Tomorrow might be different, the sky's the limit.

Changed site

2006-04-26T14:11:00.000-05:00

dropthenets.@blogspot.com

Seeker-Sensitive Churches

2005-12-06T11:22:00.000-06:00

No thoughts to post at this time, just wanted to point to an article I enjoyed.

http://www.glenwoodhillsbiblechurch.org/article.asp?ID=621&CatName=The%20Church

Starting next semester I will be updating this blog regularly with my thoughts and ramblings. Until then, you can see what's been going on in my life at my other blog:

mikeinscotland.blogger.com

Mike

Updates

2005-10-11T06:18:00.000-05:00

For the record, while I am abroad I will be updating here: mikeinscotland.blogspot.com

Word.

Homosexuality and the Church

2005-05-06T10:49:00.000-05:00

This topic seems to be everywhere, so I thought I would chime in my two cents on the matter.

First, the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. Romans 1. It's wrong.

Whether or not people are born gay or not does not change the fact that the Bible specifically says that it is a lifestyle that God does not approve of. It is an example of sex warped by the fall and by sin.

I do not think homosexuality is a disease. I am inclicned to think that one's experiences growing up are what result in homosexual tendencies, things beyond one's control. But the Bible still says it's wrong.

So what does this mean for the church?

First, gay marraiges should not be performed in the church. By doing so, the church is condoning a lifestyle the Bible says is sinful. It's not prejudicial...it is simply not allowing oneself to approve of and condone a LIFESTYLE that is in conflict with Scriptural teaching. It isn't because homosexuals are sinners, because we all are. It is that they are willfully choosing a lifestyle of sin.

Second, practicing homosexuals (note I used the word practicing) should not be ordained for ministry, for the ame reasons as above, plus because leaders are held to higher standards. Whether that is right or not doesn't really matter...the bottom line is, they are. They are examples, and as such should not be living a LIFESTYLE the Bible says in sinful.

Same goes for elders or deacons or other church leaders. It is the idea of reveling in a lifestyle of sin that I find so repugnant, not that they sin every once in awhile, because we all do. It is openly denying Scripture because one wishes to.

Please note that I have made no comments about anything in the political realm. My feelings there are somewhat different. The church and the state are different, and while I feel that the church needs to take certain stances regarding homosexuality and leaders in their churches, I do not necessarily think that this should be so on a state or federal government type scale.

Questions or disagreements, leave a comment, I'll try to get back to you quickly and completely.

A God-centered Lifestyle

2005-05-02T16:59:00.000-05:00

Anyone who has ever carried on a significant theological discussion with me knows that I obsess over God-centered vs. man-centered theology. Any theology in which man plays a role even approaching the role of God is, I believe, a faulty one. God needs to be the sole center of our theology. This is the main reason that I line up theologically with the Reformed camp: not because I like predestination, but because it is the only theology that seems significantly God-centered enough for my taste (this logically follows from predestination, but that's a topic for another day).

But we live in a culture that says me me me. We live in a society that says me me me. Our politics are selfish politics...what I think is right, what is best for me. Our economic model, capitalism, is built on these cery principles: make a profit. Get more. Consume! Feed yourself! Me me me. We are told to go to college so we can be successful. Why? Because you'll be able to get more out of life. It's about what life can give to me. It's about where I can go.

I am as guilty of this as anybody. Maybe even more so. I am obsessed with myself...with my abilities, my future, my intellectual or athletic capacities, what others think of me. Me me me.

But this is totally contrary to how we are supposed to live as Christians. It's not about me--it's about Christ crucified and resurrected. It's about a God who came down to earth to die. A completely selfless act, performed by a selfless God for utterly selfish man.

"Christian" literally means "little Christ," or "one who is like Christ." Our identity of Christians comes into direct conflict with our identity as consumers and our identity as fallen humans. What would it look like if one person, just one person, really lived like Christ? If one person didn't serve others for self gain, if one person didn't do business just to gain more, if one person didn't didn't live for recognition?

Agh, I am condemning myself with these very words. I know I can't hope to live up to the standards I set. I know I can't hope to live up to the standards of Almighty God. Who am I to even think that I could live a life where every aspect of that life pointed not to myself, but to Christ and the empty grave?

But that is how we're called to live. Ever single thing we do should point to Christ on the cross and the empty grave, every little thing I do should point to a crucified and risen Lord. If what I am doing does not point to Christ, it is an idol. I am setting myself up in His place.

Unbearably high standards...standards I can never, ever hope to live up to. But I think my life needs some re-examining. Is what I am doing pointing to Christ or myself? And maybe, through the grace of He who saves me, a change can be made. He can make a change in me, a change I cannot hope to make myself.

God, transform me, because I cannot transfrom myself.

Almost Done...

2005-04-29T16:57:00.000-05:00

I'll be home the evening of May 5th. So San Diego people, give me a call.

And I'm officially going to Aberdeen in the fall!!

Between the Head and the Heart

2005-04-27T15:05:00.000-05:00

I never had a conversion experience.

I was raised in a Christian home. I "accepted Christ" at the ripe old age of 5. I always went to church. I still do.

When I was little I memorized everything a good little Christian should. I knew dozens of Bible verses, the creeds, the Lord's Prayer. By the time I was in high school I knew all the answers. I knew what I was supposed to say, I knew what I was supposed to do, and I knew what I was supposed to believe. And for the most part I did. I still do.

I never had a conversion experience. I never experienced the radical transformation you hear about in the stories. Christianity was never an emotional response for me. I rarely had an emotional response to God, again, because I lacked any kind of a life-changing God-experience.

And so, like countless other good Christian kids out there, I faked it. I closed my eyes and willed myself to feel something when I sang or prayed. I hoped the kid next to me with raised hands didn't know. I hoped the girl with bright tears in her eyes couldn't tell.

But I knew I believed. I knew that Jesus was important and I actively engaged in a relationship with Him. I prayed and read my Bible every day. Maybe it was just an intellectual response to God. People told me they appreciated how I loved God with my mind. Ah, but to love God with all my heart!!

This is something I still struggle with. How do you bridge the gap between the head and the heart? I have since come to the conclusion that maybe different people engage God in different ways, and I know my dominant method of engaging with Him is intellectually. But still, we're called to love Him with all of our heart, mind, soul and strength, and I can't help but think that I'm way behind in the heart category. Heck, I know I'm behind in all the categories (who isn't?) but it is the heart category that I struggle with the most.

Sometimes I still fake it. But I also realize that I don't have to raise my hands or dance or cry during a song to feel God. The ardentness of my voice in public prayer means nothing to God.

And, after all, Christianity isn't about a feeling is it? It's about a God who loved His fallen, screwed-up children so much that He died for them. He died for me. I've always believed that. And I still do.

Is He Out There?

2005-04-23T19:47:00.000-05:00

Sometimes I can't help but wonder if God is really out there.

That's right, sometimes I wonder if He exists at all. I guess I can't help it. I'm not the type of person to accept everything. I don't take everything at face value. There are long spells in my life where I can't seem to feel God at all. And for some reason I trudge on. I can't seem to stop.

I remember being asked a question earlier this year: What word best defines your relationship with God? And you know what I said? Not love, not dependence, not hope...Struggle. Struggle is the best word to define my relationship with God. So often I feel like Jacob on the banks of the river, wrestling that mysterious stranger. I struggle back and forth, trying to find faith, trying to submit to God, and trying the whole time to do things my way. I don't have it all together. Anyone who claims to have it all together, anyone who claims his walk is going well is a liar. As soon as I think I've got it all together, as soon as I think I'm on track, BAM, I fall down again. Or God shoves me out of my comfort zone and I flee to old habits that never seem to die.

And then some days I wonder if He even exists at all. Where was God during the Holocaust? Where is He in Africa, a world of AIDS and warfare, where children carry machine guns and anybody could die for any reason any day? Where is God when somebody loses a mother, or a child, or a spouse? Where is He in the auto accident, the plane crash, the suicide bombing? Sometimes I wonder if He is out there at all.

But I always come back to Him. Maybe it's because if there is no eternal life, everything is pointless. Without eternity, there is absolutely nothing to live for. Maybe it's because I have to hope that there is an end to all this suffering. Maybe I have to believe that I am not alone. And maybe it's because I have to think that there is something better than all this.

And then I see it. I see a little girl smile and point at a butterfly. I feel the warm pressure of the girl I love holding my hand tightly. I hear Handel played beautifully. I see a shooting star, or a wave curl and crash on a sandy beach. I read about Martin Luther King, Jr. I learn about missionaries sacrificing their lives. I see a businessman stop and take a homeless women out to lunch and I see a little boy help an old woman across a busy street. I hear the words I love you, and thank you, stated with meaning. I hear the hope in the voices of those yearning for a better tomorrow, I hear the sound of a gospel choir in a church in the projects lifting their voices to a God of hope and love and peace. A God who promises a tomorrow that is better than today, a tomorrow that lasts for eternity. A God who brings hope and love and peace.

And that's when I know that there is a God.

On Reason (Briefly...)

2005-04-21T01:14:00.000-05:00

Pascal, Pensee 177: "Contradiction is a poor indication of truth. / Many things that are certain are contradicted. / Many that are false pass without contradiction. / Contradiction is no more an indication of falsehood that lack of it is an indication of truth."

Pensee 188: " Reason's last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it. It is merely feeble if it does not go as far as to realize that. If natural things are beyond it, what are we to say about supernatural things?"

Pensee 183: "Two excesses: to exclude reason, to admit nothing but reason."

Grace and peace,

Mike

Read This: It Is Hilarious

2005-04-18T23:58:00.000-05:00

This is one of the funniest things I have ever read. Enjoy.

The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington Chemistry mid-term.

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?

Most ot the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:

First we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know that rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely say that once a soul gets to Hell it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.

As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over.

Of course, the corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct...leaving only Heaven thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God!"

This student received the only "A"

Recent Thought:

2005-04-18T17:41:00.000-05:00

Seminary instead of a Masters and/or PhD program. Not necessarily because I want to preach, but because I think I should leave that door open. The differences between Seminary (and an MDiv) and Graduate School in Religion:

MDiv: 3 years; ordination; Christian worldview

MA: 2 years; secular worldview; no ordination

The MDiv takes longer but leaves the ministry option open. It wouldn't be any more difficult to get into a PhD program with an MDiv than an MA.

I would probably go to the divinity school of one of the big universities (yale, duke, vanderbilt, etc) rather than a denominationally affiliated seminary (like austin seminary or trinity evangelical).

Thoughts?

On a slightly more mundane note, it can't decide if its going to storm outside or just stay super dark and gray.

2 more weeks of class. And Jenny got into her study abroad program in Spain today!!! I still have to wait 2-4 more weeks to find out if I got into mine.

Now to dive back into the obscene amount of work I have to do.

Grace and peace,

Mike

Atheists and Freedom

2005-04-16T21:13:00.000-05:00

Currently reading: Making Sense of It All, by Thomas V. Morris, a philosopher at Notre Dame. He writes:

"Just as some atheists has sugested that religious believers are simply people who have a deep psychological need to think there is a benevolent and powerful caretaker watching over the world, some theists have returned the compliment and suggested that unbelievers are people who have a deep psychological need to believe that they are utterly free to do whatever they want with their lives, that there is no higher authority, no moral governor of the universe to whom they are answerable. If you're afraid of what might be out there, you may not want to peek out from under the covers at all" (19-20).

Sure, it takes faith to believe in God, but it takes just as much faith, and probably more, to believe that there isn't a God, because by doing so, you are asserting complete confidence in a finite, meaningless, purposeless existence. Which takes more faith?

In the end it's about control. Are we willing to give up control of our lives to a higher power? Are we willing to submit ourselves to a higher being, to voluntarily surrender our freedom in such a way?

American culture is defined by freedom. Freedom of choice, speech, religion, freedom to own a gun, to exploit 18 year old women, to burn flags and stick them on our cars. Americans value freedom above all. Are we really willing to give up that freedom in exchange for freedom in Christ? Are we willing to submit ourselves to His authority, to trave our slavery to sin for a slavery to righteousness?

But Americans don't admire only freedom--we admire success as well. So what do we tell ourselves and others? "A life dedicated to Christ will be a succesful life, a blessed life, a happy and joyful life." And all these things are true...but it isn't success or blessings or happiness or joy as America sees it. The gospel is a gospel of blessing, but not a gospel of success. The Bible says, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, the mourners, the meek, the hungry, the merciful, the pure, the peacemakers and the persecuted."

Isiah says that our sorrows will end, but not until we reach the gates of Zion. Until then, we are called to perservere, to press on, trusting that our God will be with us all along the way.

Americans admire self-reliance. We can do it on our own, right? We can spread Christ's love, we can convert the fallen. We can bring people close to Christ. But this type of talk this type of self-relince, while admirable to most Americans, completely MISSES THE POINT. It's isn't about us converting people. It isn't about us being good. It isn't about what we can do for God...it's about what God did for us. It isn't about us converting our unsaved friends, it's about God using us, about God working in the lives of others. It isn't about us DOING anything...it's about a God who has done EVERYTHING. To think otherwise, to think that we can do anything for God, is to fall victim to the worst of sins, the root of all sin...pride. To establish a man-centered doctrine, a man-centered reality is the ultimate insult to a God who has done all and who is all. Without Him there is nothing, through Him we have everything. To say otherwise is to place yourself on the same level as He who is above all. To say otherwise is to make yourself God, when there is, was, and always will be One God, and only one God, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Christianity has become a self-reliant entity, and a self-reliant Christianity is, I would argue, blasphemous.

Wow, I don't know where all that came from. :-)

Grace and peace,

Mike

Resisting Sin

2005-04-13T11:51:00.000-05:00

So I've been doing some thinking. Mostly about the gay marraige issue and where I stand. Gay rights. What to do?

It seems to be a very tricky issue. Politically, I can't say I'm against it. I mean, let them do what they want, right? And religiously, we're called to love and we're called not to judge. And if they're not living under Christ's law, how can we hold them accountable to Christ's law?

But then I stop and think some more. Hebrew 12 speaks some about sin. The writer of Hebrew's assumes that we are struggling against sin, that we are resisting sin. The Bible says to be righteous and holy, set apart for God. So then I wonder what this means in regards to homosexuality. The Bible clearly says it is wrong. The Bible clearly states it's sinful. And we're told to struggle against sin, to be righteous. But are we supposed to struggle against personal sin, or sin in general?

I think we are supposed to struggle against sin in general. Otherwise we aren't responsible for anything that happens to anyone besides us. I mean, who cares if we had stepped in or not against Hitler? That's not our sin, and he wasn't living under the same laws as us...heck, he created his laws. So why did we hold him accountable to our laws?

Sin is sin. It is wrong. We are told to resist sin. Jesus fought sin throughout his ministry. He would heal someone, and then tell them to leave their life of sin. How often did we hear Him say, "Go and sin no more?"

Of course the problem arises when we choose homosexuality as the sin to fight and forget about drunkeness, which is a problem with "Christian" teens. Or slander/gossip...listed right along with sexual immorality.

It seems Christians like to pinpoint a sin or two (homosexuality and abortion) and forget about all the other sin rampant throughout our world and rampant within the church. Before decrying homosexuality, let's remove the plank from our own eye. Before crying "family values," let's deal with divorce, which is almost as common within the church as without. Let's deal with slander/gossip in the church. Let's get rid of silly arguments among church leaders..let's fight hypocrisy on the home front.

We need to challenge the church to resist sin in their own lives before resisting sin elsewhere...we need to deal with sin within the church before we battle sin outside the church. Remove the plank first(Matthew 5?)...

If we are going to be holding others to Christ's standards, we need to make SURE that we are doing everything we can to resist sin on the homefront. We need to be living "such good lives among the pagan's that they may see our good works and glorify our Father in heaven" (1 Peter 2:12).

You want to resist sin? Awesome. That's what we are called to do. But resist it, in every aspect, in your own life first.

Grace and peace,

Mike

Grace and Titus 3

2005-04-12T20:42:00.000-05:00

So tonight Mike and Will led Bible study. They decided it'd be sweet for us to study Titus 3...and I must say, it was an excellent choice. I hadn't read Titus probably in a year or so...and I should have:

Titus 3:4-7.....

⁴But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, ⁵he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, ⁶whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, ⁷so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

Sometime I forget that Christ came only out of kindness and love. He didn't come because of anything I had done, not because I have earned it in any way at all, but out of His kindness and love towards me, an undeserving wreck. And He saved me, thoroughly and completely, not by my actions or words or thought, not because of ANYTHING I have done at all, but solely because of His mercy. It is through and by His mercy and His mercy alone that it is even possible to have hope of eternal life. He saved me...I didn't save myself. Christianity leaves no room for co-redemption. He saved me, because of His kindness and love and by His mercy. He saved me, through the washing of rebirth and renewal of the Holy Spirit poured generously upon me. He has showerd me with love and grace despite my inability to do anything right at all. I have been justified by His grace and His grace alone. Not by His grace AND my effot, but by His grace alone. His grace, unearned, is poured out generously on me, His faithless servant. I have become an heir to the promise, an adopted Son of God through His mercy so that I may have hope of eternal life.

In His love He has saved me.

By His mercy I have life.

Through His cleansing I have life.

And by His grace I have hope.

Only because of Him. There is nothing I could ever hope to do to achieve these blessings on my own. Without His grace I have no right to have any part at all in His promise.

"Grace, which asks not a word about what we are, what we have, and what we bring along with us; grace which leaves us no other hope than in that which is undeserved, God's free grace accepts us as men, just as God's Word has accepted flesh, our flesh." ~Karl Barth

Grace and peace,

Mike

John 1:5

Oh, also, I found this article interesting: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/003/21.36.html

Anyways..

2005-04-12T00:57:00.000-05:00

So my dad has always kind of wished he was a theologian. I guess that's why he's so supportive of my professional aspirations. So he's been in the process of giving me some of his theology books, ones that are really important or that he really enjoyed. I've got some Barth, some Allistair McGrath, some of the older ones, etc.

Anyways, the reason this is important is because of what he sent me for my birthday. First he sent me "Making Sense of It All," which is a book written by a scholar at Notre Dame named Morris and about Pascal, a philosopher I thoroughly enjoy. The second book is the truly amazing gift: Volume 1 of Pannenburg's "Systematic Theology"---autographed!!!!! How sweet is that?!?!?!

I also decided that I am going to start writing a book. Maybe a Biblical commentary, maybe a theological essay, but something. While I'm still young and fairly untainted by the academic world. :-) Do any of my faithful readers (like, the one or two of you who actually read this) have a suggestion?

I guess that's all. There isn't anything pressing on my mind.

Grace and peace,

Mike

Just Some Details

2005-04-09T12:58:00.000-05:00

So it's Saturday morning (or afternoon? It's 12:42). I just woke up not too long ago, after 10 1/2 or 11 hours of sleep. Amazing. I am looking out the window and watching our undefeated girls lacrosse team take on what looks like Texas A&M. If it isn't A&M, its definitely UT (they play both teams today).

Last night Jenny and I went to Swing Bums with Josh and Melissa, where we learned to lindy-hop. Pretty fun. Then the four of us went to Main Street Pizza (seriously, you can't possible go wrong with Main Street, ever). After that Jenny and I finished watching the last 30 minutes of "Finding Neverland." What an amazing movie; what an amazing story!! Everyone should see it--but be warned, its a tear-jerker (Jenny definitely cried a little).

Today I'm going to the Poteet Strawberry Festival with the Ropers. We're performing twice--at 6pm and 7:30pm. Everyone should come, it promises to be a good time. Whether or not I'l have the waltz down by then is a different question. I suppose we'll find out.

I stopped by Dr. Pinnock's office yesterday to talk a little about post-liberal theology. I take Contemporary Religious Thought from her, and she's the closes thing we have to a theologian in our department. We talked some about the Yale School (in the 80's many of the "post-liberal" theologians were at Yale, so that line of thought became known as the Tale School). We both ranted a little bit about evangelicalism, and I told her about my love-hate relationship with evanelicalism. She told me a little bit about her dad's recent work (he's a super famous theologian, best known for his work on the openness of God theory). I told her about my reformed beliefs and my current infatuation with Barth and my current disgust with modern apologetics. I asked her about graduate schools that were quite Barthian, and she recommended Yale and then Princeton Theological. Especially Yale (where she did her PhD). I don't know that I could get into Yale, at least not without a Masters first, but that's definitely been either my first choice or one of my first choice grad schools for a long time. Current schools I'm researching (because I know you're interested): Harvard, Harvard Divinity (like I'd get in there), Boston College, Boston University, Yale, Columbia, NYU, Union Theological, Princeton, Princeton Theological, UVA, maybe Brown. I suppose I should hve one or two safety-school types (these are all either stretches or good fits), but it's not really very easy when you're looking at grad school in religion. Outside of semninaries, there are really only 30 or 35 programs. And the humanities job market is really tight...everyone who gets hired pretty much went to the same 8 or 10 schools. What a career path I've chosen. But honestly, I can't imagine myself doing anything else. Seriously, what else could anyone possibly see me doing? Maybe I'll write a book about religion in some way, get it published, and then I'll get into a school like Yale despite me "eh" GPA.

Until next time, grace and peace.

Mike

Why Theology Is Important (briefly...)

2005-04-08T11:53:00.000-05:00

Now don't get the impression from my previous posts that I think theology is no longer worthwhile. Just because there are some lines of thought that I disapprove of (such as theodicy), it doesn't mean that I am giving up theology. What I a doing is giving up a theology that removes all mystery from God.

I think in many instances the church has screwed up. One of these instances is that pastors and churches have stopped struggling with theological issues, claiming that such issues "aren't important" or "we just can't understand them" or other such nonsense. They have traded in the intellectual aspect of Christianity for a purely emotional Christianity.

Case-in-point: Sunday morning music. No longer do you hear/sing music that speaks theological truth or music that challenges or music that makes you think. Music in today's church is mostly emotional jargon. Not that that never has its place...but think about it. You sing a worship song. And then you sing the chorus again. And again. Then you repeat the verses. All the while people are being built into a spiritual frenzy. An emotional high. And in most instances, there is little or no worthwhile theological content to these songs. Heck, most of them aren't even theologically sound.

Example: extremely popular song...that redo of Amazing Love. You know the one I'm talking about: "Amazing love, how can it be. That you my king would die for me. Amazing love, I know it's true. And it's my joy to honor you, In all I do, I honor you." Theologically sound? Well, His love is amazing. No denying that. But "In all I do, I honor you"!!! Liar!! You do not honor Him in all you do! I know I sure don't! If anybody does, I'd love to find out how...please fill a brother in! It's an emotional song with an emotional response to Christ.

Now DON'T GET ME WRONG, an emotional response is good! But when an emotional response to God is all that is left in the church, something is mising.

Matthew 22:37:
Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’

Mark 12:30
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’

Luke 10:27
He answered: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’

Now this is why theology is good and necessary. We are called by Christ to love the Lord our God not just with our hearts, but with our minds as well. This is the greatest commandment! And if you fail to love Christ not just with your heart but with your mind as well, you're failing to live for Him. Now note, it says to love Him with all your heart as well. An emotional response and an emotional love is equally valid and equally important, and there is a danger when intellectualizing your faith to forget the emotional side of it (this is something I know I am prone to doing). But in most instances, people don't have trouble with loving the Lord with their heart--they have trouble loving Him with their mind.

And that is why theology is important and why I will never give theology up. Jesus commands us to love the Lord with our minds. To fail to do so is to fail to follow Him. He gave us our minds, He gave us the ability to reason and to think critically...why would He give us these things if not to use them?

So, in conclusion, go pick up the manifesto of some German theologian on his systematic theology and read it or else you're not really following God. Just kidding. :-) But remember that it is important to love Christ not just with our hearts but minds. Use the gifts He has given you!

Until next time, grace and peace.

Mike

The Problem of Theodicy

2005-04-07T15:27:00.000-05:00

So I recently wrote a paper on theodicy for my Contemporary Religious Thought class. We read a book written by the professor called Beyond Theodicy and a novel by Elie Wiesel called The Town Beyond the Wall, and we had to respond. I thought I might share some thoughts I have about theodicy. :-)

the·od·i·cy P Pronunciation Key (th-d-s)
n. pl. the·od·i·cies

A vindication of God's goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil.

(dictionary.com)

So Christians have been trying to defend God's goodness in the face of evil and suffering for centuries. Augustine blamed evil on man's depraved nature, arguing that evil exists because we disobey/disobeyed God. Aquinas and Descartes attempted to prove the existence of the Christian God, who is good, by using science and reason, respectively. They figured that if they could prove the good Christian God existed, then they would know that evil was not caused by Him.

Of course there have always been those philosophers who reject the existence of a good god based on the presence of evil and suffering in the world, most notably Voltaire, who rejected God following the immensity of the desctruction caused by an earthquake in Lisbon.

While I do believe that a good God exists, I don't attempt to prove it. Such a proof would, I believe, negate faith. What I do argue is that any theodicy attempts are immoral. Here's why:

1) any attempts to justify God to an individual who is suffering is insensitive and lacking empathy. How can any person claim to understand what another person is going through or dare to tell someone that it is "all part of God's plan?" This certainly didn't work for Job, and I agree. It is immoral to claim to understand what anyone else has been through. (thank you Gabriel Marcel..)

and more importantly...

2) to justify God is to confine Him to our realm of thinking. It is to reduce God to our own methods of reason and to reduce Him to our own proportions. It is to remove the mystery from God in an attempt to fit Him into the walls of our own understanding. To do so is degrading to a God who is infinite, immortal, and sovereign. It is to make man God--for it is, within such a system, man who explain, justifies, and essentially creates God. Such a notion is, to me, repulsive (this is why I hate Descartes' proofs!)

So yeah. Questions, comments, concerns over such a view...leave a comment. Now.

Until next time, grace and peace...

Mike

If anyone's interested...

2005-04-06T23:49:00.000-05:00

These are some verses that have impacted me in the past and are linked to commentary's on the verses I've written. Check it out if you're interested (click on the particular date for the commentary).

http://www.ny2nowheredaily.netfirms.com/verseoftheday.html

Grace and peace,

Mike

Descartes

2005-04-06T01:43:00.000-05:00

So the other day in my philosophy class, the professor asked us all to write a paragraph or two about an idea or philosopher we didn't agree with. So I ranted for about a page on the immorality of Descartes' attempts to prove the existence of God. I ranted about the immorality of confining God to our understanding and about the immorality of confining Him to our system of logic, among other things.

To make a long story short, the reason Dr. Norman did this is so that she could assign us paper topics. She read our little blurbs, wrote some comments, and told us what to write on. So I get to: A) use Pascal (who I love) and his problems with Descartes proofs as a reference point to discuss the proofs, or B) find a particular proof of Descartes' that I disapprove of, examine it thoroughly, and write a rebuttal. It should be totally sweet.

So expect a rant on the fallacious and immoral nature of Descartes' proofs in the near future. Until then,

Grace and peace,

Mike

If I Know Nothing Else...

2005-04-05T21:13:00.000-05:00

I know this:

Jesus loves me.

And all I can do is trust that this is enough.

Grace and Peace,

Mike

The Blowers Daughter

2005-04-04T23:26:00.000-05:00

"And so it is,

Just like you said it would be,

Life goes easy on me,

Most of the time"

~Damien Rice

I guess that sums it up. Life's been pretty easy on me lately, with the exception of Symbolic Logic. That class will be my bane. We had a test today. I studies alot, and felt pretty good about it. Definitely didn't feel so good about it afterwards. We'll see how it goes (and hopefully Dr. Brown will be nice with partial credit!).

I've started running again and school is really startin to pick up. 3 1/2 more weeks of class.

Otherwise, there isn't much going on. I'll try to post something insightful in the near future.

Grace and peace,

Mike

Slavery and Biblical Literalism

2005-04-01T13:16:00.000-06:00

So I'm doing this group project for my African American History class. My group has to write a paper and give a presentation defending slavery. Being the Religion major, I volunteered to research and write on the religious, specifically Christian, defenses of slavery.

I started by going to BibleGateway.com and typing in slave as a keyword. And I got tons of stuff. Did you know that Abraham, the patriarch of our faith and a man chosen by God for his righteousness, actually traficked in slaves? Did you know that the Jews were told in Leviticus to go out to the surrounding nations and take slaves from them? Did you know that Paul told slaves, essentially, to suck it up because their condition is only temporary? Paul also told slaves to obey their master. But nowhere, and I repeat NOWHERE, did the Bible directly say that slavery was wrong. It says that all are equal in God's eyes, but acknowledges the hierarchical nature of man's system. It even does nothing directly to affect it.

So what does all this chalk up to? There aren't many people left who still approve of slavery in the US, and their are even fewer who approve of it vocally. I think it is safe to say that the very mast majority of Christians believe slavery to be wrong. What does this mean about the way we look at the Bible? How do we explain the passages that blatantly seem to support such a degrading system?

Most, even most conservatives, at this point would acknowledge a cultural gap or shift. They would say that society has changed and it is no longer appropriate or necessary for mankind to hold each other in bondage. Admitting a social gap like this has grave implications, however. Can something be a sin for one culture but not for another? Abraham was called righteous by God. We believe slavery to be a sin. How does this add up? Was it not a sin for Abraham to own slaves but a sin for us?

This is what the question boils down to: is the Bible timeless in regards to cultural norms and paradigms. Not sin, but norms. Thus homosexuality, which the Bible says is sinful, is not OK because of culture shifts. If the Bible is timeless in regards to cultural norms, than the logical conclusion would be that slavery is fine as long as the master treats the slave properly. But there are very few who would agree that slavery is OK. I know I certainly don't think that slavery is alright. So what does this mean?

I think the clearest implications regard the role of women, particularly in the church. The most often quoted verse regarding women and the church is in 1 Timothy, but in that pasage Paul never states that it is a SIN for women to teach, just that he does not allow it. Could that be because of cultural norms? If so, the changing role of women in society should be evidence enough that it is high time for women to be allowed to preach (in churches where they are not yet allowed to do so).

It was because of cultural norms that slavery was acceptable in the Bible. It isn't like people were told that it was sinful not to own slaves. In much the same way, it was because of cultural norms that women were not allowed to speak or teach in the church. It isn't because it would be sinful to do so--only because the culture would not allow it. Today's culture disapproves of slavery. And, I should think it is high time all churches allow women to teach.

Wow, I hope that makes sense. It's been a long week and I tend to ramble...if you have questions, don't hesitate to leave a comment and ask.

Grace and peace,

Mike

Some Thoughts On Hell

2005-03-31T16:42:00.000-06:00

Today in my philosophy class we were discussing Neitzsche. In the first essay of his Geneology, the fifteenth section, he rants a bit about Aquinas and Tertullian and their views on hell. This got me thinking.

Aquinas writes, essentially, that heaven will be more delightful for the saved because they will be able to see the punishments of the damned (from his Summa Theologiae). Tertullien write about the joy of seeing earthly rulers "groaning now in the lowest darkness." Neitzsche believes that one of the reasons Christians so delight in the idea of heaven is that it means some will be damned. The idea that others will be damned brings joy and satisfaction to Christians. Their victory, according to Neitzsche, is even better because of the loss of others.

Am I guilty of this train of thought? Do I hope others are damned because I desire to, for some sick reason, be able to say "I told you so?"

Romans 9:22-23 states: "²²What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath–prepared for destruction? ²³What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory" (NIV). Does this mean that God damns others so the saved can realize it and be thankful, even take joy in the fact that they were saved and others weren't?

Such a view seems so repulsive. If salvation were something to be earned, something to be achieved, it would be different--there would be winners and loser. But the Bible says in Romans 9 that we are not saved through our efforts but by His mercy. If this is true, then the saved will be joyful at the prospect of someone burning in hell who could do nothing otherwise. Is God so callous? Does God damn some so that the saved can feel victorious?

I don't think so. God doesn't damn anyone so the saved feel better about themselves, so they can be joyful in their salvation. It isn't about the saved, it is about God. If God damns some it is not so that men can be joyful about their salvation but because it showcases His glory. The focus is wrong. It's a man-centered reality versus a God-centered reality (the most recurring theme in my ramblings..)

The Bible says that it is only through His mercy that we are saved, but it doesn't seem fair that God would arbitrarily damn some. Such a line of thought definately isn't a satisfying one. This train of though led, I believe it was Barth, to a belief in universal salvation, but if we are all saved then why bother following God at all, when we could revel in the desires and pleasures of the flesh?

On another note, yesterday I saw Saved for the first time. Definitely one of the funniest movies I have ever seen in my entire life. It was also a painfully accurate description of many facets of the evangelical subculture. How often do we lose sight of the gospel message of grace and replace it with a painful legalism? We've become no better than the Pharisees, and they crucified our Christ.

I also went to a panel discussion on racial reconciliation in the church. Fascinating, illuminating, and envigorating dialogue. If you're intersted in racial reconciliation and the church, you should go here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/004/22.33.html

and here:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/011/2.36.html

Until next time, grace and peace.

Mike

It feels like...

2005-03-30T15:30:00.000-06:00

Summer outside. 85 degrees, no clouds...its a tough day to do work.

The last couple days have been spent trying to pull together all the paperwork for my semester abroad in the fall. Keep your fingers crossed...hopefully I'll be in Aberdeen, Scotland in a few months, taking sweet courses like "The Theology and Philosophy of Religion" and "Calvin, Luther and the Birth of Protestantism" and "God's Warriors: International Calvinism and Religious War." But now the paperwork is all DONE and turned in and man, it feels good. Now I have no excuse to slack on my schoolwork.

Tonight is a panel discussion on "Racial Reconciliation and the Church." I'll post more about it afterwards.

I gotta run, Bobby's coming over and we're going to watch Saved. I'll try to write more later.

Grace and Peace,
Mike

On the Nature of God

2005-03-29T20:06:00.000-06:00

Favorite quote of the while:

"God is not that which we think He might or might not be, nor perhaps what he ought or ought not to be. God is He whom He wills to be in His work and revelation to men. He is the almighty Lord, He who lives, in, through, and outside of Himself, in His own freedom and love." ~Karl Barth

This quote is awesome. Often it calls me out. It reminds me that God is not what we create Him to be, nor what we desire Him to be, nor what we think Him to be, or even what we think we know Him to be. It restores some mystery to God. Sometimes in my rationilizations on the Nature of the Divine, I forget this. I try to confine God to the realm of my understanding, I try to confine Him to only that which I can understand.

I often find myself placing restrictions on God. I try to hold Him to my standards and to the standards commonly held by men. I develope theodicies trying to justify the acts of God to the world; I try to plus God into a system I can understand. I hold God to my own standards of justice and mercy and love. This, however is wrong--my standards are flawed. Rather than limiting God to human standards I should remember that God Himself IS the standard. Man is not the measure of God, God is the measure of God. God is not subject to the standards of mankind...the morality of God owes nothing to mankind. God Himself IS the standard. Morality is His creation--the standards are His. To hold God to man's standards is demeaning to the very idea of a sovereing God.

Barth reminds us that there are some things about God that we will not and cannot ever understand. But at the same time, it is important not to give up trying to understand God as a result. All of the great Biblical examples had this one thing in common: they struggled with God. They questioned God and through it all strove to know Him more completely. Heck, even Jesus struggled with the will of the Father. I don't think Barth would want us to give up theology because God is inexplicable and un-definable. After all, Barth is remembered as a theologian. And so we press on in an attempt to understand, even if, perhaps, we never can, and we trust that all will be revealed in His time.

Until next time, Grace and Peace be with you.
Mike

PS-I'll try to post the mundane info about what's going on in my life later. :-)

Inaugural Post

2005-03-28T17:28:00.000-06:00

Well, I've finally given in and created a blog. I realized that a lot of my friends have no idea what is going on in my life and figured this would be a good way for everyone to stay up-to-date on what is going on with me. It'll also be a place for me to rant and explore new ideas and thoughts.

This past weekend, for our 3-day Easter Break, I went camping at Guadalupe River State Park with a bunch of the guys. Good times and a lot of funny pictures and videos and mischief involving fire. Good food, too. A little rainy (ok, very rainy) on Saturday, but still sweet.

This week will be a busy one. I'm finishing up all my Study Abroad paperwork so I can get to Scotland in the fall. I also have a test, 2 group projects, and a group paper. This is the first time I've done any work since arriving at college almost 2 years ago. One project involves defending slavery. Of course I'm researching, writing and presenting a defense of slavery on the grounds of religion. More thoughts about slavery and Biblical inerrency later. The other project involves theological, social, and political implications of a movie with religious implications for my Contemporary Religious Thought class. I got the movie I wanted, Saved. I'm really excited...it's supposed to be a hilarious satire on the evangelical subculture. Having grown up, to some extent at least, within that subculture, it should be really interesting.

That's it for now...maybe there'll be more later.

Grace and Peace,
Mike