from C.S. Lewis's George Macdonald: An Anthology:
"Nor will God force any door to enter in. He may send a tempest about the house; the wind of His admonishment may burst doors and windows, yea, shake the house to its foundatins; but not then, not so, will He enter. The door must be opened by the willing hand, ere the foot of Love will cross the threshold. He watches to see the door move from within. Every tempest is but an assault in the siege of Love. The terror of God is but the other side of His love; it is love outside, that would be inside - love that knows the house is no house, only a place, until it enter."
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
The Rapture: How Dubious Exegesis Leads to Shoddy Theology and Bad Living (Engl 410)
Let me be clear that this is not a personal attack on anyone that I know, any church group I've been a part of, or any sect of Christianity for that matter. It is simply an analysis of a particular eschatological belief, and it is very critical. For that I am unapologetic. Even if one's personal studies lead one to Rapture theology, hopefully the point of this paper is fully realized by those reading it.
Once again, this paper is largely unedited and hasn't been touched since June 4th of last year.
Written in English 410, Summer 2009.
-------------------------------------
The Rapture: How Dubious Exegesis Leads to Shoddy Theology and Bad Living
When Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins released the first book in the Left Behind series back in 1995, they might not have realized the possible impact it would have on Christianity in America or how the presentation and possible interpretation could lead to carelessness concerning creation. Alliteration aside, the Left Behind series as a whole is based on one eschatological, or end-of-the-world related, event. The Rapture. For those of you who have been isolated in a bubble for the past 14 or so years, the Rapture is an event that some Christians believe will happen before, during, or after the time when God's wrath is poured out on the earth as described in the book of Revelation. This wrath is described as seven years of hardship for mankind and is called the Tribulation. The Rapture is when all of the Christians in the world at the time ascend into heaven to live there “forever”. The view that LaHaye and Jenkins espouse is called the Pre-Tribulation Rapture ( Pre-Trib for short) and it supposes that the Christians on earth will ascend into heaven before God's wrath is poured out on the Earth. This view was practically underheard of prior to the 19th century and didn't gain a real following until the late 20th century.
Pre-Trib folks like to exegete (interpret) one verse to support their eschatological ideals. That verse, 1st Thessalonians 4:17, says, “Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (KJV). This interpretation has led many, like LaHaye and Jenkins, to believe in the Pre-Tribulation Rapture even though this verse doesn't say anything specific to support that exegesis. While Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib, Prewrath, and Post-Trib believers all have their own reasons for believing what they believe that is not what I am writing to you about. Biblical Scholarship and firmly-grounded doctrine are certainly important things when it comes to religious belief but rather than using belief in a Pre-Trib rapture to live in a more Godly way, the conservative Christian culture has used this as an excuse to live how they want to live. This is a problem that I do not believe is Biblically supported and affects more than just the believer's theology.
As always, I think it's important to maintain a bird's eye view when having any type of discourse about issues that tend to affect not only our religious views but also political policy and legislation. I believe that this focus on one event has led many Christians to neglect to take care of the earth. According to a poll by Dominion Post, 44% of American Christians believe Jesus Christ will return within the next 50 years. I don't believe there is a thing wrong with that view. But because of books like those of LaHaye and Jenkins and the challenge that the modern church has not put forth concerning Pre-Trib theology, the “imminent return” has led some Christians to unbiblical habits – neglecting ecological care as well as making purchases that are not environmentally friendly. As far as recent political trends are concerned, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that the Republican party and Christians in America have been commonly associated with one another recently. I sympathize with many views of the Republican party, and my faith often informs my political decisions but the two should be mutually exclusive and the decisions of the Republican party should never reflect the views of the church and especially church policy.
When global warming started becoming a bigger hot topic issue and “going green” became the trend for all the hipsters and Starbucks-goers, the Republican party resisted because in their view, global warming was just “part of the earth's climate cycle.” I'm not here to debate whether or not global warming is a real situation, but when this view became the unofficial view of the Republican party, it seemed like it was just a matter of time before the church followed suit. With the church often turning a skeptical eye to global warning and with 2 out of 5 Christians expecting Jesus' imminent return, much of the church began to neglect to take care of the earth in simple ways. I have seen more fellow churchgoers litter than any other group of people and that worries me. Church cookouts being only partially cleaned up, people throwing paper plates on the ground at VBS functions, students throwing coke cans out of car windows. The church often doesn't encourage the importance of taking care of what God has given us. Even if a student doesn't think about how Jesus is coming back soon when littering, maybe WWJD can become a “going green” trend as well. The interconnectedness goes much deeper than even that though.
Throughout his ministry, Jesus encouraged the Jews and Gentiles of the time to act in a way that I believe would be considered “overzealous” by the modern Christian culture in America. When a rich young man came to Jesus and told him he had kept the letter of the law and wanted to know what else he could do, Jesus told him to sell all his possessions and follow Him because Jesus knew the young man was wealthy. American religious climate says the exact opposite. There is an endless supply of proponents of the prosperity gospel here who preach that wealth is God's reward for good faith. Joel Osteen. Kenneth Copeland. Joyce Meyer. These are just a few of the people who say life is just about overcoming obstacles and reaping the reward for trusting in God during troublesome times. But this isn't a Biblical message at all! Jesus told his followers not to store up treasures where moth and rust could consume but to store up treasures in heaven. Is this really what we should be worried about teaching in the churches?
I'm sure you're wondering how in the world these preachers can be tied to Pre-Trib theology and how this focus on prosperity is related to it as well. This is where the message of the church and significance of the prosperity gospel comes into play. The message of the prosperity gospel has negatively impacted the church in three main ways that I believe has been ruinous to the ministry of the church in a postmodern society. I think that the first message that it has sent out is in blatant opposition to scripture and that is its strong emphasis on materialism. In my opinion, there is a difference between someone who enjoys having nice things or getting something nice from time to time and someone who puts all his money into extraneous things. Joyce Meyer has been criticized for owning multiple expensive homes as well as flying to the different places where she is speaking on a private jet. I believe that is extraneous. When faced with the criticism she defended herself and said there is nothing wrong with being blessed.
This leads me to my next point. The prosperity gospel is an unbiblical way of defining faithfulness. When Joyce Meyer says that God has blessed her with multiple homes and a private jet and Kenneth Copeland says that God wants us to be healthy and wealthy, what are they saying about people who aren't as affluent or are in deteriorating health in their 40s or 50s? Are these people the faithless? And what about the missionaries in Africa who only get $10 a month to live on? Are they the faithless, too? This isn't to say at all that God may not bless a family or individual's monetary situation(s), but to say that God wants us to be that way and that if we are faithful it will happen is unbiblical. Ravi Zacharias tells a story of a missionary friend of his who lived among the people of Thailand, ministering. After a while, some Thai Buddhist Monks were upset that Ravi's friend was converting many Buddhists to Christianity and he was shot in the head and killed instantly. Was he faithless because he didn't live a long full life?
What about Paul? Who was stoned and later martyred? Did he not have faith because he didn't get a chance to live out his life. Or Peter and his wife, who were both crucified? Peter was even crucified upside down because he did not believe he should be killed in the same manner as Jesus! It is not a Christian ideal in the LEAST to say that God simply wants us to be faithful and in turn live long healthy lives with a lot of money. There are numerous verses I could quote to support this position, but all I have to point the reader to is how Jesus said not to store up treasures on earth but to store up treasures in heaven again. Within the problem of “faithfulness based on possessions” lies another problem. If a Christian believes that making money means they are living in a Godly way, then to them it would follow that everything they buy with that money is a blessing! So when they see that $70,000 Hummer H1 at the local dealership and purchase it, it's almost like they believe that the hole in the o-zone that they own is a blessing from God!
Here is where all the connections come together and the point of this article can come to its fruition. While the megachurches in America are learning about health and wealth and not learning what Jesus of Nazareth said, the bad theology is spreading like wildfire. The prosperity gospel has put so much emphasis on the positive individual experience of each American Christian, that it has forgotten and/or neglected to teach Biblical theology where the Christian takes good care of the Earth because it is God's earth . The lethal combination of Pre-tribulation Rapture Theology, the imminent return of Jesus, and the Prosperity Gospel is toxic even if some of the ingredients are not harmful by themselves. The Prosperity Gospel leads Christians to believe that everything they get with the money they've made is a blessing from God, even if it harmful to our ecological systems. These people, who often believe in Pre-Tribulation Rapture Theology, often do not mind damaging the earth or inhabitants thereof with their massive SUVS because Jesus will be back within the next 50 years and they will be raptured before God does any damage to the Earth as it is now. The combination of those three things and the way the Christian Right has interpreted them has led massive inaction related to environmental conservationism.
Here's the thing, though, guys. Even if Pre-Tribulation Rapture theology is true and even if the prosperity gospel were biblically based and even if Jesus comes back in the next 50 years, it is still not even a Biblical way to live one's life despite the potential veracity of all three concepts. Christians have been mandated to take care of the Earth we have been given and to deny that is to mock the very one who has granted us that gift. The modern church must show that it cares about what God has given us or it will damn every chance of having any sort of witness to those outside the church.
Once again, this paper is largely unedited and hasn't been touched since June 4th of last year.
Written in English 410, Summer 2009.
-------------------------------------
The Rapture: How Dubious Exegesis Leads to Shoddy Theology and Bad Living
When Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins released the first book in the Left Behind series back in 1995, they might not have realized the possible impact it would have on Christianity in America or how the presentation and possible interpretation could lead to carelessness concerning creation. Alliteration aside, the Left Behind series as a whole is based on one eschatological, or end-of-the-world related, event. The Rapture. For those of you who have been isolated in a bubble for the past 14 or so years, the Rapture is an event that some Christians believe will happen before, during, or after the time when God's wrath is poured out on the earth as described in the book of Revelation. This wrath is described as seven years of hardship for mankind and is called the Tribulation. The Rapture is when all of the Christians in the world at the time ascend into heaven to live there “forever”. The view that LaHaye and Jenkins espouse is called the Pre-Tribulation Rapture ( Pre-Trib for short) and it supposes that the Christians on earth will ascend into heaven before God's wrath is poured out on the Earth. This view was practically underheard of prior to the 19th century and didn't gain a real following until the late 20th century.
Pre-Trib folks like to exegete (interpret) one verse to support their eschatological ideals. That verse, 1st Thessalonians 4:17, says, “Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (KJV). This interpretation has led many, like LaHaye and Jenkins, to believe in the Pre-Tribulation Rapture even though this verse doesn't say anything specific to support that exegesis. While Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib, Prewrath, and Post-Trib believers all have their own reasons for believing what they believe that is not what I am writing to you about. Biblical Scholarship and firmly-grounded doctrine are certainly important things when it comes to religious belief but rather than using belief in a Pre-Trib rapture to live in a more Godly way, the conservative Christian culture has used this as an excuse to live how they want to live. This is a problem that I do not believe is Biblically supported and affects more than just the believer's theology.
As always, I think it's important to maintain a bird's eye view when having any type of discourse about issues that tend to affect not only our religious views but also political policy and legislation. I believe that this focus on one event has led many Christians to neglect to take care of the earth. According to a poll by Dominion Post, 44% of American Christians believe Jesus Christ will return within the next 50 years. I don't believe there is a thing wrong with that view. But because of books like those of LaHaye and Jenkins and the challenge that the modern church has not put forth concerning Pre-Trib theology, the “imminent return” has led some Christians to unbiblical habits – neglecting ecological care as well as making purchases that are not environmentally friendly. As far as recent political trends are concerned, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that the Republican party and Christians in America have been commonly associated with one another recently. I sympathize with many views of the Republican party, and my faith often informs my political decisions but the two should be mutually exclusive and the decisions of the Republican party should never reflect the views of the church and especially church policy.
When global warming started becoming a bigger hot topic issue and “going green” became the trend for all the hipsters and Starbucks-goers, the Republican party resisted because in their view, global warming was just “part of the earth's climate cycle.” I'm not here to debate whether or not global warming is a real situation, but when this view became the unofficial view of the Republican party, it seemed like it was just a matter of time before the church followed suit. With the church often turning a skeptical eye to global warning and with 2 out of 5 Christians expecting Jesus' imminent return, much of the church began to neglect to take care of the earth in simple ways. I have seen more fellow churchgoers litter than any other group of people and that worries me. Church cookouts being only partially cleaned up, people throwing paper plates on the ground at VBS functions, students throwing coke cans out of car windows. The church often doesn't encourage the importance of taking care of what God has given us. Even if a student doesn't think about how Jesus is coming back soon when littering, maybe WWJD can become a “going green” trend as well. The interconnectedness goes much deeper than even that though.
Throughout his ministry, Jesus encouraged the Jews and Gentiles of the time to act in a way that I believe would be considered “overzealous” by the modern Christian culture in America. When a rich young man came to Jesus and told him he had kept the letter of the law and wanted to know what else he could do, Jesus told him to sell all his possessions and follow Him because Jesus knew the young man was wealthy. American religious climate says the exact opposite. There is an endless supply of proponents of the prosperity gospel here who preach that wealth is God's reward for good faith. Joel Osteen. Kenneth Copeland. Joyce Meyer. These are just a few of the people who say life is just about overcoming obstacles and reaping the reward for trusting in God during troublesome times. But this isn't a Biblical message at all! Jesus told his followers not to store up treasures where moth and rust could consume but to store up treasures in heaven. Is this really what we should be worried about teaching in the churches?
I'm sure you're wondering how in the world these preachers can be tied to Pre-Trib theology and how this focus on prosperity is related to it as well. This is where the message of the church and significance of the prosperity gospel comes into play. The message of the prosperity gospel has negatively impacted the church in three main ways that I believe has been ruinous to the ministry of the church in a postmodern society. I think that the first message that it has sent out is in blatant opposition to scripture and that is its strong emphasis on materialism. In my opinion, there is a difference between someone who enjoys having nice things or getting something nice from time to time and someone who puts all his money into extraneous things. Joyce Meyer has been criticized for owning multiple expensive homes as well as flying to the different places where she is speaking on a private jet. I believe that is extraneous. When faced with the criticism she defended herself and said there is nothing wrong with being blessed.
This leads me to my next point. The prosperity gospel is an unbiblical way of defining faithfulness. When Joyce Meyer says that God has blessed her with multiple homes and a private jet and Kenneth Copeland says that God wants us to be healthy and wealthy, what are they saying about people who aren't as affluent or are in deteriorating health in their 40s or 50s? Are these people the faithless? And what about the missionaries in Africa who only get $10 a month to live on? Are they the faithless, too? This isn't to say at all that God may not bless a family or individual's monetary situation(s), but to say that God wants us to be that way and that if we are faithful it will happen is unbiblical. Ravi Zacharias tells a story of a missionary friend of his who lived among the people of Thailand, ministering. After a while, some Thai Buddhist Monks were upset that Ravi's friend was converting many Buddhists to Christianity and he was shot in the head and killed instantly. Was he faithless because he didn't live a long full life?
What about Paul? Who was stoned and later martyred? Did he not have faith because he didn't get a chance to live out his life. Or Peter and his wife, who were both crucified? Peter was even crucified upside down because he did not believe he should be killed in the same manner as Jesus! It is not a Christian ideal in the LEAST to say that God simply wants us to be faithful and in turn live long healthy lives with a lot of money. There are numerous verses I could quote to support this position, but all I have to point the reader to is how Jesus said not to store up treasures on earth but to store up treasures in heaven again. Within the problem of “faithfulness based on possessions” lies another problem. If a Christian believes that making money means they are living in a Godly way, then to them it would follow that everything they buy with that money is a blessing! So when they see that $70,000 Hummer H1 at the local dealership and purchase it, it's almost like they believe that the hole in the o-zone that they own is a blessing from God!
Here is where all the connections come together and the point of this article can come to its fruition. While the megachurches in America are learning about health and wealth and not learning what Jesus of Nazareth said, the bad theology is spreading like wildfire. The prosperity gospel has put so much emphasis on the positive individual experience of each American Christian, that it has forgotten and/or neglected to teach Biblical theology where the Christian takes good care of the Earth because it is God's earth . The lethal combination of Pre-tribulation Rapture Theology, the imminent return of Jesus, and the Prosperity Gospel is toxic even if some of the ingredients are not harmful by themselves. The Prosperity Gospel leads Christians to believe that everything they get with the money they've made is a blessing from God, even if it harmful to our ecological systems. These people, who often believe in Pre-Tribulation Rapture Theology, often do not mind damaging the earth or inhabitants thereof with their massive SUVS because Jesus will be back within the next 50 years and they will be raptured before God does any damage to the Earth as it is now. The combination of those three things and the way the Christian Right has interpreted them has led massive inaction related to environmental conservationism.
Here's the thing, though, guys. Even if Pre-Tribulation Rapture theology is true and even if the prosperity gospel were biblically based and even if Jesus comes back in the next 50 years, it is still not even a Biblical way to live one's life despite the potential veracity of all three concepts. Christians have been mandated to take care of the Earth we have been given and to deny that is to mock the very one who has granted us that gift. The modern church must show that it cares about what God has given us or it will damn every chance of having any sort of witness to those outside the church.
Home Isn't (Engl 410)
I've decided to post up all of what I wrote for last summer's English 410 class. Much of it is controversial and there are some things which I no longer believe. Nonetheless, these are my writings in their entirety. Given the opportunity, they would be edited for months, but the opportunity doesn't present itself to me.
The first assignment was to write a paper about "Home" whether abstracted or about our actual, physical homes. This was largely experimental for me as I wrote about what Home is NOT to me. Feel free to critique it roundly, but I had a lot of fun with this.
[Sidenote: there was nearly a page of footnotes which I have included at the bottom for the references]
Home Isn't
Home isn't the comfort zone. It isn’t a high salary or the end of monetary woes. It isn’t being able to buy whatever you want. Home isn't the people we surround ourselves with, the clothes we wear, the pets we own, or the security some find in a Ph.D and tenure. It's not our wife; our parents; our job. No matter how glamorous any of these things are or appear to be, we all find ourselves craving more. more. More. MORE. It's as if there is something we are trying to achieve or some sort of standard we think we have to shoot for... but no matter what we do, it is always barely out of reach. Money. Fame. Possessions. Eventually, they all come crashing down. The money runs dry, the fame is temporal, and our things become outdated. They all fall down and the moths and rust [1] seem to come for all of it.
Is Home a house? Is living there for 20, 30, or 40 years what defines home? Does it change? We talk about our “homes” as if they are some permanent place of security where everything is right. We talk about our homes and how we can't wait to get back to them. Is everything in our home good, worthwhile and fair? Divorce often starts in our homes. And so does infidelity. People are even murdered in these secure fortresses. Are we free of pain and suffering in this suburban wasteland? Are we lost without these upscale gaudy tombs? Without them would we really be vagabonds – looking for place to call home? Or would we be lost at all? It's hard to be when there is nowhere to go. No where to look forward too and no where to feel nostalgic for. Surely there are long-lasting benefits to living in a home. Right? We get to live there and lay our heads there and feel safe.
But is that really what I want?
To drain the American economic system, to denounce social Darwinism but proclaim to the world that “These colors don't run!” all the while preparing myself for some life spent not knowing what it even means to follow you or take up my cross at all? To remain in this stifling free-market wonderland and practice this Pharisaic life – this persecution of those away from you, is that really what you want?
Driving downtown, the mountains split like an open invitation to go further – to go farther and leave this all this behind. The clouds are like seeds of some giant dandelion drifting slowly across the sky as the atmosphere burns blue behind them. Father, your handiwork is inescapable and I can't help but imagine... as I cross the Atlantic, aircraft carriers prepare for battle, ships dock, the blood at Normandy [2] silently shouts, “Is this really what we wanted?” while the church choir still rings in my ear - “this world is not my home, I'm just a stranger passing through.” Beneath the mist, I see the Mediterranean and a bit past the shore a car bomb goes off. I leave Gaza [3] behind. In the distance, I see the Jordan [4] – once buried. Near me is Golgotha [5] and closer, a tomb – twice buried. Then, Jerusalem. I see the ruins of Tyre [6] and Babylon [7] in the distance, nets spread out; never touched again. Alexander the Great wonders aloud, “What happened?” Sidon[8] flourishes, but it's people cry from the grave. As I float above it all, with my eyes focused on history and my heart focused on home, I struggle to keep my mind on the road. You left me with just these words, “I go to prepare a place for you... that where I am, there ye may be also.” I wish I could just get there already.
My brakes squeak as I pull into the nearly empty gravel lot and park my car. Sometimes its all just too much. With an exasperated sigh, I grab my things and prop open the door. The car shifts beneath me as I get out of it and prepare for another day waiting patiently for home.
------------------------------------------------------------------
[Footnotes]
1. Reference to Jesus' words in Matthew 6:19, “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break through and steal.”
2. During World War II, one of the major turning points in the war was the Allies' victory at the beaches of Normandy. It was also one of the most bloody battles of the whole war.
3. Palestinian city less than 40 miles southwest of Jerusalem.
4. River in the middle east located between Jordan and the West Bank. Jesus Christ was baptized in the waters of the Jordan by John the Baptist.
5. Hill in Jerusalem where Christ was said to be crucified. Literally, “The place of the skull.”
6. City in present day Lebanon mentioned in Ezekiel 26:19-21 which prophesied the city would be torn down and in Ezekiel 26:4-5, 12-14 that the city would be laid in the waters and fisherman would lay their nets across the top of her rocks. Historically, Nebuchanezzar destroyed the mainland city of Tyre and when Alexander the Great laid siege to it in 332 BC he used the remnants of mainland Tyre to reach the island of Tyre off the coast of Phoenicia. There are still nets laid on the rocks in the new city of Tyre to this day.
7. Ancient city in what is present day Iraq. Babylon was surrounded by gigantic thick walls. Jeremiah the prophet said, “The broad walls of Babylon shall be utterly broken... none shall remain in it, neither man nor beast, but that it shall be desolate for ever.” (Jeremiah 51:58, 62). In the 4th century Julian the Apostate destroyed the remaining walls.
8. In Ezekial 28:21-23, it describes how the city's inhabitants will be destroyed but the city itself will continue on. The city was sacked an incredible amount of times by multiple conquerors but is the third most populated city in Lebanon today.
The first assignment was to write a paper about "Home" whether abstracted or about our actual, physical homes. This was largely experimental for me as I wrote about what Home is NOT to me. Feel free to critique it roundly, but I had a lot of fun with this.
[Sidenote: there was nearly a page of footnotes which I have included at the bottom for the references]
Home Isn't
Home isn't the comfort zone. It isn’t a high salary or the end of monetary woes. It isn’t being able to buy whatever you want. Home isn't the people we surround ourselves with, the clothes we wear, the pets we own, or the security some find in a Ph.D and tenure. It's not our wife; our parents; our job. No matter how glamorous any of these things are or appear to be, we all find ourselves craving more. more. More. MORE. It's as if there is something we are trying to achieve or some sort of standard we think we have to shoot for... but no matter what we do, it is always barely out of reach. Money. Fame. Possessions. Eventually, they all come crashing down. The money runs dry, the fame is temporal, and our things become outdated. They all fall down and the moths and rust [1] seem to come for all of it.
Is Home a house? Is living there for 20, 30, or 40 years what defines home? Does it change? We talk about our “homes” as if they are some permanent place of security where everything is right. We talk about our homes and how we can't wait to get back to them. Is everything in our home good, worthwhile and fair? Divorce often starts in our homes. And so does infidelity. People are even murdered in these secure fortresses. Are we free of pain and suffering in this suburban wasteland? Are we lost without these upscale gaudy tombs? Without them would we really be vagabonds – looking for place to call home? Or would we be lost at all? It's hard to be when there is nowhere to go. No where to look forward too and no where to feel nostalgic for. Surely there are long-lasting benefits to living in a home. Right? We get to live there and lay our heads there and feel safe.
But is that really what I want?
To drain the American economic system, to denounce social Darwinism but proclaim to the world that “These colors don't run!” all the while preparing myself for some life spent not knowing what it even means to follow you or take up my cross at all? To remain in this stifling free-market wonderland and practice this Pharisaic life – this persecution of those away from you, is that really what you want?
Driving downtown, the mountains split like an open invitation to go further – to go farther and leave this all this behind. The clouds are like seeds of some giant dandelion drifting slowly across the sky as the atmosphere burns blue behind them. Father, your handiwork is inescapable and I can't help but imagine... as I cross the Atlantic, aircraft carriers prepare for battle, ships dock, the blood at Normandy [2] silently shouts, “Is this really what we wanted?” while the church choir still rings in my ear - “this world is not my home, I'm just a stranger passing through.” Beneath the mist, I see the Mediterranean and a bit past the shore a car bomb goes off. I leave Gaza [3] behind. In the distance, I see the Jordan [4] – once buried. Near me is Golgotha [5] and closer, a tomb – twice buried. Then, Jerusalem. I see the ruins of Tyre [6] and Babylon [7] in the distance, nets spread out; never touched again. Alexander the Great wonders aloud, “What happened?” Sidon[8] flourishes, but it's people cry from the grave. As I float above it all, with my eyes focused on history and my heart focused on home, I struggle to keep my mind on the road. You left me with just these words, “I go to prepare a place for you... that where I am, there ye may be also.” I wish I could just get there already.
My brakes squeak as I pull into the nearly empty gravel lot and park my car. Sometimes its all just too much. With an exasperated sigh, I grab my things and prop open the door. The car shifts beneath me as I get out of it and prepare for another day waiting patiently for home.
------------------------------------------------------------------
[Footnotes]
1. Reference to Jesus' words in Matthew 6:19, “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break through and steal.”
2. During World War II, one of the major turning points in the war was the Allies' victory at the beaches of Normandy. It was also one of the most bloody battles of the whole war.
3. Palestinian city less than 40 miles southwest of Jerusalem.
4. River in the middle east located between Jordan and the West Bank. Jesus Christ was baptized in the waters of the Jordan by John the Baptist.
5. Hill in Jerusalem where Christ was said to be crucified. Literally, “The place of the skull.”
6. City in present day Lebanon mentioned in Ezekiel 26:19-21 which prophesied the city would be torn down and in Ezekiel 26:4-5, 12-14 that the city would be laid in the waters and fisherman would lay their nets across the top of her rocks. Historically, Nebuchanezzar destroyed the mainland city of Tyre and when Alexander the Great laid siege to it in 332 BC he used the remnants of mainland Tyre to reach the island of Tyre off the coast of Phoenicia. There are still nets laid on the rocks in the new city of Tyre to this day.
7. Ancient city in what is present day Iraq. Babylon was surrounded by gigantic thick walls. Jeremiah the prophet said, “The broad walls of Babylon shall be utterly broken... none shall remain in it, neither man nor beast, but that it shall be desolate for ever.” (Jeremiah 51:58, 62). In the 4th century Julian the Apostate destroyed the remaining walls.
8. In Ezekial 28:21-23, it describes how the city's inhabitants will be destroyed but the city itself will continue on. The city was sacked an incredible amount of times by multiple conquerors but is the third most populated city in Lebanon today.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Global Warming
This past summer, I had the unique opportunity to read a paper on Global Warming which basically dismissed it but which at the same time gave credence to the hype surrounding it simply because it promotes ecologically sound practices. As a Christian, this may raise some problematic ethical questions as far as deception and lying are concerned but at the same time I can certainly relate. I have many friends (good friends at that) who believe that global warming is a hoax that is meant to bring in money. I won't step out on that limb, because I'm no meteorologist, geologist, ecologist, physicist, or hard science buff of any type. What I do feel I may be qualified to talk about is theology and ethics, so I'm going to take that angle - but I believe it is VERY closely relatable to this topic and should be considered by all those on the fence or on whichever side.
Keep in mind, I am no vegeterrorist, no "green-goer," or anything of the sort. My identity is in Christ alone and for his purposes alone do I write any of this - solely to bring glory to HIS name and for the sake of the truth which is found in him.
Also, regardless of your certainty on the truth or falsehood of evolution, young earth creation, old earth creation, or any subsequent doctrine this is wholly-based on simple biblical truths. I am open to debate on the issue and I welcome it.
-------
In Genesis 1, God gave man and man alone dominion over the earth and over the creation. Birds of the air, fish of the sea, everything that creeps on the ground - man has dominion. Note in Genesis 1:30 man is described as vegetarian in nature [prior to the fall] and in Genesis 3:21, man is given clothes of [animal] skin by God out of necessity (the fall had occured, sickness was a reality, etc). As a gift from God, man is to take this dominion - this responsibility - quite seriously. God's gift is not to be squandered, abused, or denied for that matter. A quick reading of Proverbs will assuredly enforce that view.
As humans [and Christians/New Covenant Jews], we still maintain dominion despite the fall - things are just falling apart now. It is clear, then, that we are to take absolutely the best care of the creation that is possible and not be wasteful or stagnate in shifting to more environmentally sound technology. In context of global warming - even IF it is a hoax, even if the earth is "cycling" (which is based on OE doctrines mind you), then we are to do the VERY best we can to take care of that creation, even if it involves serious ecological work as well as personal sacrifice. The Christian life isn't to be shut off, stagnant, or opposed to things that are unquestionably good.
Something tells me that polluting our waterways (indescriminately hurting marine wildlife), emitting harmful carbonic chemicals (birds of the air), and littering and dumping (creeping things) isn't exactly how God intended for us to operate in a post-Industrial Revolution era. Nor is compromising in order to "help make things a little better." We need to be discerning in avoiding that which is self-promoting capitalist trend-garbage and focus on what is true and unfalsiable. To not do everything in our own lives that will allow us take care of the wonderful gift of creation is to not exercise our own authority properly and, I believe, is potentially damaging to the Gospel. As a young moderate-to-conservative idealist, I believe that polarizing legislation on this issue is dangerous. We shouldn't say, "It is either cap and trade or a carbon tax because those would definitely be better than current legislation." No, we should be doing our best to exercise our authority over this world: ceasing compromise, holding on to idealism, and standing immutable in the face of opposition.
-------
More to come.
Keep in mind, I am no vegeterrorist, no "green-goer," or anything of the sort. My identity is in Christ alone and for his purposes alone do I write any of this - solely to bring glory to HIS name and for the sake of the truth which is found in him.
Also, regardless of your certainty on the truth or falsehood of evolution, young earth creation, old earth creation, or any subsequent doctrine this is wholly-based on simple biblical truths. I am open to debate on the issue and I welcome it.
-------
In Genesis 1, God gave man and man alone dominion over the earth and over the creation. Birds of the air, fish of the sea, everything that creeps on the ground - man has dominion. Note in Genesis 1:30 man is described as vegetarian in nature [prior to the fall] and in Genesis 3:21, man is given clothes of [animal] skin by God out of necessity (the fall had occured, sickness was a reality, etc). As a gift from God, man is to take this dominion - this responsibility - quite seriously. God's gift is not to be squandered, abused, or denied for that matter. A quick reading of Proverbs will assuredly enforce that view.
As humans [and Christians/New Covenant Jews], we still maintain dominion despite the fall - things are just falling apart now. It is clear, then, that we are to take absolutely the best care of the creation that is possible and not be wasteful or stagnate in shifting to more environmentally sound technology. In context of global warming - even IF it is a hoax, even if the earth is "cycling" (which is based on OE doctrines mind you), then we are to do the VERY best we can to take care of that creation, even if it involves serious ecological work as well as personal sacrifice. The Christian life isn't to be shut off, stagnant, or opposed to things that are unquestionably good.
Something tells me that polluting our waterways (indescriminately hurting marine wildlife), emitting harmful carbonic chemicals (birds of the air), and littering and dumping (creeping things) isn't exactly how God intended for us to operate in a post-Industrial Revolution era. Nor is compromising in order to "help make things a little better." We need to be discerning in avoiding that which is self-promoting capitalist trend-garbage and focus on what is true and unfalsiable. To not do everything in our own lives that will allow us take care of the wonderful gift of creation is to not exercise our own authority properly and, I believe, is potentially damaging to the Gospel. As a young moderate-to-conservative idealist, I believe that polarizing legislation on this issue is dangerous. We shouldn't say, "It is either cap and trade or a carbon tax because those would definitely be better than current legislation." No, we should be doing our best to exercise our authority over this world: ceasing compromise, holding on to idealism, and standing immutable in the face of opposition.
-------
More to come.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
N.T. Wright's 2007 Christmas Sermon
The Shepherds at Midnight
Titus 3.4–7; Luke 2.8–20
Sermon at the Cathedral Midnight Eucharist
Christmas 2007
by the Bishop of Durham, Dr N. T. Wright
The choir had been practicing for hours, and the singers were tired. But the conductor kept them at it. This was the most amazing music they were ever going to sing, and they were only going to get one chance at it. Had to be right first time. Finally they were there: one last run-through, and it was perfect. But then one of the singers asked a question.
‘How come we only get to sing this once? This is fantastic music: wouldn’t it be better if we could give several performances, in different places to different audiences?’
‘No,’ replied the conductor. ‘This music is for a very special occasion. It’s only to be sung the once – at least by you. Once you’ve done that, the people who’ve heard it will have to learn to sing it for themselves.’
The conductor was God himself. The singers were the angels. The audience were the shepherds, and through them everyone who heard about it. And the special occasion is tonight. The birth of God’s own son.
I’ve been thinking about shepherds quite a lot recently, because (though the newspapers have forgotten about it) the outbreak of foot and mouth in September, caused by a careless leak from a government laboratory at the other end of the country, has meant that the shepherds in the hills and dales not far from here have again been facing dark nights and despair. I spoke this morning with two hill farmers who are trying to help their colleagues come to terms with the fact that they made no money this last year and may make none next year. The hill farmers are fiercely independent people but now rely totally on handouts and charity. They are buying expensive feed for the lambs who should have been sold three months ago, and they aren’t even sure whether to breed new lambs for next spring because the whole cycle has been so badly disrupted.
And it isn’t only the farmers who have faced ruin. Several businesses in the Dales are up for sale, because when the lambs don’t get sold the money isn’t spent in the shops. A whole way of life is at stake, not just for the hill farmers themselves but for the whole countryside. And, despite the best efforts of several of us, the government has done next to nothing. One MP said to me in frustration that it was impossible to find anyone in DEFRA who either knew or cared what was actually going on. And just when there was a build-up of pressure on the government, someone imagined there might be a general election, and everyone chattered merrily in fantasy-land – and by the time the hue and cry had died down the farmers and shepherds were last month’s news.
And I find myself asking, what has the song of the angels, sung to those Bethlehem shepherds on the first Christmas eve, got to say to our own shepherds who wait in the darkness for any glimmer of light? And, standing behind the shepherds as it were, I glimpse also the patients who can’t get proper treatment in our Health Service; the asylum seekers who are honestly trying to make a new life but who get picked up at 4 in the morning and shipped back into a nightmare; and the people in several walks of life who give up sensible causes and projects rather than face the mountains of compliance paperwork whose sole function is to tick the bureaucrats’ boxes so it can’t be their fault, while in the real world outside real people suffer injustice and misery.
You all know what I’m talking about. Whenever this kind of conversation starts up everyone chips in with their own local example. Now I have no quarrel with the serious, hard-working administrators, including no doubt many of you, who do a decent job and keep the wheels turning. But over the last few decades the wheels may have been turning but nobody seems to be steering the car, and it’s now heading down the wrong road at increasing speed. And I come back to the shepherds – both to our own shepherds up the Dales and the shepherds out in the dark hills of Judaea. What did the angels’ song mean to them, and what might it mean for us tonight, listening in? And – what might it sound like if we learned to sing it ourselves?
Before the heavenly choir even begins to sing, the principal angel has something to say to the shepherds. Here is the good news, the news which doesn’t hit the papers because it isn’t gossip-column stuff but real, solid, build-your-life-on-it reality: to you is born this day the Saviour, the one who is Messiah and Lord. And let’s be clear. Either that is the most solid truth in the world or we are wasting our time here tonight and Richard Dawkins is right and we ought to go home and have a drink and forget the whole thing. But if it’s true – if it’s true that the child born at Bethlehem that night was and is the Saviour, the Messiah, the Lord – then that must translate into something far more solid and life-changing and community-rescuing than simply a warm nostalgic inner glow, much though we all rightly enjoy that too.
The Bethlehem shepherds were near the bottom of the social and financial pile. For them, the thought of a new King who would rescue Israel from her misery and establish his reign of justice and peace on the earth, was indeed, as the angel said, good news of great joy. But how was that to work itself out? As we read on in Luke’s gospel, we find that the grown-up Jesus wasn’t the sort of king who rides into town, kills off all his enemies, and establishes a dictatorship where everyone simply gets told what to do. He spoke of his kingdom coming like seeds growing secretly, like a shepherd going to look for the lost sheep, like the vineyard owner letting out the vineyard to tenant farmers and coming back to collect the fruit. The kingdom was indeed coming, but it didn’t look like people thought it would. Yet Luke, in telling this story of the shepherds, clearly believes that it is indeed good news, good news for the world in which emperors think they run the show but in fact God runs it.
And we who worship this Jesus on this holy night – we who listen again to the song which the angels sang once and once only – we who begin to glimpse the reality that in Jesus heaven and earth really did come together – we now have the responsibility to learn to sing the song for ourselves, and so to discover what it might look like in practice for Jesus really to be the Saviour, the King, the Lord in this sad old world. The Christmas message is about the reality of God becoming flesh – part and parcel of our reality, with all the suffering and puzzlement that goes with that. And this God-in-the-flesh is indeed the Lord of the world, defeating his enemies through his death and rising to rule and rescue the whole creation. We cannot stress this too strongly: Jesus is not simply Lord in a distant heaven on the one hand and Lord in our private hearts and lives on the other, leaving the real public world untouched. If he is not Lord of all, he is not Lord at all. For Luke, it is quite clear: the angels meant what they said, but the way to that meaning is through Jesus’ followers picking up the threads of his own public career and living as kingdom-people under his direction, bringing his saving rule to bear in acts of love and mercy, in working for justice and truth whether it’s for the shepherds up the Dales or the asylum-seekers desperate for help or the entire planet as human greed and carelessness make it a place of danger and pollution instead of joy and beauty.
The key to it all is found in that angelic song: Glory to God in heaven, and peace among his people on earth. And these are not two different things. The whole point of Christmas is that in Jesus, born in Bethlehem, heaven and earth have come together, so that giving glory to God in the highest heaven is directly, one might almost say umbilically, linked to working for peace and justice at his behest here on earth. And it’s time to start all over again, as Christmas people, to think what it might look like if this Jesus really is the Lord of the world, and if we who worship him are to work for his kingdom here and now, among the shepherds and the mining communities and the immigrants and all those on the edge of hopelessness.
Let’s put it bluntly: we can’t assume that our present institutions are working properly and just need more time and better computers. Many have pointed out that our much-prized western democracy isn’t working properly any more, and there are no signs that our present politicians are interested in making it do so. We need fresh vision, fresh leadership, fresh wisdom which will slice through the tired old systems of this world and bring rescue, salvation with skin on it, to those who badly need it. We need to listen hard to the angels’ song and learn how to sing it ourselves:
Yet with the woes of sin and strife the world has suffered long;
Beneath the angel-strain have rolled two thousand years of wrong;
And man, at war with man, hears not the love-song which they bring:
O hush the noise, ye men of strife –
(and ye men of self-interest, of inept bureaucracy, of the insolence of office, hiding behind filing cabinets while people despair at your incompetence – hush the noise of your own self-importance)
and hear the angels sing.
Yes, and hear the shepherds weep as well.
But what will make the cacophany of human folly fall silent quicker than anything else is the strong, steady sound of those who love Jesus and celebrate his birthday singing his praises as Saviour, Messiah and Lord, and letting that praise inform and transform our public as well as our private lives. That is what Christmas is all about.
Earlier this evening, a two-year old, getting to know the Christmas story, asked his Mummy if Jesus would be actually there when we celebrate his birthday tomorrow. He’s heard a lot about this Jesus, and he’s been to other birthday parties; will he meet Jesus himself tomorrow? That little boy’s parents, and indeed his grandparents, have some interesting explaining to do around the dinner table. But the answer cannot be that Jesus isn’t actually here, that he is simply absent. The answer must be – Luke’s answer must be, the angels’ answer must be, our answer must be – that you will see him at work, when those who praise him and celebrate his birth go off to make his praise echo around the homeless shelters and the prisons, the asylum camps and the hospitals, the government departments and local councils, the homes where tragedy has struck and the hearts that are broken with grief, yes, and even the dark hills where the shepherds wait to see if the angels might just sing again. And if you add Matthew’s gospel as well, we find a further haunting truth: that if you want to see Jesus, learn to look for him in the faces of those in need, those in tears, those in hospital, those in prison.
Let us praise this Jesus tonight from a full and glad heart; let us celebrate his birth with everything we’ve got; and then let’s go and bring God glory in heaven by bringing peace and justice to his people on earth. The angels sang their song. They did a good job. It’s time we learned to sing it back to them.
Titus 3.4–7; Luke 2.8–20
Sermon at the Cathedral Midnight Eucharist
Christmas 2007
by the Bishop of Durham, Dr N. T. Wright
The choir had been practicing for hours, and the singers were tired. But the conductor kept them at it. This was the most amazing music they were ever going to sing, and they were only going to get one chance at it. Had to be right first time. Finally they were there: one last run-through, and it was perfect. But then one of the singers asked a question.
‘How come we only get to sing this once? This is fantastic music: wouldn’t it be better if we could give several performances, in different places to different audiences?’
‘No,’ replied the conductor. ‘This music is for a very special occasion. It’s only to be sung the once – at least by you. Once you’ve done that, the people who’ve heard it will have to learn to sing it for themselves.’
The conductor was God himself. The singers were the angels. The audience were the shepherds, and through them everyone who heard about it. And the special occasion is tonight. The birth of God’s own son.
I’ve been thinking about shepherds quite a lot recently, because (though the newspapers have forgotten about it) the outbreak of foot and mouth in September, caused by a careless leak from a government laboratory at the other end of the country, has meant that the shepherds in the hills and dales not far from here have again been facing dark nights and despair. I spoke this morning with two hill farmers who are trying to help their colleagues come to terms with the fact that they made no money this last year and may make none next year. The hill farmers are fiercely independent people but now rely totally on handouts and charity. They are buying expensive feed for the lambs who should have been sold three months ago, and they aren’t even sure whether to breed new lambs for next spring because the whole cycle has been so badly disrupted.
And it isn’t only the farmers who have faced ruin. Several businesses in the Dales are up for sale, because when the lambs don’t get sold the money isn’t spent in the shops. A whole way of life is at stake, not just for the hill farmers themselves but for the whole countryside. And, despite the best efforts of several of us, the government has done next to nothing. One MP said to me in frustration that it was impossible to find anyone in DEFRA who either knew or cared what was actually going on. And just when there was a build-up of pressure on the government, someone imagined there might be a general election, and everyone chattered merrily in fantasy-land – and by the time the hue and cry had died down the farmers and shepherds were last month’s news.
And I find myself asking, what has the song of the angels, sung to those Bethlehem shepherds on the first Christmas eve, got to say to our own shepherds who wait in the darkness for any glimmer of light? And, standing behind the shepherds as it were, I glimpse also the patients who can’t get proper treatment in our Health Service; the asylum seekers who are honestly trying to make a new life but who get picked up at 4 in the morning and shipped back into a nightmare; and the people in several walks of life who give up sensible causes and projects rather than face the mountains of compliance paperwork whose sole function is to tick the bureaucrats’ boxes so it can’t be their fault, while in the real world outside real people suffer injustice and misery.
You all know what I’m talking about. Whenever this kind of conversation starts up everyone chips in with their own local example. Now I have no quarrel with the serious, hard-working administrators, including no doubt many of you, who do a decent job and keep the wheels turning. But over the last few decades the wheels may have been turning but nobody seems to be steering the car, and it’s now heading down the wrong road at increasing speed. And I come back to the shepherds – both to our own shepherds up the Dales and the shepherds out in the dark hills of Judaea. What did the angels’ song mean to them, and what might it mean for us tonight, listening in? And – what might it sound like if we learned to sing it ourselves?
Before the heavenly choir even begins to sing, the principal angel has something to say to the shepherds. Here is the good news, the news which doesn’t hit the papers because it isn’t gossip-column stuff but real, solid, build-your-life-on-it reality: to you is born this day the Saviour, the one who is Messiah and Lord. And let’s be clear. Either that is the most solid truth in the world or we are wasting our time here tonight and Richard Dawkins is right and we ought to go home and have a drink and forget the whole thing. But if it’s true – if it’s true that the child born at Bethlehem that night was and is the Saviour, the Messiah, the Lord – then that must translate into something far more solid and life-changing and community-rescuing than simply a warm nostalgic inner glow, much though we all rightly enjoy that too.
The Bethlehem shepherds were near the bottom of the social and financial pile. For them, the thought of a new King who would rescue Israel from her misery and establish his reign of justice and peace on the earth, was indeed, as the angel said, good news of great joy. But how was that to work itself out? As we read on in Luke’s gospel, we find that the grown-up Jesus wasn’t the sort of king who rides into town, kills off all his enemies, and establishes a dictatorship where everyone simply gets told what to do. He spoke of his kingdom coming like seeds growing secretly, like a shepherd going to look for the lost sheep, like the vineyard owner letting out the vineyard to tenant farmers and coming back to collect the fruit. The kingdom was indeed coming, but it didn’t look like people thought it would. Yet Luke, in telling this story of the shepherds, clearly believes that it is indeed good news, good news for the world in which emperors think they run the show but in fact God runs it.
And we who worship this Jesus on this holy night – we who listen again to the song which the angels sang once and once only – we who begin to glimpse the reality that in Jesus heaven and earth really did come together – we now have the responsibility to learn to sing the song for ourselves, and so to discover what it might look like in practice for Jesus really to be the Saviour, the King, the Lord in this sad old world. The Christmas message is about the reality of God becoming flesh – part and parcel of our reality, with all the suffering and puzzlement that goes with that. And this God-in-the-flesh is indeed the Lord of the world, defeating his enemies through his death and rising to rule and rescue the whole creation. We cannot stress this too strongly: Jesus is not simply Lord in a distant heaven on the one hand and Lord in our private hearts and lives on the other, leaving the real public world untouched. If he is not Lord of all, he is not Lord at all. For Luke, it is quite clear: the angels meant what they said, but the way to that meaning is through Jesus’ followers picking up the threads of his own public career and living as kingdom-people under his direction, bringing his saving rule to bear in acts of love and mercy, in working for justice and truth whether it’s for the shepherds up the Dales or the asylum-seekers desperate for help or the entire planet as human greed and carelessness make it a place of danger and pollution instead of joy and beauty.
The key to it all is found in that angelic song: Glory to God in heaven, and peace among his people on earth. And these are not two different things. The whole point of Christmas is that in Jesus, born in Bethlehem, heaven and earth have come together, so that giving glory to God in the highest heaven is directly, one might almost say umbilically, linked to working for peace and justice at his behest here on earth. And it’s time to start all over again, as Christmas people, to think what it might look like if this Jesus really is the Lord of the world, and if we who worship him are to work for his kingdom here and now, among the shepherds and the mining communities and the immigrants and all those on the edge of hopelessness.
Let’s put it bluntly: we can’t assume that our present institutions are working properly and just need more time and better computers. Many have pointed out that our much-prized western democracy isn’t working properly any more, and there are no signs that our present politicians are interested in making it do so. We need fresh vision, fresh leadership, fresh wisdom which will slice through the tired old systems of this world and bring rescue, salvation with skin on it, to those who badly need it. We need to listen hard to the angels’ song and learn how to sing it ourselves:
Yet with the woes of sin and strife the world has suffered long;
Beneath the angel-strain have rolled two thousand years of wrong;
And man, at war with man, hears not the love-song which they bring:
O hush the noise, ye men of strife –
(and ye men of self-interest, of inept bureaucracy, of the insolence of office, hiding behind filing cabinets while people despair at your incompetence – hush the noise of your own self-importance)
and hear the angels sing.
Yes, and hear the shepherds weep as well.
But what will make the cacophany of human folly fall silent quicker than anything else is the strong, steady sound of those who love Jesus and celebrate his birthday singing his praises as Saviour, Messiah and Lord, and letting that praise inform and transform our public as well as our private lives. That is what Christmas is all about.
Earlier this evening, a two-year old, getting to know the Christmas story, asked his Mummy if Jesus would be actually there when we celebrate his birthday tomorrow. He’s heard a lot about this Jesus, and he’s been to other birthday parties; will he meet Jesus himself tomorrow? That little boy’s parents, and indeed his grandparents, have some interesting explaining to do around the dinner table. But the answer cannot be that Jesus isn’t actually here, that he is simply absent. The answer must be – Luke’s answer must be, the angels’ answer must be, our answer must be – that you will see him at work, when those who praise him and celebrate his birth go off to make his praise echo around the homeless shelters and the prisons, the asylum camps and the hospitals, the government departments and local councils, the homes where tragedy has struck and the hearts that are broken with grief, yes, and even the dark hills where the shepherds wait to see if the angels might just sing again. And if you add Matthew’s gospel as well, we find a further haunting truth: that if you want to see Jesus, learn to look for him in the faces of those in need, those in tears, those in hospital, those in prison.
Let us praise this Jesus tonight from a full and glad heart; let us celebrate his birth with everything we’ve got; and then let’s go and bring God glory in heaven by bringing peace and justice to his people on earth. The angels sang their song. They did a good job. It’s time we learned to sing it back to them.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Douglas Adams Quote Concerning His Atheism
Lately I've been reading The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams. I'm reading it over Christmas break because I've been meaning to read it for several years (since 2006 actually) and thought I'd finally get around to it 3 1/2 years later. Anyway, Douglas Adams is an atheist. Though a humorous one, it definitely shows in his writing.
Well, today I was doing some reading on evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and found out that he and Adams had been good friends prior to Adams death in 2001 and Dawkins used some quotes by Adams to try to express his sentiments about religion. The one I came upon reads as the following:
"Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
It's an interesting, humorous quote but its one that just irritates me, and I have to go to something I heard Don Miller say in order to express my irritation.
"If you and I were to get up for sunrise tomorrow and you were to say, "My goodness,the sunrise is beautiful," and I were to say, "Prove it. Its just dirt and light and water."
...So if I had a pile of camel dung, we would all go, "Well that's not beautiful" and then we'd look at the sunrise and we'd go, "Well that is beautiful."
"Well what's the difference? It's dirt and light and water. That's all. But nobody stands around camel dung and says, 'Look at the way the light shines off it' - you don't do that. There are certain things that are mysterious and they exist in the realm of the poetic."
That's why the quote irritates me. To these scientists and atheists, there is nothing more to these two scenes other than a combination of elements and the picturesque nature of one scene is more pleasing and causes certain chemical reactions in the brain that the other doesn't. Yet Dawkins and Adams feel they're capable of saying something IS beautiful. "IS" is a definitive word - it is absolute and beauty is a metaphysical term, something I don't think Dawkins has any right to try to acknowledge.
Moreover, I find it irritating that Dawkins tries to take any sort of moral stance against anything (see: Religion as Child Abuse on Dawkins' page). It's completely and totally inconsistent of him. In an atheist's world, morality cannot exist. I've said it before: altruism and morality are simply byproducts of chemical reactions in the brain - that's all that there CAN be in a determinist's worldview. To go against that "morality" is to redefine morality subjectively, because morality is simply reactive. One simply does or doesn't do what one can or cannot do, yet Dawkins is trying to take a stand against the church and religious parenting on moral grounds? Good job, Richard - we really should just have these parents killed, don't you think? Strengthen the gene pool?
As an English major, its amazing to me to note the inconsistencies in rhetoric that public figures CONSTANTLY fall victim to. I just cannot understand how the public falls victim to such propaganda time and time again without noticing the inconsistencies on both conservative and liberal sides. Good job, world.
Well, today I was doing some reading on evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and found out that he and Adams had been good friends prior to Adams death in 2001 and Dawkins used some quotes by Adams to try to express his sentiments about religion. The one I came upon reads as the following:
"Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
It's an interesting, humorous quote but its one that just irritates me, and I have to go to something I heard Don Miller say in order to express my irritation.
"If you and I were to get up for sunrise tomorrow and you were to say, "My goodness,the sunrise is beautiful," and I were to say, "Prove it. Its just dirt and light and water."
...So if I had a pile of camel dung, we would all go, "Well that's not beautiful" and then we'd look at the sunrise and we'd go, "Well that is beautiful."
"Well what's the difference? It's dirt and light and water. That's all. But nobody stands around camel dung and says, 'Look at the way the light shines off it' - you don't do that. There are certain things that are mysterious and they exist in the realm of the poetic."
That's why the quote irritates me. To these scientists and atheists, there is nothing more to these two scenes other than a combination of elements and the picturesque nature of one scene is more pleasing and causes certain chemical reactions in the brain that the other doesn't. Yet Dawkins and Adams feel they're capable of saying something IS beautiful. "IS" is a definitive word - it is absolute and beauty is a metaphysical term, something I don't think Dawkins has any right to try to acknowledge.
Moreover, I find it irritating that Dawkins tries to take any sort of moral stance against anything (see: Religion as Child Abuse on Dawkins' page). It's completely and totally inconsistent of him. In an atheist's world, morality cannot exist. I've said it before: altruism and morality are simply byproducts of chemical reactions in the brain - that's all that there CAN be in a determinist's worldview. To go against that "morality" is to redefine morality subjectively, because morality is simply reactive. One simply does or doesn't do what one can or cannot do, yet Dawkins is trying to take a stand against the church and religious parenting on moral grounds? Good job, Richard - we really should just have these parents killed, don't you think? Strengthen the gene pool?
As an English major, its amazing to me to note the inconsistencies in rhetoric that public figures CONSTANTLY fall victim to. I just cannot understand how the public falls victim to such propaganda time and time again without noticing the inconsistencies on both conservative and liberal sides. Good job, world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
