Worth Doing

I had a rather rare night at work where I was reminded of something that I think I often neglect. Namely my position as a working man, and what my attitude should be regarding it. In the sixth chapter of The Incomparable Christ, J. Oswald Sanders says:

"It is a challenging thought, and one that should be closely observed by those who are preparing for a life of service for God, that our divine Lord spent six times as long working at the carpenter's bench as he did in his world-shaping ministry. He did not shrink the hidden years of preparation."

From Jesus' example, he goes on to draw a few conclusions. First, it showed that Jesus identified with common, working class people, a fact that would continue to play out in preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. Christ also worked hard as an example of how we should labor for the Father's glory. He drew on his experience from his earthly occupation in his ministry. His mentioning of the "easy yoke" was a possible reflection on this. Finally, he used this time of earthly training to build up stamina for his later ministry. From we have recorded in the gospels, he traveled at least 2500 miles on foot over three years, not counting the mental and spiritual strain. His long hours as a carpenter prepared him for what came next.

As far as my own work goes, last night I was reminded that I have an opportunity to minister to people in subtle ways. There was a lady and her husband who live in the independent units on the campus of the assisted living facility I work for. She is very weak after battling cancer for many years and he is too frail to help her up. I got to bring comfort by helping her to bed twice in one night. She cried each time, and hugged me close while her husband just smiled and said "She just wants a little loving, you know?" Now, my job isn't rocket science. It's not overly hard (other than being away from my wife two/three nights a week), but it does get rather monotonous. It more of a mental battle to stay away and diligent. Sometimes it's easy to forget Colossians 3:17 : that in "whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him."

I want to be more grateful for the things I take for granted. Hopefully, this is a good first step.

The Rationality of God

Weather or not you consider yourself religious or nonreligious, regardless of your worldview, you seek truth; you affirm and reject things based on various presuppositions, facts, notions, ideas, ect. The most foundational question one can ask oneself is "Does God exist?". Regardless of how one answers this question, there is another that follows it: "Is my conclusion on this matter rational?" How you answer this question, and what methods you use to ultimately arrive at your answer, if taken seriously, shapes how you view the world, interact with people, and how you live your life.

Many people believe in what is called classical foundationalism. This is the belief that everything must be based on sensory experience or self-evident truths. This leads to eventialism, which is probably best summized by a quote from English mathematician and philosopher William K. Clifford from his essay The Ethics of Belief:

"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."

There is certainly a lot to be unpacked from that statement, but a more formal way of wording this argument as it applies to belief in god looks like this:

(1) Belief in God is rational only if there is sufficient evidence for the existence of God.

(2) There is not sufficient evidence for the existence of God.

(3) Therefore, belief in God is irrational.

Now, as this is a valid argument, the theist has a few options. Either the theist accepts what is said as true and either a) forsakes belief in God. or b) admits the belief is irrational and continues believing anyway; or the theist works to refute one of the premises and show it to be an invalid argument.

A large number of Christians, especially evangelicals, tend to argue against the second premise. They point to things such as the universe existing in the first place (the Cosmological Argument), the universe showing signs of intelligent design (the Teleological Argument), the concept of morality (Moral Argument), or the fact that we can conceive of God in the first place (the Ontological Argument). While these arguments are valuable, they are also easy to dispute. Random chance with an assumption of eternal matter takes the place of the Cosmological argument. Macro-Evolution takes the place of the Teleological and Moral arguments. The Ontological Argument is often written off as bad grammar.

The second way of refuting this argument, called Reformed Epistemology, attacks the second premise. It makes belief in God foundational, that is, it says that belief in God is rational without the support of evidence or argument. Some of the grounds for this are as follows:

Demand for "sufficient evidence" can't be met consistently. That is, many things that people consider to be completely rational do not have a shred of evidence attached to them. Try proving the existence of other people, or that yesterday happened. No one can prove these things, yet it is perfectly rational to know that these things will happen. So belief in God is more akin to belief in other people, rather than belief in an scientific equation. Secondly, as it is rational to trust in what other people tell us, in the belief of the past, ect. so it is rational to belief that we are rational if these experiences produce in us belief in God. (This is what Calvin called the sensus divinitatus, or "sense of the divine".)

In wrapping this up, I think it is important to examine and question one's belief. Understanding what you believe and why you believe it are essential regardless of one's worldview. Doubting your faith, or having a theistic argument make sense to you (for the atheist), does not mean that one should instantly tear down everything you believe in. People have good reasons for belief as well as disbelief. As long as healthy dialogue and intellectual honesty is maintained, truth will prevail. As a theist, I find that reformed epistemology works well in explaining my conversion and it helps me in retaining my faith. "Believing so that I may understand", I continue in spite of my doubt.

Links to lots of things that cover what I talked about in much, much greater detail:

Without Evidence or Argument: A Defense of Reformed Epistemology
Religious Epistemology (The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Philosophy of Religion
The Ethics of Belief by William K. Clifford
The Knowledge of God the Creator by John Calvin (Institutes, book I)

Pride Comes Before

As the apartment fills with the smells of simple Japanese cooking, I'm feeling a little depressed. Ever since Megan and I traveled to Kyoto last March, we've been aching to go back. I'm still under the strong impression that we will go back to Japan eventually, possibly for a long term assignment, but the in-betweens are hard. It's been a few months since I've graduated and I've had to confess that I've felt comfortable in my role as a house husband. I'm not very good at it either. It's been a real struggle to find motivation to do anything - which has always been my number one flaw - but this time it feels different. It feels like active denial. Like warfare.

I'm not one to see a demon behind every bush. In fact, I'll admit that 99% of the time, I don't think that Satan has to do anything to us directly to get us exactly where he wants us. The heart of man is born wicked and deceitful (Jeremiah 17:9) and so starts the T(otal Depravity) of the TULIP of reformed thought. But, Satan is looking for someone to devour (1 Peter 5:8) and most often he gets me when I feel my strongest. This is probably why Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:12 " Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. " More often than not, I start to make a little headway in learning to lean on grace and before I know it, I've slipped back into sin, starting with the aforementioned pride.

Thankfully, I know that because Christ died for sinners (Romans 5:8), my sins are taken care of. Seeking active repentance and being turned away from the old ways are point number one when learning to "walk in it" (2 John 1:6). I'm still learning and I need help. One day at a time, I know that I'm being conformed to Christ's image ( Romans 8:29). . .but that he doesn't always work on my timetable.

So I'll have to wait and rest, and lean on some stronger brothers.

Unedited Thoughts and Progressive Arguments

First a quick update. I've started serious reading Jesus Wants to Save Christians: A Manifesto to the Church in Exile, but I'm going to have to do some research in order to understand Rob Bell and Dan Golden's argument as the theological position they espouse, the New Exodus position, I am not familiar with. I don't want to butcher their arguments so I'm going to work on that this weekend.

Now, however, I want to post something I wrote last night. As you may or may not be aware, I work night shift security and I get lots of time to think about things. I'm just going to post some unedited thoughts. It started out sort of poetical, but ended up in a different place. There's a lot to unpack and I'd like comments if possible.

______

Everyone has moments where thought
Becomes impossible, impotent, improbable
And a threshold that, when crossed,
Forces their ego to escape, id to escape,
Superego to shrivel, wither, diminish

Self is for naught
If it's about "becoming"
Rather than Being (Not that we experience it in that pure way)
We look to squeeze blood from a stone
The water of becoming from the rock of being
And in the process, we fail to see progress
Because their is none
And no other way things could be.

To some, this is the wellspring of hope
To others, damnation

God exists in the Ever-Now, timeless.
"It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we."

Perhaps we experience "change" on this side of time because we are soaking it in, imbibing it.



What we are is already fixed and now we simply realize how it is we are made: for holy use or common. If God is the God of the Living, not the dead: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob live - hidden with Christ in God with all the elect - a process we experience in time as sanctification. It's a finished process; God creates at the beginning and triumphs at the end. "Christ will be in agony until the end of the world."; world without end, Amen.

This is too heavy for complete disclosure.

I think about these things when I desire to see change in my life and it has not come. I believe it will come because of the promise. Credo ut intelligam. So even in my doubt, I do not stop believing.

Praise be to God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ who resurrects us from the dead and puts flesh on dry bones that then dare to dance! May all flesh come to fear and know him!
____

A Note on Bazan

Anyone who knows me knows I have an affinity for slightly depressing music. I've been a fan of Pedro the Lion since I first came to know about them. The lead singer, David Bazan, always struck me as extraordinarily honest in his struggles with his Evangelical upbringing. As someone who came from a similar background, it was comforting to find someone that sometimes wavered between steadfast faith, apathy, and apostasy. From the overtly Christian It's Hard to Find a Friend, to questioning all forms of relationships on the soul-crushing Control, to the more nuanced Pedro the Lion's Achilles Heel - whenever I wanted a bitter dose of reality, or when I wanted to think more about the relationship between my faith, reason, and how it affects my relationships, I always listened to Pedro.

After their demise, Bazan went solo and while I enjoyed his work with Headphones, I started to see a darker trend in his lyrics. With his solo EP Fewer Moving Parts, I thought the situation mostly absolved, but something felt different. In a few discussions with friends who checked out his newest album Curse Your Branches, I realized, probably for the first time that Bazan had abandoned the faith almost entirely. This latest album is harsh and cynical - but in a much more overt way than previous projects at least to my ears. However, I understand that this is simply the logical conclusion once a person of faith finally manages, for whatever reason or in whatever way, to undermine the very foundation of their convictions. I realized that we had reached two different conclusions. The lynchpin, as it seems often the case, is the traditional problem of evil.

I'm not going to attempt to solve the problem of evil in this post, however, for the sake of clarity, I will say that I do understand the problem of evil to be a real problem. It's logically valid, if the given premises are true. I find a few of the premises to be questionable (and therefore, my faith to be logically true), but it isn't something I take lightly. It's still there. It's stolen former friends away from the faith because they could not hold faith and wrestle with the problem of evil or because they bought into (and perhaps misapplied) the philosophy of Descartes, scrapped their entire worldview, and attempted to build it back up from scratch with themselves at the center (leaving out God completely, as some of Descartes later critics would).

I'm still watching Bazan, albeit from a distance now. I have always loved his honesty, and I even continued to support him after the rather infamous moment where he showed up to the Cornerstone Festival drunk with a full jug of vodka on stage. I'm not naive enough to spin his new lyrics into anything else than they are: a call to question one's beliefs and recaps of fairly harsh life stories. I have no problem with either, but it does give one pause to think about how people reach different conclusions with similar backgrounds. I'd wager Bazan and myself would come to different conclusions on that as well.

In any case, I do still recommend any and all of Pedro the Lion's body of work. It's best when enjoyed with a strong beer or something stronger - in moderation, of course.

Part 2

Before I move on to blog my way through Jesus Wants to Save Christians by Rob Bell, I thought I would finish up a few thoughts that I had left over from my previous post. This is pretty direct and will probably be a reoccurring theme as I read more emergent leaders writings. On a side note, I found myself intrigued by some of the arguments made in Jesus for President- particularly not being slaves to a media culture and seeking out the "cultural relevance" of the church for its own sake. This, I believe, puts them at odds with lots of people both traditional evangelicals, emergent church leaders, and even some atheists that demand that we "change or die".

Without further ado. . .
_______________________

Those who cannot reconcile the image of the crucified Christ with that of the sword bearer that divides - those unwilling or unable to see and embrace the apparent contradictions must examine the full text to get a full picture of the God we serve. War and peace, wrath and love, the death of Death, and the union between God and Man are all central to the faith Christians hold in common. Those unwilling to do this find themselves alienated, and without correction will not come to fully understand the true depth, breath, length, and width that the Cross of Christ communicates to this defiled world. In the cross, Christ, our fully human, fully God, gave himself as a propitiation for us, making atonement for the sins of those who would come to believe in him. God is not angry with us. His wrath has been satisfied and Christians are saved from that wrath, not into comfort or safety, but into good works by the power of the Holy Spirit. If he had not done this, we would not be able to approach a God who, because of his holiness, would have consumed us as straw thrown into a fire. Not only does he save us from the wrath of God, but Jesus is raised from the dead for our justification: All authority is given to him and he intercedes for the sins of his elect and for the exaltation of the Church universal. This Church would divide the world, and sunder it with the message of Revolution and Redemption - separating the sheep of his flock from the goats, uniting the profane with the holy by justifying his enemies, walking two miles and heaping hot coals on their emeies heads in perfect love, and hardening (not softening) the hearts of the establishment with God's perfect symbol of Grace and Wrath and Redemption - The Cross of Christ; this the basis of faith, the catalyst of hope, and the foundation of all true community.

Politics, and Holding Paradoxes

In Jesus for President, Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw outline and accentuate what they believe to be the politics of Jesus and attempt to spur the reader to live counter-cultural lives that emulate Jesus' teachings. They should be commended for some of their scholarship. Many people in the Church today no longer know of, much less consider, the political climate in which the New Testament was written. To take this information into account then, upholds one of the basic tenants of hermeneutics: historical context.

That being said, my issue is not with the idea of living a humble life in bearing one's cross and suffering hardship for the kingdom of God. This, I believe, is the main point of the book that gets clouded by some fairly serious matters that the authors don't address directly. In the "Co-opted and Confused" section on p.194, there is a quote from Mark Driscoll which came from Relevant magazine:

"Some emergent types [want] to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in His hair, who drank decaf and made pithy Zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes. In Revelation, Jesus is a prize fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up".

Following this, there is a quote from Paul derived from 1 Cor 1:23 "I preach Christ crucified".

I was confused at first, because I failed to see how both of these things aren't true. Driscoll is merely recalling how Christ is pictured at the end of the Age: triumphant, and coming in judgment, his enemies being made a footstool under his feet. You may also recall Jesus' words in Matthew 10:34-35:

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."

G.K. Chesterton has many things to say about holding contradictions. In Orthodoxy, Chesterton sees doctrine as the main thrust of managing the contradictions of peace and war. "By defining its main doctrine, the Church not only kept seemingly inconsistent things side by side, but, what was more, allowed them to break out in a sort of artistic violence otherwise possible only to anarchists". The Cross of Christ, and orthodox Christianity as defined in the Apostle's Creed is the linchpin of his entire discussion.

In reading Jesus for President, I began to get the feeling that the Cross of Christ was being misrepresented, even if only indirectly. This is something that was deeply unsettling, and I must admit, not knowing the authors personally, I was unsure if I was reading too much into their views or if some of their other views were unstated. The view put forward was one of example - but only one of example: i.e. "He himself was like a sheep killed by wolves. By freely accepting crucifixion, he demonstrated what a sheep among wolves looks like" (p. 277). No mention of Christ's atoning work at all. While I understood the thrust of the book was not "theological" in nature, the implied denial of this cornerstone of Christianity flirts with heresy. At the very least it limits the true breath and depth of the Cross of Christ to mere moralism and a social gospel that doesn't save anyone.