Once, some time ago, I had a friend who was in a rather committed relationship. His girlfriend then abruptly broke up with him using a text message. I know nothing of the content of the message, but what seemed to be very difficult for my friend was the coldness with which he was dumped.
A few years ago, I was working in a lab. One of the janitors, Derrick, befriended me. Derrick never struck me as the sharpest nail in the bucket. One time, we were talking:
D: What kind of degree are you working on?
A: I'm getting a Ph.D.
D: So in a few years, you'll be Dr. Alex?
A: Yup!
D: Will you have patients?
A: What do you mean?
D: When people get sick, will they come to you?
A: No, I won't be that kind of doctor. I think I'd like to be a professor, maybe in Australia.
D: You know what they have in Australia? Crocodiles.
A: That's true, but I probably won't-
D: I hope you don't get eaten by a crocodile.
A: Thanks, Derrick. I'll be careful.
Now, I didn't get very much useful information from Derrick. I'm pretty sure, though, that "I hope you don't get eaten by a crocodile" means "You're important to me"; Derrick helped me have a good day when my boss was being a pooter. Confused as he was, Derrick had loving people down pat.
This idea, that the medium is a weighty chunk of the message, has important implications for our understanding of what revelation is and what it could mean. Revelation ought to mirror redemption.
If God is a loving father, well, I don't know my dad by reading a book that he wrote. I don't know my dad by obeying a government structure, or by coming to a consensus with my brothers and sister as to who our dad is. I emphatically don't know my Dad through babbling incomprehensibly. I certainly don't think of what I wished my dad was like, and then say that's what he is.
Redemption is simple enough that a child can get it, and it's the most difficult thing in the world, not difficult like studying calculus or digging a ditch, but difficult like saying I'm sorry or listening to Grandma tell a mundane story, only more difficult than that.
I've heard of a professor who, when asked a question in one of his quantum mechanics classes, would write Schrödinger's equation up on the board, saying, "That's all we know, and that's all we need to know" and then proceed to work out the answer from there. I think revelation is like Schrödinger's equation, simple, knowable, reliable, but difficult and confusing.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Why arguing for creationism is, in my opinion, ill-advised
Some time ago, I explained why I think that arguing in favor of Intelligent Design is almost completely misguided; rather than suggesting that ID is false, I said that only a very few people are even qualified to have such a discussion. In response, crooked deep down wrote
Young earth creationism attempts both, but fails altogether, because it is deeply incongruous with astronomy, geology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, and archeology, even when just considering the contention that the earth is 6,000 years old (or so). The talk.origins FAQ is the best place to start that I've found.
As far as the science of it is considered, I think creationism is pretty dumb, but I prefer not to think ill of creationists (exception: Kent Hovind). For the most part, creationism makes sense, if you've mostly been exposed to creationist literature. I think of creationism like I think of urban legends, people believe because people they trust believe, and that's completely reasonable, most of the time.
I don't think that belief in YEC is neutral; I think that it is destructive because of how it misrepresents nature and falsely engenders distrust in the scientific process. One example of how YEC harbors misinformation is in crooked's response:
Yes, the earth's magnetic field is currently weakening. This is normal. The contention that the earth can't be much older than 10,000 years depends on the assumption that that the magnetic field has been weakening monotonically, that is, that it has always been weakening. This is simply a very bad assumption; we know that the magnetic field, rather than decreasing steadily, fluctuates periodically, this is called geomagnetic reversal.
We know that geomagnetic reversals have taken place, many times, from several pieces of evidence, namely variation in magnetic polarity in adjacent rock layers. For example, at places where new rock forms continuously, like at the mid-Atlantic ridge, the magnetic polarity of a bit of the rock is like a snapshot of the earth's magnetic field from when that bit of rock was formed. Measurements like this actually confirm the geomagnetic reversal theory, and emphatically point to an old age for the earth.
If I had a friend who was considering becoming a Christian, but felt as if the Genesis account of creation didn't match with science, rather than teach him YEC, I'd instead tell him that Genesis 1-3 was actually written to be understood as myth. George E. Mendenhall's article, "The Shady Side of Wisdom" provides a good explanation of this. (This article is very difficult to find; if you want a copy, ask me.)
Mendenhall demonstrated from linguistic analysis that the text had a late date of authorship, based on the use of certain words that are relatively new. This, alone, doesn't take away from the understanding of the Genesis account as inspired, we just need to read it as an inspired myth that tells us much about who we are and who God is, but not so much about actual history. This isn't even a new idea, Augustine, among others, thought of Genesis 1-3 as basically mythical.
This is what I'd tell a friend considering becoming a Christian.
I hope that I walked the line between calling YEC the way I see it, but not being mean to my creationist readers. If you want to talk, well, origins, check the talk.origins FAQ first, then drop a comment.
However, wouldn't you say that, for some people, what they perceive to be incontrovertible scientific evidence against the Bible is a fence that keeps them from loving Jesus, and we can help them along in their journey if we can knock a hole in that fence?It's important to remember that crooked is a young earth creationist, so the discussion is completely re-framed, we need to distinguish between three positions:
- Young earth creationism
- Theistic evolution (ID)
- Atheistic evolution
- To convince somebody to accept Jesus
- To reassure yourself that the Bible isn't inauthentic
Young earth creationism attempts both, but fails altogether, because it is deeply incongruous with astronomy, geology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, and archeology, even when just considering the contention that the earth is 6,000 years old (or so). The talk.origins FAQ is the best place to start that I've found.
As far as the science of it is considered, I think creationism is pretty dumb, but I prefer not to think ill of creationists (exception: Kent Hovind). For the most part, creationism makes sense, if you've mostly been exposed to creationist literature. I think of creationism like I think of urban legends, people believe because people they trust believe, and that's completely reasonable, most of the time.
I don't think that belief in YEC is neutral; I think that it is destructive because of how it misrepresents nature and falsely engenders distrust in the scientific process. One example of how YEC harbors misinformation is in crooked's response:
For example, we might say that much-touted radiometric dating relies on a lot of assumptions that might not be true, or the whole thing with the decay of the earth's magnetic field being seemingly incongruous with an Earth much older than 10,000 years.Again, I don't suspect any malice or evil on the part of crooked, or on the part of whoever told him that, but this is a good example of how YEC, like an urban legend or conspiracy theory, shows part of the information to produce misunderstanding of the whole.
Yes, the earth's magnetic field is currently weakening. This is normal. The contention that the earth can't be much older than 10,000 years depends on the assumption that that the magnetic field has been weakening monotonically, that is, that it has always been weakening. This is simply a very bad assumption; we know that the magnetic field, rather than decreasing steadily, fluctuates periodically, this is called geomagnetic reversal.
We know that geomagnetic reversals have taken place, many times, from several pieces of evidence, namely variation in magnetic polarity in adjacent rock layers. For example, at places where new rock forms continuously, like at the mid-Atlantic ridge, the magnetic polarity of a bit of the rock is like a snapshot of the earth's magnetic field from when that bit of rock was formed. Measurements like this actually confirm the geomagnetic reversal theory, and emphatically point to an old age for the earth.
If I had a friend who was considering becoming a Christian, but felt as if the Genesis account of creation didn't match with science, rather than teach him YEC, I'd instead tell him that Genesis 1-3 was actually written to be understood as myth. George E. Mendenhall's article, "The Shady Side of Wisdom" provides a good explanation of this. (This article is very difficult to find; if you want a copy, ask me.)
Mendenhall demonstrated from linguistic analysis that the text had a late date of authorship, based on the use of certain words that are relatively new. This, alone, doesn't take away from the understanding of the Genesis account as inspired, we just need to read it as an inspired myth that tells us much about who we are and who God is, but not so much about actual history. This isn't even a new idea, Augustine, among others, thought of Genesis 1-3 as basically mythical.
This is what I'd tell a friend considering becoming a Christian.
I hope that I walked the line between calling YEC the way I see it, but not being mean to my creationist readers. If you want to talk, well, origins, check the talk.origins FAQ first, then drop a comment.
Monday, July 23, 2007
What is Christian agnosticism?
I am a Christian agnostic. I need to explain what I mean by that, because I'm not aware of anyone famous who means by that what I do. One of my friends has told me that in talking with me, he needs to remember that I truly mean both words; not a compromise or a middle ground between both viewpoints, I genuinely mean both things.
I was pretty happy as an evangelical Christian, but I doubted a lot, especially over the course of the past year or so, and I couldn't find many plain answers, so that landed me in agnosticism. I am not trying to persuade my Christian friends to change their beliefs or actions in any way, except to recognize that many of the evidences for the truth claims they make are not as solid as they might think; doubters and nonbelievers ought not be dismissed saying, "They don't believe because they don't want to", belief in God ought not be considered obvious.
In particular, the Christian agnostic label falls strangely on evangelical ears, and understandably so, because of the evangelical emphasis on salvation through personal faith in Christ. While I might use those words to describe what I think, I mean something a little bit different by "faith" and "Christ", and I want to be careful not to play a linguistic shell-game -- I do believe something different from evangelical Christians. I'll talk a little more about Christian agnostic soteriology later, but I do want to describe what I mean by "faith" and "Christ".
When I say that I have faith in Christ, I don't mean that I make any particular truth-claim assertions about the existence of God, the historicity of Jesus, or the inspiration, authenticity, or inerrancy of the scriptures. Instead, I mean only two things:
Point 2 is more subtle, and you can tell, by seeing what people in our culture think. There seems to be an understanding that "good people" deserve to go to heaven, regardless of how they relate to God. There is a general agreement that Jesus things like loving people and listening are good things. What is missed, though, is that I'm not the main character in the story of my life, and that if I was, my story would be a very sad and boring one.
Dan Liebert, Verbal Cartoonist, wrote:
Don Turnbee is lame, and I don't want to be lame.
There was a guy I knew once, I took classes with him. He's a very good person, an excellent student, and a good friend to have. He was just stunningly lame. He was the reincarnation of Marty McFly's dad from Back to the Future, with bonus lameness for looking like he accidentally stepped into the wrong decade. He wore coke-bottle glasses and velcro shoes and a Mister Rogers sweater. You could ask him about President number, say, 23, and he'd tell you more than you ever wanted to know about Benjamin Harrison -- when and where he was born, when he took office, his family members' names, his cabinet... I had to check Wikipedia to know that we ever had a president named Benjamin Harrison. Every day, at noon, he'd say, "High noon, time for lunch".
The thing that I always wondered about this fellow was whether he was aware that he was lame. I think that if you're lame, and don't know it, that's bonus lame points.
I very much like the Jesus Prayer:
The purpose of this world view is up in the air. At the least, it can function as a layover on a spiritual journey. It's nice, because it insulates living a good life and having a wise direction from doubt in the goodness of God. That is, if I can find God to be real, and basically congruent with who the Bible describes Jesus to be, I can find inspiration and hope from that, but, if not, I still have some idea of what the right thing to do is.
One major problem with Christian agnosticism is that it doesn't give me much hope. I don't know that God will make everything turn out well in the end, and I would like to be able to have that hope. I don't necessarily think that Christian agnosticism is a good idea, but it's what I've got to deal with right now. One of the good things about Christian agnosticism is that if there's anything at all to the Christian claims in the existence and goodness of God, and the historicity and divinity of Jesus, I'll find them to be true, eventually, by God's grace.
I was pretty happy as an evangelical Christian, but I doubted a lot, especially over the course of the past year or so, and I couldn't find many plain answers, so that landed me in agnosticism. I am not trying to persuade my Christian friends to change their beliefs or actions in any way, except to recognize that many of the evidences for the truth claims they make are not as solid as they might think; doubters and nonbelievers ought not be dismissed saying, "They don't believe because they don't want to", belief in God ought not be considered obvious.
In particular, the Christian agnostic label falls strangely on evangelical ears, and understandably so, because of the evangelical emphasis on salvation through personal faith in Christ. While I might use those words to describe what I think, I mean something a little bit different by "faith" and "Christ", and I want to be careful not to play a linguistic shell-game -- I do believe something different from evangelical Christians. I'll talk a little more about Christian agnostic soteriology later, but I do want to describe what I mean by "faith" and "Christ".
When I say that I have faith in Christ, I don't mean that I make any particular truth-claim assertions about the existence of God, the historicity of Jesus, or the inspiration, authenticity, or inerrancy of the scriptures. Instead, I mean only two things:
- Living like the Bible says that Jesus lived is the best way to live.
- I am not Jesus.
Point 2 is more subtle, and you can tell, by seeing what people in our culture think. There seems to be an understanding that "good people" deserve to go to heaven, regardless of how they relate to God. There is a general agreement that Jesus things like loving people and listening are good things. What is missed, though, is that I'm not the main character in the story of my life, and that if I was, my story would be a very sad and boring one.
Dan Liebert, Verbal Cartoonist, wrote:
If they ever make a musical about my life, there will probably be a lot of songs about jacking off and pizza.One of the funny things about The Onion is its stories about Don Turnbee, describing the challenges he faces in fast food restaurants (in one, he isn't sure what to do with extra ketchup packets, so he stockpiles them). The joke, as I understand it, is that The Onion reports on life not based on what is really important, but on what Don Turnbee, for instance, would think is important.
Don Turnbee is lame, and I don't want to be lame.
There was a guy I knew once, I took classes with him. He's a very good person, an excellent student, and a good friend to have. He was just stunningly lame. He was the reincarnation of Marty McFly's dad from Back to the Future, with bonus lameness for looking like he accidentally stepped into the wrong decade. He wore coke-bottle glasses and velcro shoes and a Mister Rogers sweater. You could ask him about President number, say, 23, and he'd tell you more than you ever wanted to know about Benjamin Harrison -- when and where he was born, when he took office, his family members' names, his cabinet... I had to check Wikipedia to know that we ever had a president named Benjamin Harrison. Every day, at noon, he'd say, "High noon, time for lunch".
The thing that I always wondered about this fellow was whether he was aware that he was lame. I think that if you're lame, and don't know it, that's bonus lame points.
I very much like the Jesus Prayer:
Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.I think that the theology behind that prayer is the best lens through which I can see the world. The repentance in the Jesus Prayer is my antidote for lameness, found by my embracing my lameness.
The purpose of this world view is up in the air. At the least, it can function as a layover on a spiritual journey. It's nice, because it insulates living a good life and having a wise direction from doubt in the goodness of God. That is, if I can find God to be real, and basically congruent with who the Bible describes Jesus to be, I can find inspiration and hope from that, but, if not, I still have some idea of what the right thing to do is.
One major problem with Christian agnosticism is that it doesn't give me much hope. I don't know that God will make everything turn out well in the end, and I would like to be able to have that hope. I don't necessarily think that Christian agnosticism is a good idea, but it's what I've got to deal with right now. One of the good things about Christian agnosticism is that if there's anything at all to the Christian claims in the existence and goodness of God, and the historicity and divinity of Jesus, I'll find them to be true, eventually, by God's grace.
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." -- Matthew 5:8
Awesome Scott Adams quote
Another reason why Scott Adams will be canonized in the First Church of the Christian Existentialist:
You need a healthy ego to endure the abuse that comes with any sort of success. The trick is to think of your ego as your goofy best friend who lends moral support but doesn’t know shit.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
A prayer book that ought to be written
I have an Orthodox prayer book, and it's pretty cool. The daily prayers in it I've found to be enriching and challenging. Prayer books are nice, because sometimes I'm not on great terms with God; just like you put stakes in the ground and tie a sapling to them, to help the sapling grow straight, prayer books help me learn how to pray straight. Still, I feel like there are some situations that aren't covered. In the prayer book I have, there are prayers like these:
Here's a pretty cool prayer by Philaret, Patriarch of Moscow:
My Lord, I know not what I ought to ask of Thee.
Thou and Thou alone knowest my needs.
Thou lovest me more than I am able to love Thee.
O Father, grant unto me, Thy servant, all which I cannot ask.
For a cross I dare not ask, nor for consolation;
I dare only to stand in Thy presence.
My heart is open to Thee.
Thou seest my needs of which I myself am unaware.
Behold and lift me up!
In Thy presence I stand,
awed and silenced by Thy will and Thy judgments,
into which my mind cannot penetrate.
To Thee I offer myself as a sacrifice.
No other desire is mine but to fulfill Thy will.
Teach me how to pray.
Do Thyself pray within me.
Amen.
- For the Priesthood
- At the Table
- For Repentence
- Before Commencing any Task
- Of Single Persons
- Before a Journey
- For the Sick
- When I Don't Like Jesus
- For a Homeless Person that I Meet on the Street
- When my Computer Crashes
- When Nothing Makes Sense
- When I Get Cut Off in Traffic
- When Someone Needs a Friend, and I Don't Want to be That Person's Friend
- For a Blown Test that I Didn't Study Enough For Because I'm a Slacker
Here's a pretty cool prayer by Philaret, Patriarch of Moscow:
My Lord, I know not what I ought to ask of Thee.
Thou and Thou alone knowest my needs.
Thou lovest me more than I am able to love Thee.
O Father, grant unto me, Thy servant, all which I cannot ask.
For a cross I dare not ask, nor for consolation;
I dare only to stand in Thy presence.
My heart is open to Thee.
Thou seest my needs of which I myself am unaware.
Behold and lift me up!
In Thy presence I stand,
awed and silenced by Thy will and Thy judgments,
into which my mind cannot penetrate.
To Thee I offer myself as a sacrifice.
No other desire is mine but to fulfill Thy will.
Teach me how to pray.
Do Thyself pray within me.
Amen.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
A story about a monk and Satan
This is a story I read in a book of quirky Orthodox stories.
One time, Satan disguised himself as a beautiful angel, and went to visit a monk, to tempt him. He came to visit this monk during his evening prayers, who looked up at the apparition, and said, "Oh, you must have made a mistake. I'm not holy enough to be visited by an angel. Perhaps you should try the next cell over." And Satan's plan was thwarted.
One time, Satan disguised himself as a beautiful angel, and went to visit a monk, to tempt him. He came to visit this monk during his evening prayers, who looked up at the apparition, and said, "Oh, you must have made a mistake. I'm not holy enough to be visited by an angel. Perhaps you should try the next cell over." And Satan's plan was thwarted.
The Job who was never rich
I write this from Alabama. Alabama is a strange, strange place. Stores have names like Winn Dixie or Piggly Wiggly, people eat at Twix 'N Tween, there are towns with names like Six Mile, Tuscaloosa, and Remlap (so named to spite the Palmer family). The people talk funny, over-stressing their vowels (Winn of Winn Dixie can be stretched into three syllables: we-ya-inn). Everyone has a truck. The nearest tofu is half an hour away.
On Friday, we visited with some old family friends. I don't pay much attention to what other people say when we pray, I don't know why, I just have trouble focusing. Don's blessing over lunch on Friday is still messing with me, though.
When Don prayed, he thanked God for good friends and good food, as clear signs of God's Goodness. Don has a deep and sound acceptance that God is in control, so we can sleep soundly at night.
Don is dying of cancer. He has 10 kids. He's never really had a well-paying job. His hair is falling out.
I'm 22. I'm a graduate student. I am happy and healthy. I have amazing hair.
From where I'm standing, it seems that God is doing his best to look like a happy delusion, if he's there, at all. If God's so good, what's he doing about poverty, hunger, or disease? And if people believing in God is so important to God, then why hasn't he made it a little easier for the other 4 billion of us that aren't convinced?
Don's idea of who God is messes with me. Some people have very good lives, and credit God with providing them with their blessings, so their thinking that God is good and sovereign seems reasonable, but their proof of God can be written off as confirmation bias. On the other hand, while everything is falling apart for Don, he still loves God and thinks God is good. Don doesn't seem to be believing out of desperation, he's not stupid, he's not naive. What has Don seen that I haven't, that he considers God being a good god a tangible reality?
On Friday, we visited with some old family friends. I don't pay much attention to what other people say when we pray, I don't know why, I just have trouble focusing. Don's blessing over lunch on Friday is still messing with me, though.
When Don prayed, he thanked God for good friends and good food, as clear signs of God's Goodness. Don has a deep and sound acceptance that God is in control, so we can sleep soundly at night.
Don is dying of cancer. He has 10 kids. He's never really had a well-paying job. His hair is falling out.
I'm 22. I'm a graduate student. I am happy and healthy. I have amazing hair.
From where I'm standing, it seems that God is doing his best to look like a happy delusion, if he's there, at all. If God's so good, what's he doing about poverty, hunger, or disease? And if people believing in God is so important to God, then why hasn't he made it a little easier for the other 4 billion of us that aren't convinced?
Don's idea of who God is messes with me. Some people have very good lives, and credit God with providing them with their blessings, so their thinking that God is good and sovereign seems reasonable, but their proof of God can be written off as confirmation bias. On the other hand, while everything is falling apart for Don, he still loves God and thinks God is good. Don doesn't seem to be believing out of desperation, he's not stupid, he's not naive. What has Don seen that I haven't, that he considers God being a good god a tangible reality?
Friday, June 22, 2007
Fixing the Mac Trash Can UI
In Mac OSX, there is a trash can that lives on the dock. One of the neat things about Mac OS is how it emphasizes that everything goes from somewhere to somewhere -- a file doesn't get deleted, it goes into the trash can, and you can pull it back out again, which I do sometimes, because I get overzealous and throw things away that I ought not.
When the trash can is empty, it looks nice and clean and sharp, the sort of trash can you'd carry about with you to impress people. When it is full, it looks dirty, and, when compared with the rest of the shiny icons on my dock, I feel a great need to empty it.
The thing that is broken about this interface element is that it looks full, even if there is only one teeny text file in the trash can. I don't need to know when there is at least one file in the trash can, I need to know when there are so many large files in the trash can that it needs to be emptied, so that I can download more anime. The trash can shouldn't ever be emptied, unless I need to free up some disk space -- emptying it at any other time is inefficient, and unnecessarily risks permanently deleting an important file.
So, there are really two problems here: the trash can tells me not when it's full, but when it has at least one file, which is useless information, and when it has at least one file in it, it tells me that I ought to empty it when I really shouldn't.
What I just did, to break the habit of compulsively emptying my trash can, was set it so that it always displays the empty trash can icon. If you're a Mac user, you can do this too, I found instructions at InterfaceLIFT. When you get to the part where it says "open .", instead, type "cp trashempty.png trashfull.png".
When the trash can is empty, it looks nice and clean and sharp, the sort of trash can you'd carry about with you to impress people. When it is full, it looks dirty, and, when compared with the rest of the shiny icons on my dock, I feel a great need to empty it.
The thing that is broken about this interface element is that it looks full, even if there is only one teeny text file in the trash can. I don't need to know when there is at least one file in the trash can, I need to know when there are so many large files in the trash can that it needs to be emptied, so that I can download more anime. The trash can shouldn't ever be emptied, unless I need to free up some disk space -- emptying it at any other time is inefficient, and unnecessarily risks permanently deleting an important file.
So, there are really two problems here: the trash can tells me not when it's full, but when it has at least one file, which is useless information, and when it has at least one file in it, it tells me that I ought to empty it when I really shouldn't.
What I just did, to break the habit of compulsively emptying my trash can, was set it so that it always displays the empty trash can icon. If you're a Mac user, you can do this too, I found instructions at InterfaceLIFT. When you get to the part where it says "open .", instead, type "cp trashempty.png trashfull.png".
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Fasting from Christianity
Incarnational ministry is getting to be hip, which is good, because Jesus started it. When we help poor people, sometimes it helps to be poor, too. When we help kids, it helps to do kid things with kids, like playing play-doh and having nap time and drinking apple juice. When helping people of a certain ethnicity, it helps to take on as many elements of their culture as possible, things like food, dress, language, expressions, and folklore. Incarnational ministry is important for two big reasons: it puts us close to the people we're helping, so we can understand them, and it puts them close to us so that they can trust us and be open to our help.
When we help the unchurched, though, how can we do that incarnationally? That is, I spend maybe one day a week talking with non-Christians. I don't get their lifestyles, though, because I'm spending the other six in church, two bible studies, prayer groups, and leadership team meetings. I listen to Christian music (though by no means exclusively) and I read a lot of Christian books. Andy Crouch quotes Nathan Beirman's book Bringing Heaven Down to Earth, in which Nathan quotes a play by Daniel Jurman, who, speaking for Daniel (of the lion's den), says, "In every way that is unimportant, let them make us Chaldeans.".
I'd like to maybe spend a month, at least, fasting from Christianity. That's not to say that I'd be avoiding Christ, or living in revelry. The fast would focus on half of the point of incarnational ministry -- just understanding people who don't know Jesus. Avoiding Christianity might not be particularly helpful, in and of itself, in reaching the unchurched. Yet, there are so many cultural elements of Christianity that are unimportant. I don't need to listen to Audio Adrenaline, I don't need to go to Bible study or church or potlucks, I don't need to read so many Christian books, I don't need to wear Christian T-shirts. A bunch of those things are pretty good, but I could do without them for a month. (Some of those Christian things are so bad, I ought to avoid them forever.)
What do you think I ought to give up in my fast from Christianity? What should I keep? How can I become an agnostic or a nominal Christian, "in all ways unimportant"?
When we help the unchurched, though, how can we do that incarnationally? That is, I spend maybe one day a week talking with non-Christians. I don't get their lifestyles, though, because I'm spending the other six in church, two bible studies, prayer groups, and leadership team meetings. I listen to Christian music (though by no means exclusively) and I read a lot of Christian books. Andy Crouch quotes Nathan Beirman's book Bringing Heaven Down to Earth, in which Nathan quotes a play by Daniel Jurman, who, speaking for Daniel (of the lion's den), says, "In every way that is unimportant, let them make us Chaldeans.".
I'd like to maybe spend a month, at least, fasting from Christianity. That's not to say that I'd be avoiding Christ, or living in revelry. The fast would focus on half of the point of incarnational ministry -- just understanding people who don't know Jesus. Avoiding Christianity might not be particularly helpful, in and of itself, in reaching the unchurched. Yet, there are so many cultural elements of Christianity that are unimportant. I don't need to listen to Audio Adrenaline, I don't need to go to Bible study or church or potlucks, I don't need to read so many Christian books, I don't need to wear Christian T-shirts. A bunch of those things are pretty good, but I could do without them for a month. (Some of those Christian things are so bad, I ought to avoid them forever.)
What do you think I ought to give up in my fast from Christianity? What should I keep? How can I become an agnostic or a nominal Christian, "in all ways unimportant"?
Great Christian Woman Authors
On my bookshelf, I have a lot of C. S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, John Piper, and James Sire, and I'm starting to accumulate some Barth and Kierkegaard. I also understand that I ought to be reading J. I. Packer, Eugene Peterson, Spurgeon, and Edwards. I disagree with a lot of them, a lot of the time, especially Schaeffer, so that tells me that I'm probably reading the books I ought to read.
I have a couple of good Christian books by women, but they're not the sort of thing that will be read in a hundred years. (Notable exceptions are Corrie Ten Boom and Edith Schaeffer.)
Now, I don't hold that men are automatically better authors, leaders, and theologians. Rather, I'd probably mostly point to women as my primary spiritual influences. Who are some good Christian authors that are women? Why do you think that my bookshelf is so unbalanced?
I have a couple of good Christian books by women, but they're not the sort of thing that will be read in a hundred years. (Notable exceptions are Corrie Ten Boom and Edith Schaeffer.)
Now, I don't hold that men are automatically better authors, leaders, and theologians. Rather, I'd probably mostly point to women as my primary spiritual influences. Who are some good Christian authors that are women? Why do you think that my bookshelf is so unbalanced?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)