Subscribe to Posts
Subscribe to CommentsMonthy Archive: April 2009
« March 2009 |
Main
| May 2009 »
If you read this blog, PLEASE sign in to my guest book on frappr.
No personally identifying information is needed, so this is risk-free. Just provide a name (even a nickname), your zip code, and any statement you want to make ("hi" is sufficient).If you want to know more about me, click here.
April 01, 2009
Faith : Manufactured vs. Natural
If you see a collection of things (perhaps pieces of rock) which are all perfectly identical, it is usually safe to assume that they did not come about naturally; but rather were manufactured somehow. Nature tends to produce things which, while similar, are not identical. This is particularly true when it comes to living things – even "identical" twins tend to accumulate small differences (starting in the womb) because of the differences in their environment and experiences. Yet for all of the differences between, say, individual pine trees, they are still recognizable as pine trees and not oak or elm trees.
This is because the form of a living thing is a result of the interplay between two forces – first, the organism's DNA and second, its environment. The DNA drives those features which are similar and make it belong to its species, while the environment drives those features which make each organism different from others of its species. This interplay can be complex as the DNA can cause the organism to react to its environment in ways which then modify the environment – a plant may extend its roots when it is dry to seek new sources of water which in the process extend the environment the plant interacts with. These changes are not planned ahead; but made up of the accumulation of many small, local reactions to immediate conditions.
The church is meant to be a living thing as well – the Body of Christ – and I believe these same observations apply.
The form of any community of Christians should be a result of interplay between two forces – first, the intent of God as expressed through the Bible and by the Holy Spirit to the community and second, the people involved (both those in the Christian community and those in the surrounding neighborhood). The Bible and Holy Spirit drive those features of the community which are common to all Christian communities, while the people drive those features which make a given community of Christians unique. This interplay can be complex as Holy Spirit dynamically guides how the community responds to the people which in turn will introduce changes in the people themselves. Because people are constantly changing, both as individuals and as they come and go from the community and neighborhood, the form of a community of Christians who are truly expressing themselves as the Body of Christ can not be planned in advance; but rather results from the community constantly following the guidance of the Bible and Holy Spirit in how they interact with people.
This is really what I am looking for in an "Organic" Church – one which is allowed to grow naturally under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to be the proper expression of the Body of Christ for the given neighborhood. While I clearly believe certain things are helpful to accomplishing this (such as making sure the environment is conducive to allowing everyone to minister, or eliminating unnecessary assumptions about how churches operate that may constrain how it can grow), none of those things are the goal. The goal is to become the form of Church God wants to express for the area.
Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
April 03, 2009
Faith : Community Identification
This is a point I have avoided writing on until now because it is too easy, too obvious, and too many people have already said this; but given yesterday's post, I think I see a new way to make a very old point.
Yesterday, I compared Christian communities (churches) with a living organism. Like a living organism, its form should be a result of the interplay between two forces – its DNA (the intent of God as expressed through the Bible and by the Holy Spirit) and its environment (the people involved). The DNA defines what species the organism is (the church is an expression of the Body of Christ) while the people have an influence on what form that expression takes.
Now consider nature again. We know a tree is a pine tree by the shape of its leaves (needles) and that it remains green all year around. While individual pine trees may have very different shapes because of their history and environments, they are unlikely to be confused with oak or elm trees because they retain certain key features which make them identifiable as pine.
So, if we accept that the form of the church may also vary as it grows in different environments, what are the distinguishing characteristics of a community by which people can use to recognize it as "Christian"?
Ask that question of most Christians, and the answer I suspect you would get would either be a list of programs "if the people in the community meet at a certain time and place and do certain things, then it is a Christian community" or a list of doctrines "if the people in the community believe these things, then it is a Christian community".
Now there may be some truths to those observations (my intent here is not to diminish the important of orthodoxy or key institutions of the church); but I do note that Jesus provided a very different way to recognize His people:
"By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."(John 13:35)
Jesus clearly established in the Bible that one way to recognize that a community is a collection of Christians is by their love for one another.
Ouch
When's the last time you have heard anyone say "Those people care so much for each other, they must be Christians!" I can't think of any time I have heard anything say anything even close to that. I can however recall lots of conversations about how Christians are constantly fighting with each other and everyone else.
Perhaps for all of our evolved doctrines and programs, the church needs to get back to basics: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and love your neighbor as yourself"
Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)
April 06, 2009
Introspection : My Essential Gadgets
Been thinking about the stuff is my life and in particular how often I replace it. This is in part an exercise in budgeting and in part a considering of my footprint on the rest of the world. There’s my clothing collection; but that has never been a significant issue (usually Anne has to nudge me when it is time to get new clothes). I also buy books, games and DVDs; but unless and until people stop making DVDs, I don’t see myself having to replace any of those. So that leaves gadgets, and I believe there are 7 gadgets which are a part of my current lifestyle which will periodically need to be replaced.
Desktop Computer.
This is a big gaming rig – fast processor, lots of RAM, heavy duty Graphic cards, etc. I replace it whenever the current generation of new games no longer runs on it; but I tend to buy the top of the line when I do replace it so it lasts as long as possible. I have tended to buy a new desktop every 3 years or so, although it seems to be slowing down a bit so I might be able to get 4 years out of my current box.
Laptop Computer.
Used to read Email at all times and some light web surfing when I travel. The main requirement is that it is small and light (I am currently using one with an 11 inch screen that weighs under 3 pounds). Because I don’t need any fancy functionality, I don’t expect to replace it until it breaks down, which is hopefully at least 4 years, if not more.
Television
I tend to be way behind the curve on TVs – my eyesight and hearing just isn’t good enough to worry about top quality. I only switched to HighDef last year. I replace TVs when they break down, and I hope they last 5 years or more.
Video Player
I currently am using a DVD player that is part of my TV, and as with TVs I don’t see that they are improving enough to warrant replacing them unless they break down. The other factor is switching to Blu-Ray; but I don’t see the need to do that unless and until they stop making DVDs of the shows and movies I am interested in. While I am sure that time will come, it isn't on the horizon yet.
Cell Phone
I’ve been waiting to buy an iPhone since they came out; but I’m not interested in one until they have at least 32Gb of storage in them so I can use it to replace my iPod as well. Hopefully this year. Once I have a 32Gb iPhone, I don’t expect to see a reason to upgrade it until it breaks (most of the new features in phones just don’t interest me).
MP3 player
As noted above, I have an iPod now; but once I get a 32Gb iPhone, I expect to punt on this category and not replace it.
Digital Camera
I just replaced my old one; but it was 8 years old. Cameras do continue to improve so I expect to replace this one while it is still working; but not for several years.
eBook Reader
The new item in this list, and I don’t have a clear idea of how quickly the technology will improve in ways that I care about. I’ll take a guess now that I will replace it every 3 years; but it may be as often as every 2 if the Kindle drives some real innovation in the market.
So, most of the gadgets I use I only replace when they break down. The three exceptions are my desktop computer (every 3-4 years), my digital camera (every 8-10 years), and my eBook reader (every 2-3 years at first).
Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink
April 08, 2009
Life : Out of Sight, Out of Mind
One of the banes of modern life is the phenomena "Out of Sight, Out of Mind". While we all have many people we would like to keep in touch with, we are also all way too busy to be particularly effective at that. The result is that, unless something happens to remind us of someone and we find the time to contact them before the mad rush of daily life drives them out of our minds, we don't actually stay in touch with many people.
I have an additional problem in that I have been bi-coastal – spending my teen's and twenties on the east coast, and the last two decades the west coast. The result is that I have been particularly bad at keeping in touch with people from the first half of my life – not because I am not sincerely interested in what has happened to them; but because there is too little to bring them to mind here on the west coast.
There is however at least a partial solution . . . Facebook
While I signed up for Facebook a couple years ago so I could check something specific out, I never did much with it until recently. Two things changed that. The first is that I got a mailbox full of friend invitations from old co-workers at GCC (people who I definitely wanted to stay in better touch with). The second was that Anne and I discovered that many churches in San Francisco make extensive use of Facebook to keep their communities informed.
Based on that, I decided to take the plunge and embrace Facebook, and am quite happy that I did. For those old (and current) friends who are on the service, it is a great way to stay informed. They are no longer "out of sight" since I see periodic updates on them, and Facebook makes it easy to send notes, so that while they are "in mind" I can quickly contact them if I have anything to share.
I've put a moderate amount of effort into my profile to reflect who I am – including setting up a couple of apps to track my book reading and television watching. I don't think I'll do much more in the immediate future. I am also trying to update my status at least once a day for those people who care about what is happening to me.
The only downside is it leaves me in the position of shilling for Facebook as I try to encourage other old friend who I still know how to contact to join the service. Ah, well, such is modern life. At least most of my old friends are tech-savvy, so getting them online isn't a problem.
One side effect of this is that you are likely to see fewer "life updates" on this blog – I will be posting most of that information on Facebook and keeping this for my more thoughtful contributions.
Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
April 10, 2009
Thoughts : Ponzi Schemes
Bernie Madoff has been in the news the last few months for running the largest investment scam in history – a 64 Billion Dollar “Ponzi Scheme.” Ponzi schemes are fairly simple – you pay big returns to the initial investors (including yourself) out of the contributions of the later investors. So as an example, you find two investors and tell them that you have invested $1000 using a technique which will produce 100% return on investment in two months. They each give you $1000 to invest as well, and you then pay yourself their $2000 and say “see I got 100% return on my original investment”. Then you find 4 more investors, and use their $4000 to pay out to the initial two at the end of their two months. Now you have two people who can corroborate that your investment strategy works, and so it gets easier to get the next 8, and so on. The problem of course is that to keep this going you have to double the number of investors every two months, otherwise you run out of money to pay the earlier investors and the whole thing comes tumbling down. In the end, only half of the investors will get any money back, although the earlier investors tend to do well for themselves.
While illegal, the sad truth is that Ponzi Schemes are all around us – they just aren’t called that.
Consider the global consumer/industrial economy. It starts with the understandable and virtuous desire of people to see their children have a higher standard of living than they had (and those children will want better for their children, and so on). Nothing wrong with that by itself. But consider what “a higher standard of living” means. Their children get to work easier jobs and they have better things - better clothes, better houses, better food, better TV sets, etc. Making all those “better things” requires resources and also people to extract those resources and to work in factories building it all. Those jobs tend to be difficult and don’t fit the profile of “a higher standard of living”. So for each generation to have a higher standard of living than the previous ones, you need an increasing supply of resources and people willing to live at a lower standard of living to support them.
So (as one of many starting points for this) immigrants come to a prosperous country like America to seek a better life for their families. They work undesirable jobs (hard jobs, dangerous jobs) to earn enough to give their children a head start to being able to get better jobs and live better lives. But where do the resources and the people come from to support those better lives? Well, the resources come from “out west” or other places in the country that haven’t been exploited yet and the people come from the next wave of immigration. So the children of the original immigrants get the payout of a higher standard of living because next round of immigrants invest their lives in the promise that their children will also gain a higher standard of living. The contributions of the later investors are used to support the standard of living of children of the earlier ones.
Eventually, so many people have a high standard of living in the prosperous country that you can’t bring in enough immigrants to support it. Plus you start running out of resources in the country. How can you keep people improving their lifestyle? The answer Europe and America came up with is to spread the dream of a better life to other countries. So institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank were created to help “industrialize” Third World countries. The promise was (and is) that if they extract their resources and work in factories in their own countries building the better things that are needed to maintain the increasing standard of living in Europe and America, that subsequent generations of their citizens would enjoy a better standard of living just like the children of people in America and Europe did. So we went from one generation investing their lives on the promise of a higher standard of living for their children to countries investing lives of their citizens to maintain the higher standard of living in other countries on the promise that their children will also enjoy a better life. Countries that came to make this investment later are being used to fund the payout to the countries that came earlier.
And it works, to a point – the standard of living in the Third World countries is in fact increasing (slowly). But there’s a catch because the whole thing is one big Ponzi scheme. It assumes that we will keep finding resources and people to come in at the bottom to help lift everyone else up. But both resources and people are in finite supply. And here’s where it falls down. Eventually we will run out of people to support everyone else, and out of resources to make all of the better things that come with a better standard of living. This planet can only support a small percentage of its populating living at the standard maintained in America and Europe. There just are not enough natural resources to support everyone. And how do you get people to do the unpleasant jobs when it become clear that there is no way their children will be able to do any better because there isn’t enough people left around the world to do the hard work?
What’s worse is we may be on the brink of the collapse of the whole system.
The People’s Republic of China is in the midst of a massive industrialization campaign. They have a growing middle class who seek a lifestyle is not unlike that in Europe and America. But here’s the problem – even if you assume that China can only succeed a moving a third of their population into the middle class, that’s more than 400,000,000 more people trying to maintain a Euro-American standard of living. They, or perhaps their children (who will be expected to be able to have an even higher standard of living), will not be interested in working in coal mines or dangerous factories or living in a country with massive pollution problems, and China will likely be running out of indigenous resources anyway. So where will the resources and people come from to support their higher standard of living? At some point in the next generation, there will be no more “later investors” to use to support the payout of the nations that have already industrialized; and when that happens, there’s going to be a lot of problems.
So what’s the solution? People need to start thinking in terms of a “sustainable standard of living” instead of a “higher standard of living” – a standard of living that can be supported with the resources we can generate indefinitely instead of those we will run out of. We must also place a greater value on the hard and dangerous work that maintains everyone’s lifestyle. Perhaps instead of thinking in terms of skilled vs. unskilled labor, we need to think in terms of essential vs. elective labor and give greater honor to those who do the things we all depend on as opposed to those who do things which are optional aspects of our lives.
Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)
April 13, 2009
Faith , Thoughts : Economic Systems (Part 1)
When I consider economics (or other aspects of philosophy), I often use thought experiments to test my ideas. The idea of a “generation ship” has proven to be one of the most useful mental laboratories. Physics tells us that we cannot build a spacecraft that travels faster than light, and in fact it is impractical to even get close to that speed. Therefore if mankind ever travels to the stars, it will be at speeds that will require at least decades if not centuries to get there. That leaves only two practical options for the crew: either they will need to be kept in some form of hibernation or suspended animation for the voyage; or the original crew doesn’t actually make it to the destination – their descendants do. This latter option involved what engineers call a “generation ship”. You build a very large spacecraft that can support a crew of several thousand indefinitely (complete with farms for food, etc.) and you send them out on the voyage with the understanding that they will live out the rest of their lives on board the ship, as will their children, and grandchildren, and so on for several generations until some later generation reaches the original goal.
What makes this interesting from an economics point of view is that in deep space between stars, there is no place to acquire additional resources (except, perhaps, hydrogen), and even when they reach some star it is not clear what supplies will be able to be replenished (certainly not wood, oil, or food; and even finding iron or silicon might be require significant effort). So, the question is: what form of government and economics would be most effective for such a voyage?
Most science fiction writers I have seen who have written about such craft have suggested that there would be a hierarchical crew would be responsible for assigning tasks to the people most skilled to accomplish them and distributing resources to keep everyone alive and healthy. I am certain that this approached is doomed to failure – yes, it might well work for the first generation of crew who chose to live on the ship for the rest of their lives; but their children will have other motivations. Some will see no value in making much effort to support the community since their own support is guaranteed. Others will work to rise through the ranks to gain power over others. Corruption will become rampant as people use their rank within the crew to distribute favors for personal gain. Why I am so confident of this failure? Because we have already seen it happen. The economic model here is essentially a communist command economy “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” It is a well meaning system; but one which tends to fail within 2-3 generations.
So then is free market capitalism the solution? I also claim the answer to that is “no.” The problem is that free markets are a very effective way of determining the optimal value of something; but only if everyone who has a stake in the market is able to make informed decisions. In the case of the generation ship, all future generations have a stake in the value of the limited resources on the ship; but they have no way to participate in the market. So, assume there is a limited supply of some resource on the ship which cannot be synthesized. The first generation might well come to some agreement in the marketplace on the value of that resource to them and use it accordingly. Let’s say there are 10,000 boxes of it and the market will pay $1/box for it. Now consider generations later when there are only 10 boxes left, what price will they go for in a free market? $1000/box? 1,000,000? More? And if that is the case, what was the true value of those first boxes that sold for only $1? The free market failed to determine the true value of the goods because not everyone who would value it was able to participate in the market. What’s more, those with money have a greater voice in the market and can manipulate it to their own interests which might not serve the interests of the voyage as a whole. So wealth becomes power (sometimes via corruption) which is used to gain wealth and it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle which only by chance will leave the ship in a position to accomplish its mission at the end of the voyage.
How about socialism? Does it give the “best of both worlds” – allowing for a regulated market into which the government interjects the consideration of those who cannot directly participate and providing a safety net for those without money or power? Unfortunately, the result is often the worst, not the best, of both worlds. Socialism tends to invite the abuses found in both communisms and the free market. Those responsible for regulating the market are subject to corruption by those being regulated, and government involvement prevents the free market from developing optimal solutions.
So what is the answer? What economic system actually works? For my opinion on that you’ll have to wait for my next post.
Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
April 15, 2009
Faith , Thoughts : Economic Systems (Part 2)
In my previous post I considered what economic system would work best for a “Generation Ship” which was taking several generations to travel between stars. I argued that a communist planned economy that tried to implement the motto “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” will fail because of corruption and lack of motivation. I argued that free market capitalism would also fail because the later generations do not have a voice in the market and therefore the markets will not value goods correctly. I argued that socialism leads to the worst of both worlds – corruptions and a failed marketplace.
So what’s the solution?
The problem isn’t the economic system – it is human nature. Human beings are natural optimizers – we are constantly trying to get the “biggest bang for the buck”. If you limit what we get, then we strive to find ways to limit our investment to get the same benefit. If you limit our investment, we strive to find ways to maximize our benefits for that effort. This drive can accomplish great things – all of the marvelous innovations around us were a result of someone trying to optimize their environment in some way; but that same virtue is also a vice that leads to greed and sloth and eventually to failure of any economic system. I believe the bottom line is that no economic system will work unless you change human nature.
Fortunately, there is a way to do that – to change human nature.
It’s called Christianity.
Christianity is all about developing a relationship with God by which He can work in your life to change your nature – to change you into a better person. It isn’t (as many people believe) struggling under your own strength to follow a bunch of arbitrary rules. It’s about taking Jesus as your master and teacher, and letting him train you to be better than you used to be.
So what’s this have to do with economics?
Many people look at verses like Acts 2:44-45
All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.
and believe that Christianity supports communism. Others look at verses like 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12
For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat.
and believe Christianity supports capitalism. I believe neither is true.
I believe that true Christianity doesn’t care about the economic system, it cares about relationships. I believe the people described in the book of Acts who sold their belonging to give to others did so because they had compassion. There was no system to require them to give (see Acts 5:3-4 for confirmation of this). There was no economic model for the church. There were just people who cared enough about other people to voluntarily give of their wealth to support others. Likewise, Paul’s advice to the church in Thessaly was because people were hurting relationships (being “busybodies”) because they had too much free time. They needed to work so their energies would go into ways that built and support others rather than tearing them down.
I believe people who have been transformed by God can make communism work because they will be looking for how to help others rather than only looking after their own interests. I believe people who have been transformed by God can make the free market work because they will be thinking about those who cannot participate in the market and will act accordingly. I believe people who have been transformed by God can make socialism work because they will strive for excellence and honesty in all that they do.
The point is, if you are transformed by God, the economic system doesn’t matter; and without that transformation, any economic system is doomed to failure.
Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (10)
April 17, 2009
Books , Faith : McLuhan and Church
This past week I read "Flickering Pixels: How Technology Shapes Your Faith" by Shane Hipps this week. The book is essentially an application of Marshall McLuhan's ideas from "Understanding Media" and "Laws of Media" to Christianity, asking questions like: If "the medium is the message", can we use new media to communicate the gospel without changing the message?"
Overall I found the book interesting; but unfulfilling. The author brings up a lot of interesting ideas; but never explores them very deeply and I found myself wanting more. For instance he raises the theory that Christianity's focus on doctrinal correctness over the last few centuries can be attributed to the dominance of printed material as the primary media of the culture – that something like Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion." (a groundbreaking treatise on Christian Doctrine from the 16th century) would never exist in a culture that primarily used oral or handwritten media; but books lead people into rational, linear thinking which leads to an intellectual understanding of the faith. A good point; but there is so much more than could be explored here.
The best part of the book for me was when he raised this rather intriguing question: The "medium" through which God has chosen to communicate His message today is The Church – a community of imperfect people. If "the medium is the message", what message is God communicating by His decision to use our flawed lives as a community to communicate? A great question, but once again one the author only provides a cursory response. I however am going to be thinking about that a lot (expect to see a future blog post grown from that seed).
Another application of McLuhan's theories to Christianity that wasn't in the book but I thought of is related to the whole "Institutional Church" vs. "Home Church" question. Essentially you can view the structure of church meetings as medium and ask: regardless of what is actually said, what does your typical church service communicate by its structure? What about a house church meeting? I was in a conversation last night that at one point turned to the problem of pastors getting "put up on a pedestal" causing problems when they fail in some way, and the struggle of more humble pastors to stay off the pedestal.
Now here's my observation: your typical church service has a small group of people (including the pastor) up on a stage with everyone else in the audience. A large part of the meeting is taken up with the pastor speaking from that stage, explaining things related to the faith to the passive audience who quietly listen. So, if "the medium is the message" – what does that structure communicate? I think it naturally communicates that the person on the stage is more knowledgeable and in some way superior to those below them in the audience. Pastors have to struggle against being put on a pedestal because the structure of the church meetings conspires to put them there.
I will however note that to follow McLuhan's theories, one should not talk about a medium (church meeting style) being good or bad. There was a tendency in the 70's to misquote McLuhan and use his words to show how "bad" TV was; but that misses his point. Yes, TV is different from Print and the effect it has on society is different; but Print was different from Manuscripts and Manuscripts from Oral tradition. At each stage there is always something that is lost and it is easy to look at that loss as "bad"; but there is also always something gained in the transition. McLuhan encouraged people to understand these changes and to work with them.
So, here's what I am going to be thinking about: If the "medium" of the church meetings has changed over the centuries from "First Century Church" to "Liturgical Church" to what is now considered the "Traditional Protestant Church" to whatever comes next (perhaps House Churches), then what are the answers to McLuhan's four questions:
- What does the medium (form of church meeting) enhance?
- What does the medium (form of church meeting) cause us to lose?
- What does the medium (form of church meeting) bring back that was lost earlier?
- What does the medium (form of church meeting) do that's bad when it is pushed to extremes?
Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (8)
April 20, 2009
Books , Faith : Repenting of Religion: Turning from Judgment to the Love of God
Repenting of Religion: Turning from Judgment to the Love of Godby Gregory A. Boyd
Wow.
And again I say: Wow.
The last couple of years, God has been working to improve my understanding of Sin – not the specific actions which we should and should not do; but the principle that is at the core of our broken relationship with God. Last December, I did a couple of posts on the subject but as I noted then: while I had an intuitive understanding of what God was showing me, I wasn’t yet able to articulate it.
Greg Boyd has no such difficultly.
This book is essentially what I had been thinking for the last year and couldn’t find the right words to express. Boyd in turn acknowledges that he is building on the writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer - a German Theologian who was killed by the Nazis for his religious opposition to the state (probably the most famous 20th Century martyr) and his analysis of the metaphor of the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” whose fruit Adam and Eve ate, precipitating the fall of humanity.
While no summary can do justice to Greg Boyd’s analysis, the high points are:
- God made humanity to join in the loving union of the Trinity
- The right to judge each other was reserved for God because without complete understanding of a person’s situation (God’s omniscience), it is impossible to understand why people do the things they do
- Humanity’s job was then to love God unconditionally and sacrificially and love each other unconditionally and sacrificially. This was to be done without judgment, considering everyone to have equal and unsurpassable intrinsic value.
- The fall came about when humanity usurped God’s prerogative of judgment (eating of
“The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”). As we began to judge each other, we could no longer love each other unconditionally and sacrificially and our ability to participate in the loving union of the Trinity was broken.
- All sin then comes from our drive to assign and establish value for ourselves, others and God instead of trusting God’s judgments.
- Christianity then is a means to be set free from this judgmental worldview and from the sins which result from it.
- The Church then is meant to be a place of unconditional love and acceptance and not a place of judgment.
Greg Boyd takes these points (and other related ones) and examines them in great detail and with thoroughness. There were many points while reading that I found myself thinking “But what about…”; but every one of these questions was address by the end of the book, and with one exception I was completely satisfied with his answers (one I need to think about more). He spends time talking about specific verses that seem to contradict this view, including 1 Corinthians 5, which I have struggled with understanding.
I also found myself near tears at points reading the book, seeing how badly The Church has failed. While there is nothing in this book that I didn’t already believe, seeing it there in clear, unambiguous prose was depressing and drove me to repentance of my own judgmental nature.
This is now officially on my list of books that I think EVERY Christian should read.
Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)
April 22, 2009
Faith : Questions on The Atonement
The most central doctrine of Christianity is The Atonement – the answer to the question: “What did Jesus accomplish by dying on the cross and being raised from the dead a few days later?” How a person understands the answer to that question colors the whole rest of their faith and what they believe about who Jesus is. Without some understanding of The Atonement, Jesus was just an eccentric moral philosopher who died as an insurrectionist.
My whole Christian walk I have heard from the pulpit and classroom one and only one explanation of The Atonement (which goes by the name “penal substitution”). This indoctrination has been so complete that I can now see that I was actually exposed to other views at various times and did not realize it because I was blind to the distinctions being made (I filtered everything I heard through the lens of penal substitution). A few years back it finally sunk in that there are people I identify as Christians who interpreted things differently, and thus (as is my habit) I began to investigate for myself the various views of The Atonement.
There is actually a multitude of ways that The Atonement has been explained; but the vast majority of them can be fairly quickly dismissed as rather transparent attempts to force Christianity into someone’s preconceived world view. If you consider yourself a Christian and think humanity is essentially good and don’t want to have to deal with the sins in your own life, then you need a way to explain The Atonement in a way that does not talk about sin. A lot of the explanations I could find fell into this kind of convenient justification that could easily be dismissed by someone with a good understanding of what the Bible actually says.
There are however variations on two views which could not so easily be dismissed. One is the Penal Substitution model that I “grew up with” and dominates how The Atonement is explained in modern evangelical churches. The other is Ransom Theory (also known as “Christus Victor” or “Christ the Victor” model) which is what was taught by many Christian writers in the first few centuries of The Church and still is taught by Orthodox Christianity (as well as by modern writers like C. S. Lewis and Greg Boyd). I do note that there are variations on each of these views which exist, although most of these variations are just differences in language used and not in the substance of the explanation.
Having identified two plausible explanations (the one I was used to, and another) my next step is to try and understand if I actually have to make a choice between them. I have found that many of the doctrinal conflicts within Christianity are a matter of people forcing a choice between A or B when in fact the truth of Christianity is A and B. God is both just and merciful. Jesus is both God and man. Christians are both sons and servants. In the case of The Atonement, I found a lot of writers who acknowledged that the facts presented by the other view are accurate, but view them as less important than the facts presented by their view. If the distinction was just a matter of emphasis, then this is much debate about nothing.
Unfortunately, I am starting to see some places where there are real differences – that there may be no way to embrace both views logically (at least none that I see yet). So that leads to a second step – determine if the differences really matter. I have said here before, my view is that if you can’t see how you would do anything differently in your life over the next year based on some doctrinal point, then that point really doesn’t matter and there is no reason to take sides or invest further energy into determining who is right.
So this is where I am – trying to figure out what the practical (as opposed to theoretical) differences are between Penal Substitution, and Christus Victor, and therefore if I should care; which means that I really need to understand the Christus Victor model more that I do. So, more study is needed.
I know I didn’t explain what either view is in this post. I may do so in the future; but wanted to focus this essay on my personal process and not on the details of the debate. Frankly, while I could explain Penal Substitution with ease, I don’t know that I could do justice to Christus Victor yet and any presentation I gave here would be inherently biased.
Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
April 24, 2009
TV : “Caprica” and “Dollhouse”
Have a lot else on my mind today, so a bit of lighter fare.
Caprica
Consider a story set in a decadent polytheistic culture whose young people are mostly interested in orgies and watching fights – a society where there is also an upstart monotheistic religion with a geometric recognition sign and a slave class ripe for revolt. Sound like ancient Rome? Try the back-story for the science fiction prequel spin-off series for Battlestar Galactica called “Caprica” which is scheduled for the end of the year (but whose pilot episode is available on DVD now). According to the writers, the parallels are quite intentional, and the series is once again set up to explore human nature in all of its virtues and vices.
The story is set starting 58 years before the events of BSG, and in fact the second to last scene of the pilot is the first demonstration of a new prototype military robot, call a “Cylon” (setting up the later series). The series centers on the lives of two men: Daniel Greystone, a technology entrepreneur (in the mode of Gates or Jobs) who made his name creating a neural interface technology that allows for a full-sensory virtual reality experience (which the younger generation uses for simulated sex and violence), and who is now in the robot business (guess what he invents); and Joseph “Adams”, a lawyer from the despised colony of Tauron who is in the employ of the Tauron mafia. Joseph Adams is actually Josef Adama (who changed his name to fit into Caprican society and hide his roots) the father of Admiral William Adama in BSG (little William also makes an appearance in the series).
The story begins with a shared tragedy for these two men that drives them into their separate weaknesses. In the process, the pilot already explores racism, honor, hubris, and grief. I can’t wait for the series.
Dollhouse
Many people (myself included) were looking forward to the third coming of Joss Whedon to TV (after Buffy/Angel and Firefly). Unfortunately, even before the first episode aired the news was bad – Fox forced Joss to redo the pilot, dumbing it down for a mass audience; and there were other signs that they made him compromise his visions for the series. Still, Joss is the master of creating shows whose individual episodes are mindless on the surface; but when strung together tell a deeper story.
He might have actually succeeded again, despite Fox’s interference.
No doubt, the first 5 episodes were fairly shallow – establishing the idea of the series (a secret organization with the technology to wipe and reprogram minds that use that technology to rent out made-to-order “dolls” to fulfill their client’s dreams). But like the first few bars of a fugue, that only served to establish the basic theme for the series. Starting with episode 6, the show really started to pick up – adding variations on that theme and additional melodies to create something much deeper and more complex. I’m not sure it is a symphony yet; but it certainly shows promise. Now all of the Joss fans are just waiting to hear if the series gets renewed. Insiders say it is a 50-50 shot. I’ll certainly keep watching it if it does get a second season.
Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
April 27, 2009
Thoughts : Grief
Grief
People in America don’t like to talk about grief. Love, anger, fear – they are all very public emotions; but grief seems to be a private matter, experienced behind the shutters of our minds; out of sight, where it is safe. People cry; but it is expected that they get over it and quickly move on.
Perhaps it doesn’t fit the American illusion of rugged individualism; for at its core, grief is about how interconnected we all are. Someone is a part of our life, and when they are gone they leave a hole that serves as a reminder that they were a part us, causing us to trip over that pothole in our soul from time to time.
I was very close to my mother and would regularly call her up to tell her new things that were going on in my life, particularly good thing. After she died my life went on, complete with yet more new, good things; but each such event became a reminder that I no longer had a mother I could call – adding a touch of bitterness to whatever joy I was experiencing. It was hard at first; but eventually it became another part of the complex taste of life – the knowledge that she was gone forever seasoning my experience of the world.
The individual bumps when we are reminded that someone is no longer in our life are the easy part of grief. The hard part is when we finally wrap our minds around the idea that those people will never be there again. This is harder to grasp because there are always times when someone is unavailable - we are used to calling people and not finding them home, or missing them at some gathering for one reason or another. It is easy for our minds to trick us into thinking that nothing is unusual, that we will catch them next time.
But there is always a point when we finally internalize that it is not just that they are not there now; but that they will never be there again. That’s what real grieving is about – realizing that not only is there a hole; but that it will never be filled. Sure, we may eventually establish some other relationship with someone else that serves a similar purpose; but the gap where the original person fit into our lives never goes away. Grieving is the process of embracing that truth.
I am reminded of the story Richard Feynman tells about losing his wife. While he loved her dearly, he initially didn’t feel much after she died. Then one day he saw a dress in a store window and for a brief moment he thought about buying it for her, and suddenly it all hit him – that he would never again buy another dress for his wife, or anything else; and there on the street he grieved.
As we grow older, our lives become more and more pitted with the absence of those people we have lost - family, friends, co-workers. Some holes are bigger (such as the place my mother used to fit into my life). Others seem larger because the suddenness or means of departure leaves a more ragged hole (I had an old friend who committed suicide). But everyone we are connected with who departs leaves some kind of gap. These absences tend to accumulate, until, finally, we all leave behind a collection of us-shaped gaps in other people’s lives.
It is all a part of the experience of life.
Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
April 29, 2009
Life : I Got Nothin’
As those readers who are also friends know, I have had other thing on my mind this week. I actually do have an essay I prepared for today; but I was never happy with how it came out, and I decided last night to pull it until I can do a better job. I also wouldn’t be surprised if I have no post Friday, although I will certainly try to put something up. I do have ideas for several interesting essays I want to do; but just haven’t had the mind-share to flesh them out and get them ready.
Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
