondering why in the world I didn't choose the Bible, there's no need to worry about my Evangelical commitments. I take it as a given that a Christian would bring a Bible with them. So, I'm fudging a little by choosing 3 since I'd have to make room for the Word of God. But maybe I could get one of those microscopic Bibles that they used to smuggle into the former Soviet Union. There's probably one around here somewhere.]
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Good Press
Anthony Flew's conversion to theism from atheism is pretty well-known now and I made brief mentioned of it here, back when I was writing about the Craig-Hitchens debate. He (Flew) is very public and open about his conversion and still displays as much intellectual rigor as a theist as he did when an atheist. But this didn't keep Richard Dawkins from portraying Flew's conversion as the result of senility. Flew wrote quite the stinging (but apropos) response in the December '08 issue of First Things (yes, I'm that far behind). What I want to highlight here are Flew's comments about Biola University, my alma mater, former employer and current ministry partner in part of the work in which we are involved here in Ukraine. Here's what he had to say:
"In a monster footnote to what I am inclined to describe as a monster book— The God Delusion—Dawkins reproaches me for what he calls my ignominious decision to accept, in 2006, the Philip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth. The awarding institution is Biola University in Los Angeles. Dawkins does not say outright that his objection to my decision is that Biola is a specifically Christian institution. He obviously assumes (but refrains from actually saying) that this is incompatible with producing first-class academic work—not a thesis that would be acceptable in either my own university of Oxford or in Harvard. ...
Finally, as to the suggestion that I have been used by Biola University: If the way I was welcomed by the students and the members of the faculty whom I met on my short stay in Biola amounted to being used, then I can only express my regret that at my age of eighty-five I cannot reasonably hope for another visit to this institution."
Way to go, Biola, and thanks for the more-than-kind words, Dr. Flew.
"In a monster footnote to what I am inclined to describe as a monster book— The God Delusion—Dawkins reproaches me for what he calls my ignominious decision to accept, in 2006, the Philip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth. The awarding institution is Biola University in Los Angeles. Dawkins does not say outright that his objection to my decision is that Biola is a specifically Christian institution. He obviously assumes (but refrains from actually saying) that this is incompatible with producing first-class academic work—not a thesis that would be acceptable in either my own university of Oxford or in Harvard. ...
Finally, as to the suggestion that I have been used by Biola University: If the way I was welcomed by the students and the members of the faculty whom I met on my short stay in Biola amounted to being used, then I can only express my regret that at my age of eighty-five I cannot reasonably hope for another visit to this institution."
Way to go, Biola, and thanks for the more-than-kind words, Dr. Flew.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Philosophizin' 'Bout Jesus
In a few weeks I'll begin teaching a course called, Philosophy: Introduction & History. While excited and invigorated by all the philosophy I've been reading lately (yes, that puts me in rare category), I'm a little intimidated by this, having spent most of my graduate education focused on theology. My apologetics training and its association with and dependency on philosophy is the only reason why I even considered the idea of teaching a class like this. Nonetheless, it will be a tough first go (but the first go is always tough, right?). Hopefully, I can pass my enjoyment of philosophy on to my students, even if I don't do full justice to the grandeur of the content. And hopefully I'll get to teach the class in the future, honing my skills and teaching more Ukrainian Church leaders to love philosophy as much as I do.
In looking for some texts to use as I prepare my teaching material, I came across some recent stuff by Paul Moser, a Christian philosopher out of Loyola University in Chicago. I read a fabulous booklet by Moser a few years back on God's hiddenness and I know that he's one of the key players in getting Evangelical Christianity a place at the secular philosophical table. So, I asked for these books for Christmas. Well, I got 'em and I can't put 'em down. Moser is awesome and I can't recommend him more highly. He is unashamedly Evangelical when he writes, yet this doesn't minimize his philosophical rigor in the least. And for the believer skeptical of philosophy, as most of my Ukrainian students will likely be, Moser exemplifies how to engage the philosophical world without compromising the truths of Christianity in the least. Below are 3 poignant and powerful selections from his introductory essay to Jesus and Philosophy: New Essays, a collection edited by Moser.
On the Atonement:
"The Good News movement founded by Jesus offers a divine manifest-offering approach to divine-human atonement. According to its unique message, what is being made manifest is God's character of righteous and merciful love, and what is being offered, in agreement with that character, is lasting divine-human fellowship as a gracious divine gift on the basis of (a) the forgiveness manifested and offered via God's atoning sacrifice in Jesus and (b) God's resurrection of Jesus as Lord and Giver of God's Spirit. The manifestation of God's self-giving character in Jesus reveals the kind of God who is thereby offering lasting divine-human forgiveness and fellowship to humans. Although the death of Jesus can't bring about divine-human reconciliation by itself, it is presented, by Jesus, Paul and others, as supplying God's distinctive means of intended implementation of reconciliation via divine manifestation and offering. For the sake of actual divine-human reconciliation, according to Jesus and Paul, humans must receive the manifest-offering via grounded trust and obedience." (p. 8)
On the Greatest Commandment:
"These commands [to love God and neighbor], found in the Hebrew scriptures and in the Christian New Testament, give a priority ranking of what humans should love. They imply that at the very top of a ranking of what we humans love should be, first, God and, second, our neighbor (as well as ourselves). They thus imply that any opposing ranking is morally unacceptable. More specifically, they imply that human projects, including intellectual and philosophical projects, are acceptable only to the extent that they contribute to satisfying the divine love commands. ... Loving God and our neighbor requires eagerly serving God and our neighbor for their best interests. Characterized broadly, our eagerly serving God and our neighbor requires (a) our eagerly obeying God to the best of our ability and (b) our eagerly contributing, as far as we are able, to the life-sustaining needs of our neighbor. ... We humans, of course, have limited resources, in terms of time and energy for pursuing our projects. We thus must choose how to spend our time and energy in ways that pursue some projects and exclude others. If I eagerly choose projects that exclude my eagerly serving the life-sustaining needs of my neighbor (when I could have undertaken the latter), I thereby fail to love my neighbor. I also thereby fail to obey God's command, as represented by Jesus, to give priority to my eagerly serving the life-sustaining needs of my neighbor ... The lesson about failing to love applies directly to typical pursuit of philosophical questions. If my typical eager pursuit of philosophical questions blocks my eagerly serving the life-sustaining needs of my neighbor (when I could have undertaken the latter), I thereby fail to love my neighbor. I also fail then to obey the divine love command regarding my neighbor. In this case, my eager pursuit of philosophical questions will result in my failing to love God and my neighbor as God has commanded, at least in the commands summarized by Jesus. The failing would be a moral deficiency in serving God and my neighbor, owing to my choosing to serve other purposes instead, namely, philosophical purposes independent of loving God and others. Even if a philosophical purpose is truth-seeking, including seeking after truths about God and divine love, it could run afoul of the divine love commands. ... Not all truth-seeking, then, proceeds in agreement with the divine love commands. This lesson applies equally to philosophy, theology, and any other truth-seeking discipline." (p. 14-15)
On Jesus' Influence On Philosophy
"Philosophy in its normal mode, without being receptive to an authoritative divine challenge stemming from divine love commands, leaves humans in a discussion mode, short of an obedience mode under divine authority. ... As divinely appointed Lord, in contrast, Jesus commands humans to move, for their own good, to an obedience mode of existence relative to divine love commands. He thereby points humans to his perfectly loving Father who ultimately underwrites the divine love commands for humans, for the sake of divine-human fellowship. Accordingly, humans need to transcend a normal discussion mode, and thus philosophical discussion itself, to face with sincerity the personal Authority who commands what humans need: faithful obedience to the perfectly loving Giver of divine love commands, for the sake of divine-human fellowship. Such obedience of the heart, involving the conforming of a human will to divine will, is just the way humans are to truly receive the gift of divine redemptive love. Insofar as the discipline of philosophy becomes guided, in terms of pursuits, by that gift on offer, it becomes kerygma ["proclamation" or "message"]-oriented in virtue of becoming an enabler of the aforementioned Good News message of Jesus. According to Jesus, humans, including philosophers, were intended by God to live in faithful obedience to the divine love commands, whereby they enter into volitional fellowship with God and, on that basis, with others." (p. 17)
Paul K. Moser, "Introduction: Jesus and Philosophy," in Jesus and Philosophy: New Essays, edited by Paul K. Moser (New York: NY, Cambridge University Press, 2009), 1-23.
In looking for some texts to use as I prepare my teaching material, I came across some recent stuff by Paul Moser, a Christian philosopher out of Loyola University in Chicago. I read a fabulous booklet by Moser a few years back on God's hiddenness and I know that he's one of the key players in getting Evangelical Christianity a place at the secular philosophical table. So, I asked for these books for Christmas. Well, I got 'em and I can't put 'em down. Moser is awesome and I can't recommend him more highly. He is unashamedly Evangelical when he writes, yet this doesn't minimize his philosophical rigor in the least. And for the believer skeptical of philosophy, as most of my Ukrainian students will likely be, Moser exemplifies how to engage the philosophical world without compromising the truths of Christianity in the least. Below are 3 poignant and powerful selections from his introductory essay to Jesus and Philosophy: New Essays, a collection edited by Moser.
On the Atonement:
"The Good News movement founded by Jesus offers a divine manifest-offering approach to divine-human atonement. According to its unique message, what is being made manifest is God's character of righteous and merciful love, and what is being offered, in agreement with that character, is lasting divine-human fellowship as a gracious divine gift on the basis of (a) the forgiveness manifested and offered via God's atoning sacrifice in Jesus and (b) God's resurrection of Jesus as Lord and Giver of God's Spirit. The manifestation of God's self-giving character in Jesus reveals the kind of God who is thereby offering lasting divine-human forgiveness and fellowship to humans. Although the death of Jesus can't bring about divine-human reconciliation by itself, it is presented, by Jesus, Paul and others, as supplying God's distinctive means of intended implementation of reconciliation via divine manifestation and offering. For the sake of actual divine-human reconciliation, according to Jesus and Paul, humans must receive the manifest-offering via grounded trust and obedience." (p. 8)
On the Greatest Commandment:
"These commands [to love God and neighbor], found in the Hebrew scriptures and in the Christian New Testament, give a priority ranking of what humans should love. They imply that at the very top of a ranking of what we humans love should be, first, God and, second, our neighbor (as well as ourselves). They thus imply that any opposing ranking is morally unacceptable. More specifically, they imply that human projects, including intellectual and philosophical projects, are acceptable only to the extent that they contribute to satisfying the divine love commands. ... Loving God and our neighbor requires eagerly serving God and our neighbor for their best interests. Characterized broadly, our eagerly serving God and our neighbor requires (a) our eagerly obeying God to the best of our ability and (b) our eagerly contributing, as far as we are able, to the life-sustaining needs of our neighbor. ... We humans, of course, have limited resources, in terms of time and energy for pursuing our projects. We thus must choose how to spend our time and energy in ways that pursue some projects and exclude others. If I eagerly choose projects that exclude my eagerly serving the life-sustaining needs of my neighbor (when I could have undertaken the latter), I thereby fail to love my neighbor. I also thereby fail to obey God's command, as represented by Jesus, to give priority to my eagerly serving the life-sustaining needs of my neighbor ... The lesson about failing to love applies directly to typical pursuit of philosophical questions. If my typical eager pursuit of philosophical questions blocks my eagerly serving the life-sustaining needs of my neighbor (when I could have undertaken the latter), I thereby fail to love my neighbor. I also fail then to obey the divine love command regarding my neighbor. In this case, my eager pursuit of philosophical questions will result in my failing to love God and my neighbor as God has commanded, at least in the commands summarized by Jesus. The failing would be a moral deficiency in serving God and my neighbor, owing to my choosing to serve other purposes instead, namely, philosophical purposes independent of loving God and others. Even if a philosophical purpose is truth-seeking, including seeking after truths about God and divine love, it could run afoul of the divine love commands. ... Not all truth-seeking, then, proceeds in agreement with the divine love commands. This lesson applies equally to philosophy, theology, and any other truth-seeking discipline." (p. 14-15)
On Jesus' Influence On Philosophy
"Philosophy in its normal mode, without being receptive to an authoritative divine challenge stemming from divine love commands, leaves humans in a discussion mode, short of an obedience mode under divine authority. ... As divinely appointed Lord, in contrast, Jesus commands humans to move, for their own good, to an obedience mode of existence relative to divine love commands. He thereby points humans to his perfectly loving Father who ultimately underwrites the divine love commands for humans, for the sake of divine-human fellowship. Accordingly, humans need to transcend a normal discussion mode, and thus philosophical discussion itself, to face with sincerity the personal Authority who commands what humans need: faithful obedience to the perfectly loving Giver of divine love commands, for the sake of divine-human fellowship. Such obedience of the heart, involving the conforming of a human will to divine will, is just the way humans are to truly receive the gift of divine redemptive love. Insofar as the discipline of philosophy becomes guided, in terms of pursuits, by that gift on offer, it becomes kerygma ["proclamation" or "message"]-oriented in virtue of becoming an enabler of the aforementioned Good News message of Jesus. According to Jesus, humans, including philosophers, were intended by God to live in faithful obedience to the divine love commands, whereby they enter into volitional fellowship with God and, on that basis, with others." (p. 17)
Paul K. Moser, "Introduction: Jesus and Philosophy," in Jesus and Philosophy: New Essays, edited by Paul K. Moser (New York: NY, Cambridge University Press, 2009), 1-23.
Friday, January 1, 2010
If I Had a Facebook Account
Happy New Year!!! I just finished giving Dietrich a second bath after discovering that he had, while on the potty attempting to wipe, instead, wiped his business on the wall and on himself. 2010 can only get better from here, right?
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Just One More, Before I Fall Asleep
Dietrich is 3 and 1/6 years old and asks about as many questions every minute (which is normal, as I understand). Most are "why" questions or variations thereof but, sometimes, the combination of the oddity of the question and the oddity of the timing results in some pretty memorable queries, revealing the unique inner-workings of the young mind. Either that, or the kid is doing everything he can think of to keep from going to sleep. Here's our exchange when I stooped down to kiss D's forehead and started his lullaby CD for the second time tonight ...
Dietrich: Daddy, why you have a nose?
Me: Why do I have a nose? Everybody has a nose.
Dietrich: But not spiders?
Me: Uh, no, spiders don't have noses like people, they have a different kind of nose.
Dietrich: And not other bugs?
Me: Good night, Dietrich. Go to sleep.
Dietrich: Daddy, why you have a nose?
Me: Why do I have a nose? Everybody has a nose.
Dietrich: But not spiders?
Me: Uh, no, spiders don't have noses like people, they have a different kind of nose.
Dietrich: And not other bugs?
Me: Good night, Dietrich. Go to sleep.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Belarus Entry #3 - Speaking in Contemporary Language
3 of the 4 members of our team had the privilege of preaching in the Sunday morning and evening services of the Church, which is located on the property of and connected with the seminary where the EAAA conference was held. The brother who had the opportunity to preach in the morning service got quite the earful from the pastor once the service was over. Here's what happened ...
During his introduction, our designated Sunday morning representative emphasized the need to present Christianity, the Bible and the Gospel in contemporary language so that hearers can understand what you're talking about. If you use Christian terms like "Gospel" and "justification" with certain people, and you do not explain them, they will, very likely, not understand what you're talking about. As an example, our brother explained how a certain Pauline word in the passage he was preaching from had negative connotations in the original Greek while the particular Russian word translating the Greek had positive connotations. The contextual meaning is weakened, if not lost altogether, if someone does not explain this fact. This all sounds very simple, logical and obvious, right?
WRONG!!! For at least 15 minutes after the service, the pastor, to put it nicely, gave counsel to our brother, stating that "normal" Russian language is all that is needed, the Bible doesn't need "contemporary" explanation and that he has Bible studies with nonbelievers and they all understand him despite the fact that he doesn't use such newfangled speech when explaining the Bible to them. And just in case we weren't sure how much he disapproved of the idea, he decided to instruct me before the evening service that I should not give an introduction to my sermon if I was going to go on and on about the need for contemporary language and the insufficiencies of "normal" Russian language.
[Note: if you are as confused about such a hard and fast distinction between "contemporary" language and "normal" language, don't worry, so were we. There is no such distinction in modern, spoken Russian, just like there is no such distinction in modern, spoken English. And our guy was not making a hard and fast distinction. He was just stating the apologetically obvious: you should speak truth to your audience in a way that they'll understand. Sure, there are older English words that we don't use anymore and the Russian-speaking world has its equivalent of the King James Bible with its accompanying linguistic antiquities, but there is nothing that makes sense of the pastor's diametrical distinction between "contemporary" and "normal" Russian. It was hard to fathom what he was so upset about.]
Now, this story isn't all that interesting until you understand what happened during the conference in the days following the above incident. You see, the EAAA is made up of the top Evangelical institutions in the the former Soviet Union and they are all doing everything they can to educate, equip and assist the Slavic Church as it strives to reach the countless lost among them. They are all united in doing this in "contemporary" forms and methods, using "contemporary" language and ideas. How do we know this? Because almost all of them told us so, using the same word over and over, during the course of the conference. Normally, this wouldn't be funny; it would just be timely and relevant instruction. But every time a presenter told us about the necessity of doing anything in a "contemporary" way, the 4 of us just lost it. I'm sure it's about as funny to you as it was to those sitting around us. But, let me assure you, it was a hoot and it created an inside joke that should fuel our discussions for months to come.
During his introduction, our designated Sunday morning representative emphasized the need to present Christianity, the Bible and the Gospel in contemporary language so that hearers can understand what you're talking about. If you use Christian terms like "Gospel" and "justification" with certain people, and you do not explain them, they will, very likely, not understand what you're talking about. As an example, our brother explained how a certain Pauline word in the passage he was preaching from had negative connotations in the original Greek while the particular Russian word translating the Greek had positive connotations. The contextual meaning is weakened, if not lost altogether, if someone does not explain this fact. This all sounds very simple, logical and obvious, right?
WRONG!!! For at least 15 minutes after the service, the pastor, to put it nicely, gave counsel to our brother, stating that "normal" Russian language is all that is needed, the Bible doesn't need "contemporary" explanation and that he has Bible studies with nonbelievers and they all understand him despite the fact that he doesn't use such newfangled speech when explaining the Bible to them. And just in case we weren't sure how much he disapproved of the idea, he decided to instruct me before the evening service that I should not give an introduction to my sermon if I was going to go on and on about the need for contemporary language and the insufficiencies of "normal" Russian language.
[Note: if you are as confused about such a hard and fast distinction between "contemporary" language and "normal" language, don't worry, so were we. There is no such distinction in modern, spoken Russian, just like there is no such distinction in modern, spoken English. And our guy was not making a hard and fast distinction. He was just stating the apologetically obvious: you should speak truth to your audience in a way that they'll understand. Sure, there are older English words that we don't use anymore and the Russian-speaking world has its equivalent of the King James Bible with its accompanying linguistic antiquities, but there is nothing that makes sense of the pastor's diametrical distinction between "contemporary" and "normal" Russian. It was hard to fathom what he was so upset about.]
Now, this story isn't all that interesting until you understand what happened during the conference in the days following the above incident. You see, the EAAA is made up of the top Evangelical institutions in the the former Soviet Union and they are all doing everything they can to educate, equip and assist the Slavic Church as it strives to reach the countless lost among them. They are all united in doing this in "contemporary" forms and methods, using "contemporary" language and ideas. How do we know this? Because almost all of them told us so, using the same word over and over, during the course of the conference. Normally, this wouldn't be funny; it would just be timely and relevant instruction. But every time a presenter told us about the necessity of doing anything in a "contemporary" way, the 4 of us just lost it. I'm sure it's about as funny to you as it was to those sitting around us. But, let me assure you, it was a hoot and it created an inside joke that should fuel our discussions for months to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
