No Chains on Me…

This book continues to be a huge challenge to me. This is a chapter I read when I was first reviewing the book, and it has been a huge challenge to re-read it more closely, more in evaluation of my own life. A short quote for now:

“Lukewarm people do not live by faith; their lives are structured so they never have to. They don’t have to trust God if something unexpected happens–they have their savings account. They don’t need God to help them–they have their retirement plan in place. They don’t need genuinely seek put what life God would have them live–the have life figured and mapped out. They don’t depend on God on a daily basis–their refrigerators are full and, for the most part, they are in good health. The truth is, their lives wouldn’t look much different if they suddenly stopped believing in God.” Francis Chan, from the chapter entitled Profile of the Lukewarm

Wow… What would it look like to live the opposite of that??

‘It is not scientific doubt, not atheism, not pantheism, not agnosticism, that in our day and in this land is likely to quench the light of the gospel. It is a proud, sensuous, selfish, luxurious, church-going, hollow-hearted prosperity.’ – Fredrick Huntington

Application = another quote:

‘He is no fool, who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose.’ – Jim Elliot

‘What does it profit a man, if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul?’ – Jesus

We have a heck of a lot of blessings, people. Jesus told us that of those who have been given much, there will be much required. I fit right in, in the list: “proud, sensuous, selfish, luxurious, church-going, hollow-hearted” crowd. But though I am a “Christian atheist” (see earlier post), as one who does not live out all that Christianity should be, I urge you as I urge me to live to a higher, more noble, yet less comfortable way of life. I have such a long way to go…. The biggest question mark hanging over me is what will I do with this life? As my pastor, Jimmy Mann is fond of saying after C.S. Lewis: God is not interested in seeing my sea-shell collection at the end of my life, the physical or mental items I have collected over the course of my time in exile. Rather, I think he will look at what I have done to further his kingdom, how I have sought to live with his bride here, and how I have treated his manifestation in other people. “For what you did [or did not do] to the least of these, you did [or did not do] unto me.”

God help me, the foremost of sinners, saved by Jesus, for the glory of God.

relativism of law - by joão ramos

In amongst the non-postmodern circles, there is a favorite argument seemingly hailed as the ultimate argument against postmodern thinking. It is though it is the irrefutable line of reasoning that can always be pulled out to force “the opposition” to reckon with their own pointless logic. It is also only two words long:

Prove it.

What makes me laugh, almost every time I see this argument pop up, is the fact that postmodernists don’t like to reason from “proof.” To do so would go against the very thing postmodernism is speaking about. And so seemingly, at the very basis of the argument between the two parties, there is no grounds for communication or healthy dialog. This kinda hurts any further debate…

–

I must pause here to say, it is soooo good to be eating real fruit again. Cedarville’s cafeteria is nice and all, but their fruit is usually pretty abysmal. I just bit into an actually ripe pear for once. One of the benefits of summer! Thank God for the goodness of fruit. Okay, sorry.

–

The very idea of trying to prove something, especially in the philosophical or even theological world, seems a bit out of reach to me. Philosophically, how do you “prove” something as the modern or postmodern view of truth? How do you demonstrate absoluteness? You can certainly argue for or against it, but logic doesn’t seem to prove or disprove something, it only makes a case for it, an attempt to convince as it were. Plus, in my mind, logical arguments can usually be made about any side of any subject (lawyers are still in business, after all), and the arguer is going to be arguing, hopefully in a logical fashion, to prove his own side. Kallenburg puts it well (a quote I’ve used before:

“The phrase ‘compelled by logic’ has no more teeth than to say that, in point of fact, we happen to accept certain conclusions; it is to say that our social framework requires of us these constraints as the conditions for continued participation in the language-game.”

To delve into the spiritual, how do you prove the existence of God? The existence of heaven? The idea that Christ’s death actually saves us from sin? Can you do that? You can argue from Scripture, but how do you prove that it is breathed by God? In my mind you can’t. I’m not saying I don’t believe in all of those things, I’m just saying I have no way of “proving” any of them. All of these things seem to be claims made, not proofs to be had. I think thats why faith becomes a huge topic throughout the Bible. Any of these claims must be taken in faith. Its even hard for me to say that how I believe I see God acting in the world around me and in my life as proof of the truth of what I believe. The reason I say this, is there are plenty of ways to dismiss God’s workings in the world in as many ways as there are human beings. The religious diversity around us is testament to that. And so again, faith seems to be a huge part of how we continue in our faith. What’s fun is when you get arguments like: “So are things like gravity relative too then? Step off a cliff saying you don’t believe in gravity, and have fun falling and believing it to your death.” So nice…

In case you were wondering, in my mind, yes, science itself is subject to this relative point-of-view. Gravity can be defined however you like it. Try it, its kinda fun. The trick is, in order for you to make sense to the people around you, it must fit how they speak of gravity (going back to our favorite language-games discussion). And you’ll need someway to account for falling down whenever you trip (or walk off a cliff!), wither you call it gravity or no. We’ve had some of this discussion before. If you want more of my take on science… call our 800 number for comments and questions Monday-Friday 8am-5pm and a representative will be waiting to take your questions Couldn’t resist! No, just ask in the comments and perhaps another post will magically appear! Its too far afield to continue with now.

Back side.

Now along the same track, postmoderns are often criticized for having no truth. This would appear a shallow understanding of what postmodern philosophy speaks of when it talks about truth. I suppose what it really comes down to is how you choose to speak of truth. If you define truth as requiring the property of being absolute (which you’re then going to need some way of demonstrating), then yes, postmodernists have no truth… in that sense. But if you’re willing to let your desire for absolutes go (hard as that can be for some), you’ll find a far more freeing and friendlier point of view. Because I, as a more postmodern person, see truth as being relative to who we are and how we define it as we encounter life, there is a freedom, odd as it may sound, in realizing that perhaps, I don’t have to have my philosophical/theological ducks in a row according to some absolute, singular standard, as it were. Perhaps there is a wider web of beliefs, as Quine (and later Davidson) described it, within which we are called to wrestle (a thought I have used before, coming from N.T. Wright). A misunderstanding of this idea leads many to think that I’m saying “Oh, Buddhists, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses are all Christians too.” Though there is a far deeper discussion to be had there, I am not saying that. To fall within the “Christian category” as it were, there are tenants that seem to come along with the “title,” if that’s not putting it too flatly. The problem is for me (although, not really), what are those tenants and who defines them authoritatively? Scripture? Okay, but who choses which interpretation, among potentially limitless interpretations, is the right one? I really am sorry for going back here again, but Reformed people like to think they’ve got it all wrapped up. But not to stop there, Catholics have done much the same.

Side Step: This is an interesting turn I’ve taken of late: From what I’ve seen in looking at both Reformed and, I guess I’ll call it “non-Reformation” camps (I guess namely Roman Catholicism), BOTH sides now are pointing to a fairly deep traditional bases (different traditions to be sure), though certainly, the Roman Catholic people, especially, can take that contest by a huge margin (which is another interesting discussion). I find it ironic that reformed people are now leaning so heavily on theology which has been developed for a few hundred years, while screaming they are sola scriptura (“the Scriptures alone”). Okay, maybe it was developed through study of the Bible… but I think… just maybe… Catholic tradition came about much the same way? Is it possible they are concerned about the Scriptures as well? Not that I think its a bad thing to have or embrace tradition on either side. But don’t claim you’re free of traditions when its just a separate set of them (*ehemreformersehem*)… ’scuse me…

Two quotes to leave you with, one speaking to relativism, the other to the openness needed towards a wider variety interpretations of the Bible (interpretations which I think don’t have to all agree and can still be valid):

First one (relativism) was brought to my attention by a friend of mine. Its from the book Hail, Holy Queen by Scott Hahn.

“The ultimate truth about God cannot be dependent on anything other than God. We cannot define God in terms of something contingent, as in analogies with creation. God does not depend upon creation for His identity. So even His title of creator is something relative and not absolute. Though he is eternal and He is the creator, He is not the eternal creator. Creation is something that takes place in time, and God transcends time. So, though creation is something God does, it does not define Who He is. The same goes for redemption and sanctification. Though God is redeemer and sanctifier, these titles do not define His eternal identity, but rather certain of His works. The terms “creator,” “redeemer,” “lawgiver,” and “sanctifier” are all dependent upon the world – upon something that needs to be created, redeemed, ruled and sanctified…”

Very interesting take on who God is. Its hard to wrap my mind around some of that, but I think it is a more correct view of how we should view God.

The second is from a favorite author, whom I’ve mentioned and quoted oft in the past: N.T. Wright. This is from a speech entitled New Perspectives on Paul. Its long, but good (read the whole article if you can. Excellent view of how we should look at much of Scripture).

“What has happened, then? Like America looking for a new scapegoat after the collapse of the Cold War, and seizing on the Islamic world as the obvious target, many conservative writers, having discovered themselves in possession of the Pauline field after the liberals got tired of it, have looked around for new enemies. Here is something called the New Perspective; it seems to be denying some of the things we have normally taught; very well, let us demonize it, lump its proponents together, and nuke them from a great height. That has not made a pretty sight. Speaking as one of those who is regularly thus carpet-bombed, what I find frustrating is the refusal of the traditionalists to do three things: first, to differentiate the quite separate types of New Perspective; second, to engage in the actual exegetical debates upon which the whole thing turns, instead of simply repeating a Lutheran or similar line as though that settled matters; and third, to recognise that some of us at least are brothers in Christ who have come to the positions we hold not because of some liberal, modernist or relativist agenda but as a result of prayerful and humble study of the text which is and remains our sole authority. Of course, prayer and humility before the text do not guarantee exegetical success. We all remain deeply flawed at all levels. But that is precisely my point. If I am simul iustus et peccator, the church, not least the church as the scripture-reading community, must be ecclesia catholica semper reformanda. Like Calvin, we must claim the right to stand critically within a tradition. To deny either of these would be to take a large step towards precisely the kind of triumphalism against which the Reformers themselves would severely warn us. But if we are siblings in Christ there are, I think, appropriate ways of addressing one another and of speaking about one another, and I regret that these have not always characterized the debate.”

Lastly, how was all of what I just said, not me trying to make up absolutes for all of you to follow? Hey, these are just the things I’m taking as my own. I think they’re pretty cool and think you could benefit from some of them too! Are they the “right, absolute” view? Who am I to say? You can take ‘em or leave ‘em. I don’t think you’re sinning by not believing like I do. God only knows what is truth. Its up to him to figure that one out, and I’m quite happy to leave that one there. My prayer and hope is that I am merely thinking God’s thoughts long after him in a way that is also pleasing to him.

Shalom. Peace to you.

[ It's just a fine line between Life & Death ] - by Yousif [ J ]

“Intellectually we all know that we will die, but we do not really know it in the sense that the knowledge becomes a part of us. We do not really know it in the sense of living as though it were true. On the contrary, we tend to live as though our lives would go on forever.”

–Frederick Buechner.

Some interesting things coming out of Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed blog. I’ve really enjoyed his thread “Reforming” which is a string of points on the book Reformed Always Reforming (see book list on right). This is a quote from McNight’s blog:

“knowledge may be relative even if truth is not” (127). “This is not relativism but recognition of the relativity of perspective inherent in all human thinking.” “Truth may be objective, but knowledge never is.” [...]

[...] Rodney Clapp, too: “evangelicals need to acknowledge that all their truth claims are contestable and that their confidence lies in the power of the Spirit and in faith rather than in some neutral and objective rationality divorced from the Christian perspective” (133).

The alternative?

1. Proper confidence instead of foundationalism.
2. Perspectival nature of all human knowledge.
3. Critical realism.

True truth is out there; but our knowledge and claims are value-shaped.

[From Jesus Creed]

I think this idea is what I’m getting at, especially in the realm of truth and whether or not we can be confident in what we believe, especially in the quote from Rodney Clapp. Hopefully that opens up some thoughts towards why postmodernism is not an abdication of certainty of conviction. There’s certainly a lot more there, but I’m going to save my thoughts for later. I’m really hoping to read Reformed soon, it sounds like a pretty solid book.

I was digging through some old notebooks of mine looking for something, and I ran across some songs I wrote a year ago this summer. I had forgotten they were in this notebook! I don’t even remember how most of these songs went, but I do remember the situations they came out of. So I figured even though they aren’t very good, they might be nice to share. They have no real titles, but I made some up for this post. I can’t sing any of them for anyone, ’cause I don’t even remember how I put them to music anymore, but maybe you’ll enjoy some of my modern day psalms.

Alone
Here I am once again, in a place I know too well
So lonely I can’t think straight, how to get out, I can’t tell.

So I sit here in my misery, wanting someone but so alone
I cry for help with no reply, I feel so far from home.

But you hear me, you say ‘Child I am with you
‘And though you feel abandoned, still I will be true
‘And though you feel lonely, know that you are not alone.’
So though my heart is weary, I will trust in You alone.

So though of thus world I’m weary, I will press on to the end
And even if I do get lonely, I know who is my eternal Friend.
—-

Good to Me
I rode this cloud for a thousand miles, a thousand more than I should
And when You brought it down from under me, I thought ‘What a waste of something good.”

So even though it hurts to come back down, I know one day I’ll see
That even through these tears I cry, still through them I can sing:
-
You are good to me, yes You are good to me,
Jesus more than I can see, You are good to me.
-
Even so my heart is heavy, and the road is still long,
Yet You’ve promised you’ll never leave me, and to help me sing this song:
—-

A Thousand Miles Looking
I walked a thousand miles down this road of mine to find what I was looking for
Was not so far away, in fact you just might say that it was knocking at my door.

I guess I couldn’t see that You were all I needed until You were all I had
I didn’t think it’d take this long to find where my heart belonged.
I guess I missed the fact that:

You are what I was looking for.
You are all I needed, nothing more.
You filled the place inside my heart and made me whole.
—-

Where
I cried out I needed help from You
I got lost, didn’t know what to do.
I was in so deep, I knew there was no rescue.

The you came to me, said, “Son why are you here?
“I made you a way to where there are no tears.
“Just lean on Me and I will carry you.”

Then You picked me up with a strength I’d never known,
Carried me back the the place I’d run from.
Set me right down and said, “My son, welcome home!

“This is what I made you for.
This is why I died to set you free.
“You don’t need to run anymore.
“All of your fears lie here at My feet.”
—-

An Unfinished Song
I got lost along so many roads, I didn’t know where I was supposed to go,
And when I hit the end and couldn’t go on, You stood right next to me as you had all along.
And you didn’t say much but you set me straight,
Then the music, it started to play…
-
And I danced a dance because you rescued me from me.
And I dance for no other reason then you are so simply amazing.
Why you love me, I cannot say
‘Cause time and time again I’ve run so far away.
And even though you knew it’d be this way,
You came and died for me.

An awesome song about God that I stumbled across at work today on my usual meander through songs of all kinds. I got to listening to the Jars of Clay album “Redemption Songs” and this one jumped out at me for some reason. For one, not only does it sound amazing, but the words mirror what God is trying to teach me right now. And I’ll let the song do the rest of the talking…

Thou Lovely Source of True Delight

Thou lovely source of true delight
Whom I unseen adore
Unveil Thy beauties to my sight
That I might love Thee more,
Oh that I might love Thee more.

Thy glory o’er creation shines
But in Thy sacred Word
I read in fairer, brighter lines
My bleeding, dying Lord,
See my bleeding, dying Lord

’Tis here, whene’er my comforts droop
And sin and sorrow rise
Thy love with cheering beams of hope
My fainting heart supplies,
My fainting heart’s supplied

But ah! Too soon the pleasing scene
Is clouded o’er with pain
My gloomy fears rise dark between
And I again complain,
Oh and I again complain

Jesus, my Lord, my life, my light
Oh come with blissful ray
Break radiant through the shades of night
And chase my fears away,
Won’t You chase my fears away

Then shall my soul with rapture trace
The wonders of Thy love
But the full glories of Thy face
Are only known above,
They are only known above

“Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: ‘For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.’ NO, in all these things we are considered more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God, that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Some random thoughts too:

Right now I feel like I have too much on my mind to focus on anything, too much to do to not at least try to get stuff done, and I’m frustrated with some stuff right now, mainly myself. I need to give up what I want right now, all my desires and dreams, my resources, to God, so that he can have his perfect way and will in me. Its so hard. Yet tonight I am reminded that no matter what happens, I am loved by the true and faithful Lover of my soul. Thanks, God. I love you more each day.

Some additional thoughts from my reading in Steve Brown’s book What Was I Thinking? (Copyright 2006 by Steve Brown, Howard Books Publishing)

“One of the great dangers for Christians and for the world is that we are far too religious. We go to religious movies, we read religious books, we assoiciate with religious people, we eat religious cookies, and we wear religious underwear that is far too tight. Our problem is that we spend too much time in the church and far too little time in ‘in the world.’ Jesus said that we are like leaven, and that’s true. As someone has said, though, we have become a ‘lump of leaven’ and lumps of leaven are no good to anybody.” (pg. 51)

Also,

“Contrary to a lot of Christian drivel, just because you like something doesn’t mean it’s sin. And if you don’t like something, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good for you. In fact, it could be that the opposite is true. The Holy Spirit is doing great things in the world, yet we are in great danger of missing it–and him. We’re also in danger of walkin gaway from the world’s culture at the very point at which, if we speak with authenticity and humility, our message just might be heard.” (pg. 59)

Quote of the day:

“You’re pathetic, you know that don’t you?” -Brad Anderson, my roommate…