I just want to be filled with space
After so much cramped air bursting with light
I just want silence after sharing
A room with snoring family
I just want patience
For dirty pictures and slot machines
I just want peace.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
Home
It's that time of year again, that time when Colorado calls me back one more time. I feel like the ghost of Christmas present, only here for the season and no longer. I look forward to this time all year, only to realize that I am filled with melancholy and heartache of seasons past whilst I'm here.
My friends have grown, some old, some young, and others just grown. Ryan is in love, Nate is wandering still, and the rest exist somewhere at the fringes of my social sight, almost over the horizon, mere shadows to my vision.
Katherine is gone from this place, her ghost no longer walks with me. There is goodness in this and there is the barest pang of something lost. No great thing, nor small thing; this news is just news, as cold and half-noticed as the trees in my front yard. The time between her and I is too far stretched for my heart to find meaning in her passing. I was not sure until today that the hole had healed; my heart has forgotten the which turns to take to reach her home.
Tonight, Orion hangs high overhead. In my memories, he is the guardian of this place, an ever present spirit who witnessed all the sour and saporous things which came to pass.
The night is a blue curtain and I wonder if only I could draw it back what I would see.
My friends have grown, some old, some young, and others just grown. Ryan is in love, Nate is wandering still, and the rest exist somewhere at the fringes of my social sight, almost over the horizon, mere shadows to my vision.
Katherine is gone from this place, her ghost no longer walks with me. There is goodness in this and there is the barest pang of something lost. No great thing, nor small thing; this news is just news, as cold and half-noticed as the trees in my front yard. The time between her and I is too far stretched for my heart to find meaning in her passing. I was not sure until today that the hole had healed; my heart has forgotten the which turns to take to reach her home.
Tonight, Orion hangs high overhead. In my memories, he is the guardian of this place, an ever present spirit who witnessed all the sour and saporous things which came to pass.
The night is a blue curtain and I wonder if only I could draw it back what I would see.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
In Defense of the Radical Skeptic
They're right, you know, the radical skeptics and sometimes we envy them that. They fail to see the reason in our confidence, refuse to play the game of axioms, and shame us when we cannot provide justifications for our knowledge.
They're right, you know. They know that they cannot act, cannot think, cannot reason unless they join us more slipshod folk, but they will not back down from the truth: we don't know anything for sure, not even that we do not know. For this I praise the radical skeptic for their bravery. They are the great philosophical nobles, their spirits bent forever straight in the face of a truth that the rest of us fear, that we know nothing at all.
No, the of the radical skeptic is not flawed in their rationality, but their unwillingness to say what we cannot reasonably speak does trouble us lesser thinkers. We mumble to them things like practicality and hearts and souls and what dandelions would dream, if they could dream. We sometimes-skeptics (for we are never completely assured of our beliefs) are caught sometimes by these skeptics staring across fields dappled by summer time sunsets, sucking the sting out of frozen fingers, and drinking warm tea, wondering if there is not some greater purpose to this all, if our inability to speak is perhaps the whole point.
So it seems to us, the radical skeptic isn't at all wrong, they just are missing all the fun. Our messy worlds don't fit into the crossword boxes and our minds are less troubled by our ineptitudes than they seem to be. So, we will sit with these skeptics, puzzled by their fervor, but delighted by their passion for truth, for in their presence, they are the experts and we the bumbling amateurs who've never yet bothered to learn the rules of good thinking.
They're right, you know. They know that they cannot act, cannot think, cannot reason unless they join us more slipshod folk, but they will not back down from the truth: we don't know anything for sure, not even that we do not know. For this I praise the radical skeptic for their bravery. They are the great philosophical nobles, their spirits bent forever straight in the face of a truth that the rest of us fear, that we know nothing at all.
No, the of the radical skeptic is not flawed in their rationality, but their unwillingness to say what we cannot reasonably speak does trouble us lesser thinkers. We mumble to them things like practicality and hearts and souls and what dandelions would dream, if they could dream. We sometimes-skeptics (for we are never completely assured of our beliefs) are caught sometimes by these skeptics staring across fields dappled by summer time sunsets, sucking the sting out of frozen fingers, and drinking warm tea, wondering if there is not some greater purpose to this all, if our inability to speak is perhaps the whole point.
So it seems to us, the radical skeptic isn't at all wrong, they just are missing all the fun. Our messy worlds don't fit into the crossword boxes and our minds are less troubled by our ineptitudes than they seem to be. So, we will sit with these skeptics, puzzled by their fervor, but delighted by their passion for truth, for in their presence, they are the experts and we the bumbling amateurs who've never yet bothered to learn the rules of good thinking.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Mission Work, Part Three
Everywhere genocide is universally condemned. Ethnocide is rarely condemned and rarely seen as blameworthy. Quite often it is seen as morally praiseworthy (such can be the case in Christian evangelism).
Let me ask here: what is the difference between genocide and Ethnocide?
Might we say that it is never right to commit genocide? It constitutes the stripping of life from those of a particular race, culture, or nation.
Might we also say the same of ethnocide? It constitutes the stripping of the reasons for living from those of a particular race, culture or nation.
We might pause here and examine my claim that ethnocide is universally wrong. Don't we think that there are times and places where a culture should be put to death. What of the Ku Klux Klan? What of the Nazi's (the token genocide nation)? Are these cultures that good humans can allow to persist?
My response: have we not already claimed that genocide is wrong? Most would certainly say that racism is a moral flaw as well. I abhor genocide and racism both. But is it the political machine of Nazi Germany that we abhor, or the acts of genocide? Is it the structure of the Klan that we abhor, or the racism. Do we condemn culture or immorality in those cases?
Before anyone gets the silly idea of cultural stagnation in their heads, I do not suggest that we need to prevent a culture from changing. That is not only silly but impossible. All cultures change and adapt and that is as it should be. I think a quote from anthropologist Wade Davis may sum up a good perspective on the matter,
"Cultural survival is not about preservation, sequestering indigenous peoples in enclaves like some sort of zoological specimens. Change itself does note destroy a culture. All societies are constantly evolving. Indeed a culture survives when it has enough confidence in its past and enough say in its future to maintain its spirit and essence through all the changes it will inevitably undergo. "
Let's work with a few examples of cultural change which can be appropriate and even healthy. Suppose that a previously "Stone Age" culture invents bronze and begins to use it successfully in their culture. Is this change wrong or to be resisted? Certainly not by us Westerners (though it might be acceptable for that culture to resist the change).
Suppose however that a culture is coerced into speaking only English instead of their native tongue, suppose that a culture is forced into T-shirts and jeans instead of the traditional garb? In some cultures this would be fine. For some cultures, t-shirts or one more language among many would be suitable. However, for some cultures, this would be the death of that culture. This would be an example of ethnocide, even if it was unintentional.
What sorts of change to a culture are threatening, or what sorts of new introductions and change in a culture are morally unacceptable because they lead to ethnocide?
Simply: anything that threatens the foundations of a culture. Unfortunately, this is not always knowable, but we are obligated to know this before introduction happens. Thankfully, cultures tend to be highly resistant to change, highly resistant to cultural destruction if not coerced into accepting change (via civilization camps, bans on native tongues, or the destruction of the local environment by oil, rubber, or logging industries). Cultures will maintain their language if not forced to speak another one, will wear their traditional garb if they are not forced to wear other kinds, and will not adopt another religion if they are satisfied with their own.
The structure of this argument is this.
1. Ethnocide is wrong.
2. Cultural change is permissible when cultures choose to change themselves.
3. We are responsible for the introduction of products, ideas, or contacts that lead to the destruction of a culture.
In my next post, I will discuss whether or not Christian mission work commits us to ethnocide.
Let me ask here: what is the difference between genocide and Ethnocide?
Might we say that it is never right to commit genocide? It constitutes the stripping of life from those of a particular race, culture, or nation.
Might we also say the same of ethnocide? It constitutes the stripping of the reasons for living from those of a particular race, culture or nation.
We might pause here and examine my claim that ethnocide is universally wrong. Don't we think that there are times and places where a culture should be put to death. What of the Ku Klux Klan? What of the Nazi's (the token genocide nation)? Are these cultures that good humans can allow to persist?
My response: have we not already claimed that genocide is wrong? Most would certainly say that racism is a moral flaw as well. I abhor genocide and racism both. But is it the political machine of Nazi Germany that we abhor, or the acts of genocide? Is it the structure of the Klan that we abhor, or the racism. Do we condemn culture or immorality in those cases?
Before anyone gets the silly idea of cultural stagnation in their heads, I do not suggest that we need to prevent a culture from changing. That is not only silly but impossible. All cultures change and adapt and that is as it should be. I think a quote from anthropologist Wade Davis may sum up a good perspective on the matter,
"Cultural survival is not about preservation, sequestering indigenous peoples in enclaves like some sort of zoological specimens. Change itself does note destroy a culture. All societies are constantly evolving. Indeed a culture survives when it has enough confidence in its past and enough say in its future to maintain its spirit and essence through all the changes it will inevitably undergo. "
Let's work with a few examples of cultural change which can be appropriate and even healthy. Suppose that a previously "Stone Age" culture invents bronze and begins to use it successfully in their culture. Is this change wrong or to be resisted? Certainly not by us Westerners (though it might be acceptable for that culture to resist the change).
Suppose however that a culture is coerced into speaking only English instead of their native tongue, suppose that a culture is forced into T-shirts and jeans instead of the traditional garb? In some cultures this would be fine. For some cultures, t-shirts or one more language among many would be suitable. However, for some cultures, this would be the death of that culture. This would be an example of ethnocide, even if it was unintentional.
What sorts of change to a culture are threatening, or what sorts of new introductions and change in a culture are morally unacceptable because they lead to ethnocide?
Simply: anything that threatens the foundations of a culture. Unfortunately, this is not always knowable, but we are obligated to know this before introduction happens. Thankfully, cultures tend to be highly resistant to change, highly resistant to cultural destruction if not coerced into accepting change (via civilization camps, bans on native tongues, or the destruction of the local environment by oil, rubber, or logging industries). Cultures will maintain their language if not forced to speak another one, will wear their traditional garb if they are not forced to wear other kinds, and will not adopt another religion if they are satisfied with their own.
The structure of this argument is this.
1. Ethnocide is wrong.
2. Cultural change is permissible when cultures choose to change themselves.
3. We are responsible for the introduction of products, ideas, or contacts that lead to the destruction of a culture.
In my next post, I will discuss whether or not Christian mission work commits us to ethnocide.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Mission Work, Part Two
Typically when Christians attempt to answer the problem of missionary evangelism they look to the Bible to support their claims, using verses like Matthew 28:16-20 (called the Great Commission)
"Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.'"
This particular post will be about why in this discussion this look to Scripture is not available to us. Plainly, it begs the question we seek to answer.
Evangelism asserts something important regarding Christianity: Christianity is the only truth faith. This may seem a trivial point, but assure you, it is anything but. I admit that there may be other ways of expressing the nature of Christianity's truth, but this seems to be the most common one, and seems before analysis to be required of all believers in order that they be logically consistent.
So why is this a problem? Let me explain by way of example.
Ithano is a young man who has grown up with the Makitharo people. The Makitharo believe that the whole world was once created by Ze'ah, the Serpent God, who cast the whole of existence into its current shape, bringing together the primal elements of Earth, Wind, Fire, Water, and Spirit. The Makitharo people believe that those who live on the earth (as all humans do) are obligated to worship Ze'ah, and that if anyone doesn't, they will be buried in the earth for eternity when they die, their spirits unable to cross the cosmos to the edge of the universe and into Ze'ah's heaven-home.
Concerned for the spirits of us non-Makitharo, Ithano learns English and trains with the shaman's of the Makitharo people, memorizing the holy Zehta, the Makitharo's holy book in order to convince non-Makitharo people that the Makitharo beliefs are true.
Now suppose that Ithano showed up at your doorstep and tried to explain to you that you needed to believe and worship Ze'ah in order to free your spirit in the afterlife. If you asked Ithano how he knew this he would say "the Zehta says so. Book 7 of the Shaman Majin, line 72 says "Then Ze'ha spoke through Majin saying 'Go and free the spirits of all nations, releasing them in my name."
What are we to make of this story? Here's what I take from it. Ithano believes what he believes about evangelism because his holy book says so. Christians typically believe what they believe about evangelism because the Bible says so. Christians would be inclined to say that Ithano is wrong and that he doesn't have the truth. Ithano might believe the same about Christians. How are we to judge this?
What I hope to demonstrate here is the problem involved with just referring to Scriptures in order to prove a point. Anyone of another religion can do the same. This pointing to Scriptures does not justify or prove our culture any more than Ithano's pointing to the Zehta does.
The bible is an artifact of Christian culture, just as the Zehta is an artifact of the Makitharo culture. To refer to the Bible in order to prove the rightness of evangelism is to say "See, this artifact that my culture produced proves my culture is right."
In order that I am not misunderstood, I want to be clear on one point. I am not here claiming that the Bible is somehow false, (though honestly, I'm not sure what it would mean for a collection of poems, letters, mythology, histories, and other stories to be true or false.)Instead, I'm saying if we are going to explore the question of missionary evangelism, we are not able to use the Bible in order to prove ourselves right. It's self-referential, and as such, it defeats the purpose entirely.
What do you think about this? Do you think that we can and should use Scripture as a backing for evangelism? If so, how do you avoid the problem of Ithano? Have I been to reductive in my thinking? Is there a better, more honest path to tread here?
"Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.'"
This particular post will be about why in this discussion this look to Scripture is not available to us. Plainly, it begs the question we seek to answer.
Evangelism asserts something important regarding Christianity: Christianity is the only truth faith. This may seem a trivial point, but assure you, it is anything but. I admit that there may be other ways of expressing the nature of Christianity's truth, but this seems to be the most common one, and seems before analysis to be required of all believers in order that they be logically consistent.
So why is this a problem? Let me explain by way of example.
Ithano is a young man who has grown up with the Makitharo people. The Makitharo believe that the whole world was once created by Ze'ah, the Serpent God, who cast the whole of existence into its current shape, bringing together the primal elements of Earth, Wind, Fire, Water, and Spirit. The Makitharo people believe that those who live on the earth (as all humans do) are obligated to worship Ze'ah, and that if anyone doesn't, they will be buried in the earth for eternity when they die, their spirits unable to cross the cosmos to the edge of the universe and into Ze'ah's heaven-home.
Concerned for the spirits of us non-Makitharo, Ithano learns English and trains with the shaman's of the Makitharo people, memorizing the holy Zehta, the Makitharo's holy book in order to convince non-Makitharo people that the Makitharo beliefs are true.
Now suppose that Ithano showed up at your doorstep and tried to explain to you that you needed to believe and worship Ze'ah in order to free your spirit in the afterlife. If you asked Ithano how he knew this he would say "the Zehta says so. Book 7 of the Shaman Majin, line 72 says "Then Ze'ha spoke through Majin saying 'Go and free the spirits of all nations, releasing them in my name."
What are we to make of this story? Here's what I take from it. Ithano believes what he believes about evangelism because his holy book says so. Christians typically believe what they believe about evangelism because the Bible says so. Christians would be inclined to say that Ithano is wrong and that he doesn't have the truth. Ithano might believe the same about Christians. How are we to judge this?
What I hope to demonstrate here is the problem involved with just referring to Scriptures in order to prove a point. Anyone of another religion can do the same. This pointing to Scriptures does not justify or prove our culture any more than Ithano's pointing to the Zehta does.
The bible is an artifact of Christian culture, just as the Zehta is an artifact of the Makitharo culture. To refer to the Bible in order to prove the rightness of evangelism is to say "See, this artifact that my culture produced proves my culture is right."
In order that I am not misunderstood, I want to be clear on one point. I am not here claiming that the Bible is somehow false, (though honestly, I'm not sure what it would mean for a collection of poems, letters, mythology, histories, and other stories to be true or false.)Instead, I'm saying if we are going to explore the question of missionary evangelism, we are not able to use the Bible in order to prove ourselves right. It's self-referential, and as such, it defeats the purpose entirely.
What do you think about this? Do you think that we can and should use Scripture as a backing for evangelism? If so, how do you avoid the problem of Ithano? Have I been to reductive in my thinking? Is there a better, more honest path to tread here?
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Christian Mission Work, Part One
Over the next couple of weeks, I plan to explore several important questions about Christian missionary work. I'm undertaking this study for a few reasons.
1) I'm worried about the moral problems sorrounding mission work.
2)I hope to articulate the problem of asserting justification for mission work based upon Scripture.
3) I'm concerned that most unexamined reasons for promotion of mission work rest on cultural arrogance.
4) Mission work is a major commandment in Christianity. If it cannot be defended in a way that is convincing and moral, it represents a major flaw in Christianity.
Since I am workingh through this and by no means and expert in the subject, I encourage comments and criticisms. Furthermore, if this topic is of importance to you, I also encourage you to post your own writings and thoughts on the topic in separate blogs or Facebook Notes.
At this stage, I feel it's important to describe the kinds of questions that need to be asked in order to explore the topic of missions.
Is missionary evangelism always good for a culture?
-What is meant by evangelism? -What is meant by good here? -If it is not always good, what defines good missionary evangelism?
Is there anything intrinsic importance to any given culture such that it should not be changed?
Is missionary evangelism ever justified? If so, is it a scriptural justification, or are there other justifications?
Does mission work rest on the assumption that our culture and no other culture is correct?
-What is it that makes a culture correct? --Furthermore, what grounds this belief? -In what sense is Christian culture more correct?
What does the middle ground between cultural relativism and apologetics look like in this issue?
-Does such a place exist?
1) I'm worried about the moral problems sorrounding mission work.
2)I hope to articulate the problem of asserting justification for mission work based upon Scripture.
3) I'm concerned that most unexamined reasons for promotion of mission work rest on cultural arrogance.
4) Mission work is a major commandment in Christianity. If it cannot be defended in a way that is convincing and moral, it represents a major flaw in Christianity.
Since I am workingh through this and by no means and expert in the subject, I encourage comments and criticisms. Furthermore, if this topic is of importance to you, I also encourage you to post your own writings and thoughts on the topic in separate blogs or Facebook Notes.
At this stage, I feel it's important to describe the kinds of questions that need to be asked in order to explore the topic of missions.
Is missionary evangelism always good for a culture?
-What is meant by evangelism? -What is meant by good here? -If it is not always good, what defines good missionary evangelism?
Is there anything intrinsic importance to any given culture such that it should not be changed?
Is missionary evangelism ever justified? If so, is it a scriptural justification, or are there other justifications?
Does mission work rest on the assumption that our culture and no other culture is correct?
-What is it that makes a culture correct? --Furthermore, what grounds this belief? -In what sense is Christian culture more correct?
What does the middle ground between cultural relativism and apologetics look like in this issue?
-Does such a place exist?
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Catching the Breath
Exhale.
Scoop up your breath in your palm.
Catch it. Hold it.
This is Pneuma.
Press it firmly against your forehead, then swiftly down to your navel.
Let it fill your belly.
Sweep it up to your shoulder, the across the lungs to the other.
Feel it roll out to your fingers and down to your toes.
This is Pneuma.
This is Him, the Spirit.
Scoop up your breath in your palm.
Catch it. Hold it.
This is Pneuma.
Press it firmly against your forehead, then swiftly down to your navel.
Let it fill your belly.
Sweep it up to your shoulder, the across the lungs to the other.
Feel it roll out to your fingers and down to your toes.
This is Pneuma.
This is Him, the Spirit.
Genesis 1-7
I have only a few things to notice.
1)Now that I know what to look for, it is especially evident that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 give us two very different Creation stories. The first is a poem of incredible proportions one that walks us through a story that shows that God has everything in control and that everything He creates is good. The second one, starting at at Genesis 2:4, gives us a very personal God, who crafts things from the dust in the still mists of the morning, before any plants or animals are made. He forms 'adam from the ground, 'adamah, breathes into his nostrils. Talk about intimate!
What are we to do with the inconsistencies in these two accounts? Should we reject one and favor the other, or throw them both out? No. We should remember that when it comes to story telling, more is better. Why do we remake movies? Why do we create sequels? Why do we tell the same stories over and over again? Because more is better. So it is with the creation tales. And these aren't the only Creation stories in the Bible. One might argue that John's gospel starts with a creation tale and in several places the Psalms discuss creation as well. More is better.
2. Why does God deny Cain's sacrifice? If we try to understand this as God's actual action toward people, we are left with a host of issues about the nature of God and his moral character. Instead, I suggest we understand this as a revision that took place after the sacrificial practices had begun among the Hebrews. It's a statement about what sorts of sacrifices one should give, meat or flesh, and what sort of sacrifices one should not give, grain or fruit.
It's also curious that Cain and Abel have such different professions. It would have never have happened like that in real life, so we can understand these to be allegorical characters. What does that do for our interpretation of this story? Who were the pastoralists and who were the agriculturalists.
3. Many people complain about the long lists of names, the genealogies that are scattered throughout the Bible. But they serve a purpose, and it's not just because the Hebrews cared about heritage. Here in Genesis 5, they serve to show us that Noah is the 10th generation to pass since 'adam is cursed to till the ground. We haven't gotten there yet, but Noah will be the first person to have successful agriculture in the Bible shortly after he leaves the ark. (Perhaps this curse is the reason that Cain's sacrifice is denied?)
4. Notice also the rules for what sorts of animals Noah should bring on the ark. First he's commanded to take on one pair and that's it, but in Genesis 7, he is supposed to bring 7 pairs of all clean animals, and only a pair of the unclean animals. This is another example of sacrificial revision going on in Genesis.
Another thing we need to be careful of when it comes to reading the Bible is thinking that the book had one iteration and then it was set in stone forever. This is not the case. We know that during the Babylonian Exile, there was a ton of revision that happened to the Bible, with things being added and removed or altered all over the place. This is clearly evidenced in the retelling of Samuel, Saul, and David's stories in Kings. Kings is much more critical and harsh toward these kings than the original telling in Samuel.
That's all for now. The flood is next and a great deal of interesting stuff starts happening after God starts making covenants.
1)Now that I know what to look for, it is especially evident that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 give us two very different Creation stories. The first is a poem of incredible proportions one that walks us through a story that shows that God has everything in control and that everything He creates is good. The second one, starting at at Genesis 2:4, gives us a very personal God, who crafts things from the dust in the still mists of the morning, before any plants or animals are made. He forms 'adam from the ground, 'adamah, breathes into his nostrils. Talk about intimate!
What are we to do with the inconsistencies in these two accounts? Should we reject one and favor the other, or throw them both out? No. We should remember that when it comes to story telling, more is better. Why do we remake movies? Why do we create sequels? Why do we tell the same stories over and over again? Because more is better. So it is with the creation tales. And these aren't the only Creation stories in the Bible. One might argue that John's gospel starts with a creation tale and in several places the Psalms discuss creation as well. More is better.
2. Why does God deny Cain's sacrifice? If we try to understand this as God's actual action toward people, we are left with a host of issues about the nature of God and his moral character. Instead, I suggest we understand this as a revision that took place after the sacrificial practices had begun among the Hebrews. It's a statement about what sorts of sacrifices one should give, meat or flesh, and what sort of sacrifices one should not give, grain or fruit.
It's also curious that Cain and Abel have such different professions. It would have never have happened like that in real life, so we can understand these to be allegorical characters. What does that do for our interpretation of this story? Who were the pastoralists and who were the agriculturalists.
3. Many people complain about the long lists of names, the genealogies that are scattered throughout the Bible. But they serve a purpose, and it's not just because the Hebrews cared about heritage. Here in Genesis 5, they serve to show us that Noah is the 10th generation to pass since 'adam is cursed to till the ground. We haven't gotten there yet, but Noah will be the first person to have successful agriculture in the Bible shortly after he leaves the ark. (Perhaps this curse is the reason that Cain's sacrifice is denied?)
4. Notice also the rules for what sorts of animals Noah should bring on the ark. First he's commanded to take on one pair and that's it, but in Genesis 7, he is supposed to bring 7 pairs of all clean animals, and only a pair of the unclean animals. This is another example of sacrificial revision going on in Genesis.
Another thing we need to be careful of when it comes to reading the Bible is thinking that the book had one iteration and then it was set in stone forever. This is not the case. We know that during the Babylonian Exile, there was a ton of revision that happened to the Bible, with things being added and removed or altered all over the place. This is clearly evidenced in the retelling of Samuel, Saul, and David's stories in Kings. Kings is much more critical and harsh toward these kings than the original telling in Samuel.
That's all for now. The flood is next and a great deal of interesting stuff starts happening after God starts making covenants.
I started learning Greek on Monday and am so far excited to see what comes of it. In 9 weeks I will be able to pick my way through anything in the Septuagint and the New Testament, as well as pretty much any 1st century Greek writing. Holy cow!
I also started reading the Bible today. I am embarking on a full read through of the Bible by December 31st of this year. Technically, we start in July, but this summer is jam packed, so I don't know how much time I'll have to read and reflect on 7 chapters every day, so I wanted to get a head start.
I also think I might have finally figured out a direction I'm comfortable heading with careers and schools and stuff. I think I might try to explore an anthropology of Christianity. A lot of the work that's been done has been either from a theological perspective, or from an anthropologist's eyes only. I'd like to see what happens when someone who is trained in Christianity and in anthropology takes a look at things like eucharist, baptism, or ordination. It's essentially taking to interpretive lenses and trying to ask how they inform each other. I need to do more research on this, but it looks like I'm headed to seminary next year. Not to be a pastor, mind you, but to get a firmer look at languages, bible, and Christian history. Weird.
I also started reading the Bible today. I am embarking on a full read through of the Bible by December 31st of this year. Technically, we start in July, but this summer is jam packed, so I don't know how much time I'll have to read and reflect on 7 chapters every day, so I wanted to get a head start.
I also think I might have finally figured out a direction I'm comfortable heading with careers and schools and stuff. I think I might try to explore an anthropology of Christianity. A lot of the work that's been done has been either from a theological perspective, or from an anthropologist's eyes only. I'd like to see what happens when someone who is trained in Christianity and in anthropology takes a look at things like eucharist, baptism, or ordination. It's essentially taking to interpretive lenses and trying to ask how they inform each other. I need to do more research on this, but it looks like I'm headed to seminary next year. Not to be a pastor, mind you, but to get a firmer look at languages, bible, and Christian history. Weird.
Monday, June 14, 2010
A Short Trip to the Edge
One of our first discussions was about death, about staring her in the face and seeing fiery,paradoxical life in her eyes. You told me that you did not know yourself upon tasting your mortality, but instead realized that you know nothing at all about your own being. The life that flashed before your eyes was not the life that had come before, but the life that would come after.
The Hebrew people had an odd way of telling stories, a foreign way of starting out from their final destination in order to more fully understand why they needed to return to it. In Genesis begins a story of God's Creation of the whole world and somewhere between Genesis and Revelation, the journey takes place. Ultimately, unstoppably, despite sin, death, and redemption, the story returns to Creation, to what we call New Creation in the Church, but which is really the same Creation, the place "In the Beginning." Only this time, we recognize it for what it is, for a beginning and end in itself. It's a conversation that God spoke into existence, in order that we may talk awhile with Him.
Death is Life's lover, a match made and a bargain struck in order that we may be blessed with conversation, so goodness may be made full. So, let's return again to our conversation; let's return time and time again. Let's walk back out to that mortal brink, to the edge of our Shalom. We'll pace the cliff's edge and see if we cannot begin to know something of ourselves from the journey.
The Hebrew people had an odd way of telling stories, a foreign way of starting out from their final destination in order to more fully understand why they needed to return to it. In Genesis begins a story of God's Creation of the whole world and somewhere between Genesis and Revelation, the journey takes place. Ultimately, unstoppably, despite sin, death, and redemption, the story returns to Creation, to what we call New Creation in the Church, but which is really the same Creation, the place "In the Beginning." Only this time, we recognize it for what it is, for a beginning and end in itself. It's a conversation that God spoke into existence, in order that we may talk awhile with Him.
Death is Life's lover, a match made and a bargain struck in order that we may be blessed with conversation, so goodness may be made full. So, let's return again to our conversation; let's return time and time again. Let's walk back out to that mortal brink, to the edge of our Shalom. We'll pace the cliff's edge and see if we cannot begin to know something of ourselves from the journey.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Exploring Internal Conflict, part 1
Being an open-minded philosopher is a tough job. I am stubborn as nails when someone wants to convince me of a new and different position. In this, I am hypocritical. But you can bet, can even be assured of it, that though the particular conversation, debate, or discussion is finished, it rages on internally.
I'm not satisfied with being right, or winning arguments. Winning debates can be done without any truth of the matter mentioned. No, I'm fulfilled when truth comes spilling into my mind like hot milk into my belly. I have no uncontrived ways of expressing this feeling, but it is the reason I ask questions, and the reason I attempt to disagree with people. I'm not trying to explain why you or anyone is wrong, but instead searching for the truth of the matter.
But let's get out of the abstract discussion. Let me give you something you can sink your teeth into.
For weeks now, I've been waging wars on marijuana and pornography. Externally, these two topics are settled. I've made outwardly defensible statements regarding a definitive "no, it's not right" to pornography and a more particularized "I'm against it's use by myself and those I love" regarding pot. To be clear, I no more exile pot smokers than I do evangelicals--I don't like it but I'll be damned if that prevents me from being friends with those who do.
But these outward stances hardly belie the frustrating and unsettling debate that continues in my head. I have no axioms for discussing pot smoking besides my own feelings about the matter, no argument that does not somehow treat alcohol and tobacco as arbitrarily acceptable and marijuana as wrong.
It has only gotten worse as I've continued to study the sociology of deviance, only gotten worse when I've realized that I, and my culture, label marijuana as deviant, but perhaps for unjustifiable reasons. Add to this the functional role that deviance plays in our culture, and I have begun to wonder whether their is any fact of right or wrong about the matter of marijuana use. It could very well simply be a deviant behavior labeled as such because it serves a use and not enough people are willing to defend it.
This internal conflict is further complicated by the fact that I have friends dear to me who have used the drug and continue to do so and others who would like to do so but don't for social reasons. While this has a great emotional effect on me, I feel as though my reasons for these responses are primarily forces that have been socialized into me and not responses that derive from some sort of moral stance or logical conviction. How am I to respond to this activity when I am unable to articulate any sort of coherence in my own internal discussion? I feel as though any response would be incomplete and too peremptory. This, of course, settles little since I do not have a choice to say nothing: to say nothing is to give at least external affirmation.
While marijuana use is not something I have engaged in, pornography is something I have struggled with for many years. Despite the attempts of my parents to keep me from viewing pornography, the internet can be a very eye-opening place to a young man. This viewing was always coupled with feelings of moral guilt, not for my sexuality but for a form of objectification of sex, and an intense curiosity for what other people and myself found arousing.
Flash forward to today, where the use of pornography has fallen off my radar, perhaps because of more real life relationships and perhaps because of an acknowledgement that my visual fantasy life is much less extravagant than that of other men. This is not to say that the urge is not there, but the desire runs parallel to the times when I feel the need for sexual attention, and thus doesn't seem terribly unusual.
But what of those moral feelings regarding pornography? They have lessened to some extent, allowing an understanding and a place for pornography to exist for others for the purpose of sexual arousal. But yet I feel as though it is still wrong for anyone, myself certainly included, to consume pornography in the way that it is most commonly consumed: alone. This is contradicted by my feeling that masturbation is something helpful to one's own sexual understanding. This puzzle is further complicated by feminist critiques of pornography from both sides of the spectrum and finally the issue of it's place in collective experiences and couple's watching.
It's simple to make a statement on the outside about these issues. It's challenging and trying to be intellectually honest about the matters. It's easy to be stubborn and hypocritical. It's challenging to unravel the puzzle. But I'm required to unravel, unfurl, untie, disentangle and discover. Call me the worst hedonist out there, but that is what gives meaning and pleasure to my life.
I'm not satisfied with being right, or winning arguments. Winning debates can be done without any truth of the matter mentioned. No, I'm fulfilled when truth comes spilling into my mind like hot milk into my belly. I have no uncontrived ways of expressing this feeling, but it is the reason I ask questions, and the reason I attempt to disagree with people. I'm not trying to explain why you or anyone is wrong, but instead searching for the truth of the matter.
But let's get out of the abstract discussion. Let me give you something you can sink your teeth into.
For weeks now, I've been waging wars on marijuana and pornography. Externally, these two topics are settled. I've made outwardly defensible statements regarding a definitive "no, it's not right" to pornography and a more particularized "I'm against it's use by myself and those I love" regarding pot. To be clear, I no more exile pot smokers than I do evangelicals--I don't like it but I'll be damned if that prevents me from being friends with those who do.
But these outward stances hardly belie the frustrating and unsettling debate that continues in my head. I have no axioms for discussing pot smoking besides my own feelings about the matter, no argument that does not somehow treat alcohol and tobacco as arbitrarily acceptable and marijuana as wrong.
It has only gotten worse as I've continued to study the sociology of deviance, only gotten worse when I've realized that I, and my culture, label marijuana as deviant, but perhaps for unjustifiable reasons. Add to this the functional role that deviance plays in our culture, and I have begun to wonder whether their is any fact of right or wrong about the matter of marijuana use. It could very well simply be a deviant behavior labeled as such because it serves a use and not enough people are willing to defend it.
This internal conflict is further complicated by the fact that I have friends dear to me who have used the drug and continue to do so and others who would like to do so but don't for social reasons. While this has a great emotional effect on me, I feel as though my reasons for these responses are primarily forces that have been socialized into me and not responses that derive from some sort of moral stance or logical conviction. How am I to respond to this activity when I am unable to articulate any sort of coherence in my own internal discussion? I feel as though any response would be incomplete and too peremptory. This, of course, settles little since I do not have a choice to say nothing: to say nothing is to give at least external affirmation.
While marijuana use is not something I have engaged in, pornography is something I have struggled with for many years. Despite the attempts of my parents to keep me from viewing pornography, the internet can be a very eye-opening place to a young man. This viewing was always coupled with feelings of moral guilt, not for my sexuality but for a form of objectification of sex, and an intense curiosity for what other people and myself found arousing.
Flash forward to today, where the use of pornography has fallen off my radar, perhaps because of more real life relationships and perhaps because of an acknowledgement that my visual fantasy life is much less extravagant than that of other men. This is not to say that the urge is not there, but the desire runs parallel to the times when I feel the need for sexual attention, and thus doesn't seem terribly unusual.
But what of those moral feelings regarding pornography? They have lessened to some extent, allowing an understanding and a place for pornography to exist for others for the purpose of sexual arousal. But yet I feel as though it is still wrong for anyone, myself certainly included, to consume pornography in the way that it is most commonly consumed: alone. This is contradicted by my feeling that masturbation is something helpful to one's own sexual understanding. This puzzle is further complicated by feminist critiques of pornography from both sides of the spectrum and finally the issue of it's place in collective experiences and couple's watching.
It's simple to make a statement on the outside about these issues. It's challenging and trying to be intellectually honest about the matters. It's easy to be stubborn and hypocritical. It's challenging to unravel the puzzle. But I'm required to unravel, unfurl, untie, disentangle and discover. Call me the worst hedonist out there, but that is what gives meaning and pleasure to my life.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
From time to time my head begins to race when I consider the debt I'm going to be in after school. I literally could have paid for a small house with money I've spent on getting this simple baccalaureate degree. It makes me sick to consider that it may well be two decades before I get all of my schooling entirely paid off. I can't even begin to recognize what that actually means for my life. It frightens me to no end and I simply cannot find a way to avoid it or ignore it. Saving a miracle or a shocking inheritance, this is going to be a long LONG haul to any sort of financial independence.
Or it will take extreme patience. It will take living in cheap housing for long periods of time, buying food locally, not upgrading any of my technology, riding a bike, pinching pennies by reading books instead of watching television, cooking my own food and never eating at restaurants, going for walks and bike rides instead of road trips, dumpster diving for bread instead of buying it, building a book case instead of buying one, and simply going without for as long as possible. Dollar by dollar, dime by dime, this can be cared for. It means living a life opposite of what my culture says I ought to be doing, which is buying new stuff.
I am terrified of debt and simultaneously motivated to allow it to influence me to be less of a consumer and more of a reuser. Does that help my worry? Not at all. It does help that I don't much care about having a huge house and lots of kids and a big screen TV? Does it help that I don't care if I own a car ever? I think so. What are the things that put other people in debt? A house. A car. And school. I have merely thrown my lot in with the thing that seems a lot more important to me.
Let us hope that is enough.
Or it will take extreme patience. It will take living in cheap housing for long periods of time, buying food locally, not upgrading any of my technology, riding a bike, pinching pennies by reading books instead of watching television, cooking my own food and never eating at restaurants, going for walks and bike rides instead of road trips, dumpster diving for bread instead of buying it, building a book case instead of buying one, and simply going without for as long as possible. Dollar by dollar, dime by dime, this can be cared for. It means living a life opposite of what my culture says I ought to be doing, which is buying new stuff.
I am terrified of debt and simultaneously motivated to allow it to influence me to be less of a consumer and more of a reuser. Does that help my worry? Not at all. It does help that I don't much care about having a huge house and lots of kids and a big screen TV? Does it help that I don't care if I own a car ever? I think so. What are the things that put other people in debt? A house. A car. And school. I have merely thrown my lot in with the thing that seems a lot more important to me.
Let us hope that is enough.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Home and Back Again: A student's tale
I'm leaving my home in Colorado for what might be the last time in my life. Oh sure, I'll most likely return see my family for small jaunts here or there, but in all likelihood, when I set my feet outside this morning, I will never again return for any hint of an extended stay.
This is, of course, a melancholy of my own doing. I am the one who chose to live in Seattle this summer, I am the one who decided that school so far away from Colorado was necessary, and it's entirely my own fault that I happened to keep aging long enough to actually reach adulthood.
There is more going on here than meets the eye. For example, that adulthood is a construction my parents built which requires A) that I leave the house and do not return to live with them, B) obtain a job which by which I can gain independence, and C) obtain the necessary life skills to pass on this way of living to my children, should I have any.
I sound like a whiny brat who can't seem to grasp the maturity to grow up. Touche, dear life! Call me a whiny brat then. In my defense, my buzzing rests simultaneously on my immaturity, and more and more on a growing skepticism of this strong individualism that we promote.
The argument goes like this, in a single question: Why should I learn to be a rugged and mature individual when the best life is found in community?
But so much for my intellectualism, eh? So much for my believing that my excuses for wanting to return home were ones based solely on my skepticism toward the pressure to be an individual. It is that, but also more prominently my immaturity at the whole process of growing old.
Bah! Enough rambling and self effacing. I have packing to do.
This is, of course, a melancholy of my own doing. I am the one who chose to live in Seattle this summer, I am the one who decided that school so far away from Colorado was necessary, and it's entirely my own fault that I happened to keep aging long enough to actually reach adulthood.
There is more going on here than meets the eye. For example, that adulthood is a construction my parents built which requires A) that I leave the house and do not return to live with them, B) obtain a job which by which I can gain independence, and C) obtain the necessary life skills to pass on this way of living to my children, should I have any.
I sound like a whiny brat who can't seem to grasp the maturity to grow up. Touche, dear life! Call me a whiny brat then. In my defense, my buzzing rests simultaneously on my immaturity, and more and more on a growing skepticism of this strong individualism that we promote.
The argument goes like this, in a single question: Why should I learn to be a rugged and mature individual when the best life is found in community?
But so much for my intellectualism, eh? So much for my believing that my excuses for wanting to return home were ones based solely on my skepticism toward the pressure to be an individual. It is that, but also more prominently my immaturity at the whole process of growing old.
Bah! Enough rambling and self effacing. I have packing to do.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
On Rhetoric
A few weeks ago I wrote an article for my university's newspaper regarding feminism. In this particular article, I argued that everyone who promotes gender equality is a feminist. This was a fine bit of rhetoric, but ultimately, if I were the one reading it instead of writing it, I'd have been a bit skeptical. Maybe it's a philosopher thing, but my housemate Ross was one of the first people to begin the attack against this equivocation.
Tonight I attended a Haven meeting where members from the Transgender community in Seattle discussed the nature of being transgender is a gender-binary world. Their stories were collectively heartbreaking: tales of exile from parents, injustice in the work force, and social issues surrounding a medical world which fails to recognize the reality of transgender people as a primarily social situation instead of a biological one.
They were especially ardent about the politics of the situation and I feel that this was entirely justified. However, I'm not sure I buy the rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. What they advocated for was a strongly liberal scenario, both economically and socially. While this may be the best choice, it hardly seems settled in my book. But their rhetoric was such that to be anything else but a strong liberal would be an injustice.
Here's the point. (Remind me that there must be a better way to demonstrate my pseudo-essay's point than simply stating so). To Ross, it seemed highly problematic to equate feminism with gender-equality advocation. To me, it seems highly problematic to equate pro-transgender equality with pro-strong liberal politics and economics.
Things to consider:
1)Just because a end is something you fight for, doesn't mean you must accept the means that others have taken for fighting for it
2)Just because you don't agree with the rhetoric of a specific cause doesn't mean that the cause is foolish and wrong--just their rhetoric
3)What is the right response to transgender advocacy?
4)I was moved by the problems facing the transgender community. How does this effect my interest in exploring sexuality and gender in the Christian Church?
Tonight I attended a Haven meeting where members from the Transgender community in Seattle discussed the nature of being transgender is a gender-binary world. Their stories were collectively heartbreaking: tales of exile from parents, injustice in the work force, and social issues surrounding a medical world which fails to recognize the reality of transgender people as a primarily social situation instead of a biological one.
They were especially ardent about the politics of the situation and I feel that this was entirely justified. However, I'm not sure I buy the rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. What they advocated for was a strongly liberal scenario, both economically and socially. While this may be the best choice, it hardly seems settled in my book. But their rhetoric was such that to be anything else but a strong liberal would be an injustice.
Here's the point. (Remind me that there must be a better way to demonstrate my pseudo-essay's point than simply stating so). To Ross, it seemed highly problematic to equate feminism with gender-equality advocation. To me, it seems highly problematic to equate pro-transgender equality with pro-strong liberal politics and economics.
Things to consider:
1)Just because a end is something you fight for, doesn't mean you must accept the means that others have taken for fighting for it
2)Just because you don't agree with the rhetoric of a specific cause doesn't mean that the cause is foolish and wrong--just their rhetoric
3)What is the right response to transgender advocacy?
4)I was moved by the problems facing the transgender community. How does this effect my interest in exploring sexuality and gender in the Christian Church?
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Feast and be merry
Before me lies a feast, a scrumptious dinner of opportunities. Here we have the seasoned biological anthropology, right next to the chardonnay of seminary. Our first course is a choice between sociology,theology, or biology, though be warned the biology takes some chewing to get through.
Might I add that the chef seemed to indicate that whatever first course I choose will determine what the rest of the meal looks like. Will it be delectible no matter the choice? But of course. Will I wonder what the meal could have been had I chosen the tender sociology over the tough but-oh-so-worth-it biology?
But of course.
Might I add that the chef seemed to indicate that whatever first course I choose will determine what the rest of the meal looks like. Will it be delectible no matter the choice? But of course. Will I wonder what the meal could have been had I chosen the tender sociology over the tough but-oh-so-worth-it biology?
But of course.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Late night stretches
Alright, dear one, I'll stretch and groan and at last be full. I'll reach up into my soul, yank twice at it's ethereal innards and demand it find for me a muse.
Alright, dear one, I'll scream and sob and at last be empty. I'll let go of my knees, rise up to my feet, and admit it's time to walk again.
Alright, dear one, alright.
Alright, dear one, I'll scream and sob and at last be empty. I'll let go of my knees, rise up to my feet, and admit it's time to walk again.
Alright, dear one, alright.
My hands have carpel tunnel. They ache when I write. They spit fire when I type. They are coals that keep my coffee warm. They are teeth that nip at my wrists with each text. They howl when I blog and coo when I bathe.
My writing has a sprain. It grumbles when I outline. It gurgles when I rhyme. It is the alveoli that keep exchange my poison for my oxygen. It is a rain droplet on my tongue. It genuflects when I laugh and whispers when I kiss.
My writing has a sprain. It grumbles when I outline. It gurgles when I rhyme. It is the alveoli that keep exchange my poison for my oxygen. It is a rain droplet on my tongue. It genuflects when I laugh and whispers when I kiss.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Ode to My Lady Athena
O brazen Lady!
O goddess of my state!
What have I done to earn the blessing
Of your steely glaze?
What sacrifice have I laid before the altar
That you would gift me with such flame?
That you, almighty Athena, would feel contest from me?
I am neither Zeus, the master of the storm,
nor Apollo, guardian of the sun's light
Will never match great Hermes in prophecies
and cannot beat lord Hades and all his tangled fates
Name me Socrates instead
I desire not that you be conquered,
harbor no hope to see you wilt
My truest lady, protector of my home,
I long to see you burst, bud, and bloom
If one could bottle up the passion
Your warrior eyes could grant
I'd swallow that cobalt exilir
First in sips, then in greedy gulps
I'd imbibe until euphoric
high from too much heart
and toast your eternal spirit
Dear lady, dear Goddess, dear love
bless me not and bless me more
with eyes seething with such fierceness
For in such glances I surely die
Without them, I cannot live
O goddess of my state!
What have I done to earn the blessing
Of your steely glaze?
What sacrifice have I laid before the altar
That you would gift me with such flame?
That you, almighty Athena, would feel contest from me?
I am neither Zeus, the master of the storm,
nor Apollo, guardian of the sun's light
Will never match great Hermes in prophecies
and cannot beat lord Hades and all his tangled fates
Name me Socrates instead
I desire not that you be conquered,
harbor no hope to see you wilt
My truest lady, protector of my home,
I long to see you burst, bud, and bloom
If one could bottle up the passion
Your warrior eyes could grant
I'd swallow that cobalt exilir
First in sips, then in greedy gulps
I'd imbibe until euphoric
high from too much heart
and toast your eternal spirit
Dear lady, dear Goddess, dear love
bless me not and bless me more
with eyes seething with such fierceness
For in such glances I surely die
Without them, I cannot live
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)