Figure Meets Form

significant

2006-03-24T00:09:00.000-05:00

think about the keys you press
urgently
decide upon a title: clever, careful
gracefully
we pretend to be significant

words that no one else has said
lovely
thinking minds and turning heads
hopefully
we might just be significant

Madison Speaks Out

2005-12-22T07:53:00.000-05:00

We are right to take alarm at the first
experiment upon our liberties.
-James Madison

Madison knew about tyranny. He played an integral part in what is arguably the most influential breach of tyranny in human history. And with this experience and knowledge came a decent understanding of the warning signs that typically precede a tyrant's coup de tat. His advice, as quoted above, was to be alarmed at the very first experiment upon our freedom.

Earlier today, the US Senate voted to have the USA PATRIOT Act extended. The full transcript of the Act is quite lengthy and barely intelligible to us with little foreknowledge of American "code." So what is the USA PATRIOT Act?

First thing--it's an acronym. The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act was enacted in 2001 shortly after the September 11th attacks. The controversy surrounding the act comes from the content of several sections (201, 202, 213-217, 412, 413, 416, 809, 810 and probably others I have missed) which all seem to give the government the authority to bypass certain freedoms for the sake of locating and deterring terrorist activity.

This kind of power keeps us safe, we are told. Many of us agree. But safety often comes at the cost of liberty--a cost we can't afford to pay. "It is a universal truth," continues Madison, "that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." The more liberty-restrictive power we allow our government to take, for safety's sake, the less motivation there is for our government to ever make us feel truly safe again. (When is the last time you've seen the terror level sink to blue?)

We would do well to listen to those who saw the methods of Tyranny firsthand and devoted their lives to creating a government system that could withstand its onslaught. I don't think we can be too cautious, not even for the sake of "a safe America," because safety can never come at the cost of liberty. Madison warned us, "There are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

Let's stop the gradual encroachments, then.

New Look: New Thought

2005-12-16T00:52:00.000-05:00

This place just got a complete overhaul this week.

Apparently, I have not been able to think of anything to rant about besides Christmas. That is unfortunate. But I have decided that long posts are out. The Coca-Cola post is brief and to the point, which will become a new habit of mine, hopefully.

With that in mind, I'll end now. Besides, "In The Year 2000" just came on Conan.

Coca-Cola for Christ

2005-12-13T02:04:00.000-05:00

"Each year, it gets more and more secular."

This, in response to the fact that last year the Coke 2-liter bottles (or litre for our British readers) said "Happy Holidays," whereas this year they say "GIVE, LIVE, LOVE." Giving, living and loving -- I can see the reason for the outrage. I mean, if I were trying to represent the Christian church as a whole, I wouldn't want such a gross misrepresentation of my institution, either.

"Look, even the Santa's been replaced by a snowman."

After all, the true meaning of Christmas is all about the story of Santa and how he and his best friend, Jesus, spent their 23rd birthdays together. They may have done a lot of things, but one of them was certainly not building a snowman. Snowmen wouldn't have existed in first century Palestine's climate. I mean, everybody knows that.

Get those damn snowmen out of there. (Until something "worse" comes along for me to be against.)

See related posts.

Does Jesus Shop at Wal-Mart?

2005-12-12T00:31:00.000-05:00

Leather thong sandals for under $9.98, tunic-quality fabric for $3/yard, as much construction materials as you could need (for smaller projects, anyway) for a fraction of what Home Depot would charge him--heck, many Wal-Marts even carry a large selection of breads, rolls and loaves. I'm sure you could find grape juice, if not a good bottle of "Sparkling Spumante," for cheap somewhere down the long Super Wal-Mart aisles. But apparently, Jesus doesn't live for shallow cost-effectiveness.

So say the creators of Wake-Up Wal-Mart.com, anyway. I must say, I have not yet had the distinct fortune of seeing this ad on any of our local stations, but thanks to the miracle of modern internetology none of us have to miss it. Should people of faith shop at Wal-Mart, Wake-Up Wal-Mart (WUWM) asks. I hear their follow-up ad, entitled "Should people of faith really be thinking on their own in the first place?" should be a huge success.

Two thoughts sprout in opposite directions when I read this kind of protest.

"Fine, protest--that's part of what your freedom is for. And try to bring Wal-Mart down because there are some relevant arguments for the negative effects of America's biggest corporation."

and

"I didn't know God cared. (And that he sent you to tell us.)"

In the first stage of my thought-process, I'm with them. Wal-Mart is pretty bad, I start to think, especially with the long lines I have to wait in every week, and the incredible amount of square footage they're adding--what a hike just from Electronics to Men's Wear, or from Mr. Jackson (that's the greeter in the evenings--Mrs. Little is there during the day usually) back to the Home Improvement section!

Unfortunately, capitalism kind of lends itself to the system. When your corporation begins to succeed, you have to keep your employees just poor enough to not be able to afford anything anywhere but your own discount store. If you can get that cycle going, you've got a seemingly eternal corporation.

But this gets me thinking, the only way to stop a business is to stop its money flow by not shopping there, so in that sense, WUWM is trying to bring about this type of conscious refusal to cave in to Wal-Mart's tyrannical rule of consumer America. This goal, by itself, is commendable in the highest way.

But why oh why oh WHY must we haul out the drums of unbought WWJD bracelets, break out the White-Out and begin the Where Would Jesus Shop Campaign? Isn't it enough to argue that poor people are being taken advantage of, women are being treated unfairly, and American jobs are being lost on both ends without appealing to a person's faith as a decider about where we should or should not shop? I mean, I know the Terrifying Liberal Anarchists and the sad "Unchurched" or "Lost" are all too depraved to care about issues of social justice, so perhaps it makes sense to simply point out the fact that the only real reason one will avoid Wal-Mart is their belief in the Lord Jesus.

Or is it the fact that Christians are probably Wal-Mart's most frequent customers that suggests a need to "reach the churched" with the gospel of *gasp* Social Change? Sometimes a loud, clear announcement is good for bringing the conscience back around to where it can affect us. And I saw megaphones on sale at Wal-Mart for like $15.99 while supplies last.

Holiday Trees

2005-11-30T00:17:00.000-05:00

What's the big deal? I mean, people are getting downright pissed about this, but the significance is lost on me. I love Christmas, and I love celebrating it for everything that I believe about it. This coming weekend, my wife and I will be going out to cut down our very own Christmas tree. But if I just happen to run into a friendly Jew or Hindu or Atheist who is also there, getting themselves a Holiday tree, I must say I will not feel the slightest bit of anger, hatred, disdain or agitation. Does that make me strange or something?

People feel the need to defend Christmas against the raging storm of secularization, as if the renaming of the holiday season will result in a loss of the true meaning of Christmas as we Christians know it. Here's a bit of news that these people might find useful: Christmas lost it's true meaning, in the larger cultural sense, a long, long time ago. No amount of "holidization" is going to do any more damage than has already been done, my friends. The real question is how to deal with this fact.

It's not as hard as it seems, I don't think. The biggest obstacle is overcoming the personalization of differing opinions/beliefs. Just because someone believes differently is no reflection or mandate on you and your family's beliefs, no matter how much it may feel like that's the case. Your neighbor may call their tree a "holiday tree." Don't worry, you won't have to change the name of your own.

Holiday season. Season's greetings. Holiday trees. Happy Holidays! Do you know what the deepest, most magical part of the whole thing is? That these people, despite the name changes, are still taking part in the most important parts of Christ's legacy. People experiencing unique amounts of love, giving, and perhaps even reconciliation, can call it whatever they want in my opinion.

It's never been about the names, anyway.

Shipworthy?

2005-11-29T00:42:00.000-05:00

[begin shameless useless plug?]

People have a lot of preconceived ideas about what constitutes "nerdiness." Perhaps it's a Star Trek convention, or a love of video games. Sometimes it's just associated with a love for education, or reading, or an unusual skill for mathematics. Especially when you begin using a computer too much, you really start to get a lot of looks. Nerd, geek, lame-wad and other variations of derogatory terms meant to attack your social status. As someone who is more than typically aware of himself and this particular status, I am sensitive to this self-image problem and was quite torn about the following situation.

See, almost a year ago now I joined a discussion board. This qualifies easily for the "using a computer too much" category, and quickly dropped my social image by several points at least. But this cost was weighed against the benefits--an online community where I could share all of my unspoken, unformulated, unorthodox views on theology, politics and other sensitive issues. After 10 months and nearly 800 posts, I think its clear which decision I made. (The strangest part of it all is that just tonight I even got my wife to join. What an enabler...)

Even when people get the wrong idea about me there and mistake me for some sort of evil jerk, it sometimes seems like people there know me better than a lot of people "IRL" (that's how nerds say "in real life"). Shipworthy? Well, I hope I add at least half as much as I take away.

The Ship of Fools. I never thought I'd find Purgatory to be so enjoyable.

[/end shameless useless plug?]

Coppin and Jones on Universalism

2005-11-15T22:45:00.000-05:00

Jack Jones: Hey Chris, have you got a minute?
Christopher Coppin: Yeah, what’s up?
Jones: I just need a little help. I’m trying to compile a list of all scripture that explicitly supports the concept of Hell. Where would you go in scripture to prove it?
Coppin: Hmm… I guess I’d start at 2 Peter 2, the beginning, well sort of. And Matthew 11:23. Maybe even Hebrews 10:26, 27.
Jones: That's a really good one.
Coppin: Yeah, and of course Luke 16:22-26, which is the story of Lazarus and the rich man. What's this for?

The Doctrine of Hell

Jones: Just for my own studies. I want to understand why people believe in hell.
Coppin: You do, right?
Jones: I’m not really sure. If I had to say right now, I’d say I probably don't, but that's why I’m doing this research.
Coppin: Whoa, that's kind of crazy. Do you think there's a final judgment?
Jones: Well, what would that even mean? Perhaps yes, but I’m unclear as to what that would be.
Coppin: A time where we stand and account for our sins--
Jones: Well I’d think we'd all end up in hell if that's the case!
Coppin: --and either Christ steps in and says He's with me, in which case we're covered, or he says "I never knew you,” and we're screwed.
Jones: Yeah I’d say I could believe that, but I’d just wonder about how many people Christ would actually say "sorry" to and wonder why.
Coppin: I'd say the Pharisees… and anyone who doesn't do John 14:6

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. [NIV]

Jones: Yes, but what does that mean though?
Coppin: The literal Jesus Christ. Jesus never preached anything that said believing in something would get us eternally life; he preached that whoever believed in Jesus God's son would receive life everlasting. Try Hebrews 9:27, 28, too.

Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. [NIV]

Jones: Yes, and if "those who are waiting for him" are everyone?
Coppin: Then salvation would be useless. If everyone got it, it means nothing.
Jones: Hmm…I don't follow. Salvation would be the most useful if it saved everyone rather than just a small percentage of people.

Argument from the Glory of God

Coppin: No, if salvation saved everyone than God would get no glory. The reason for his creating all of this is for Him to get glory.
Jones: But he'd seem to get the most glory, in my opinion.
Coppin: If everyone is saved then we're robots. How can he get glory if we have no choice?
Jones: Well, consider this. Do I seem better if I let three children die in a river and save three others, or if I save all six?
Coppin: But the children in the river know that they're dying, and they've all made the decision that they want to be saved. If the point of life is for us to choose God and therefore give him glory, then there must be a choice.
Jones: Well, see, that's a bad argument because you just said, “If the point of life is for there to be choice, than there must be choice.” So I guess that is what we have to determine, then.
Coppin: Okay, if you're God, why allow pain and suffering if you’re just going to save everyone?
Jones: I don't know--why allow pain and suffering if you're not? We still have a choice of whether or not we will live under the grace we have been given in this life.
Coppin: But if there's no sin (pain and suffering) then we don't need grace. The pain and suffering exists so we can be sick and realize we need a doctor.
Jones: I don't think that pain and suffering exist so that we can be sick. I think we are sick from the pain and suffering, and so we need a doctor.
Coppin: Right, but it's a sickness that God allowed, isn’t it?
Jones: Okay, yeah, I agree with that.
Coppin: So the question is why?
Jones: Because he does give us freedom in this life.
Coppin: But if he wanted glory without suffering he would've given the choice only to choose good things. See James 1:2-4

Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. [NIV]

Jones: I think suffering exists and that it's used by God, yes.
Coppin: And Romans 5:3-4

Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. [NIV]

Jones: I don't think eternal suffering is going to produce perseverance, however. So in that light, suffering only makes sense in a temporal setting where it can produce perseverance and hope and spur us on toward a deeper understanding of God, but not as a vengeance tool used for eternal torment.
Coppin: Than this life is useless. If we all will spend eternity with God, we will develop a deep understanding of him there, much deeper than we ever could here.
Jones: Only if you believe the only use of this life is to separate us into our two teams. But for some reason he wanted us to have the experience of life, where suffering does exist and produce perseverance and hope and character and understanding of God that is not possible in a heaven where no suffering exists.
Coppin: But that doesn't make sense either, because if we are in heaven where there is perfection, than we lack nothing and we don't need that experience. If you have perfection, there's no need to change anything. “But for some reason”? I think I know that reason.
Jones: Apparently life is a necessary pre-condition for that perfection though.
Coppin: But a pre-condition is only necessary if some people don't make it out. Name a prerequisite for something that allows everyone out the other side.
Jones: Well, it's more of a pre-process. As in you have to eat before you can poop. And let me tell you, everybody poops.
Coppin: Haha, this is true. But I don't think that works, because pooping would not exist without eating, yet heaven existed before the earth.
Jones: Well of course God could bring us into heaven without life on earth, but he chose not to because he wanted us to have certain experiences first.
Coppin: But if we have perfection?
Jones: Yes to us that'd be enough, wouldn't it?
Coppin: We wouldn’t need experiences.
Jones: But that's not how God would have it, and in a lot of ways I’m glad for the experiences I’ve gotten to have here. I don't think the fact that suffering on earth exists means that eternal suffering must exist. I just don't think that follows.
Coppin: No, it doesn't. You have to think about why the suffering exists, and you don't have a reason, and I think I do.
Jones: What is your reason?
Coppin: Isaiah 48:1-3, 9-11 says that for His name's sake we are refined and tested.

Listen to this, O house of Jacob, you who are called by the name of Israel and come from the line of Judah, you who take oaths in the name of the LORD and invoke the God of Israel—but not in truth or righteousness-you who call yourselves citizens of the holy city and rely on the God of Israel—the LORD Almighty is his name: I foretold the former things long ago, my mouth announced them and I made them known; then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass…

…For my own name's sake I delay my wrath; for the sake of my praise I hold it back from you, so as not to cut you off. See, I have refined you, though not as silver; I have tested you in the furnace of affliction. For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this. How can I let myself be defamed? I will not yield my glory to another. [NIV]

Jones: For his name's sake his wrath is held back?
Coppin: Not held back, but delayed and held back.
Jones: Okay... go on.
Coppin: He's speaking to the "house of Jacob," those who have chosen him. He knew they would become stubborn and screw up, even more he "acted, and it came to pass." This was all for his name's sake, and not so that they could experience it, but so he could be glorified.
Jones: Okay, so say he is glorified by finite suffering in this life. I can agree to that. But infinite suffering in the next--not so much.
Coppin: But God could not be glorified by suffering that produces decisions that have no weight. Once this earth is finished, he will no longer receive glory.
Jones: Wait, suffering produces decisions? Isn’t that quite a jump?
Coppin: Take away the decisions then--if suffering resulting in glory is finite, then that glory will end, right?
Jones: I will never believe that god's glory is dependent on our sufferings.
Coppin: No you're right, He will always receive glory, but if that's true than there was no point in creating us, if it's just for finite glory. That's illogical.
Jones: Our suffering is the only way we add to his glory?
Coppin: How else?
Jones: What about his saving of us from that suffering? Or our learning to love each other? Or our becoming more like him and more like our potential? Or us producing more joy in the world by learning how to worship him and to help each other?
Coppin: But isn't all of that pointless if we're going to end up with him anyway?
Jones: No, it is the whole point -- that he'd save us from the suffering that we'd otherwise end up in, bringing him the greatest glory of all. That he is stronger than sin and stronger than our misunderstandings and greater than suffering and greater than evil.

The Need for Danger?

Coppin: If evil never had a chance, then it doesn't make him greater. It's like making a video game with a controller with a "win" button. There's on honor or glory in that. You can let the game go a bit and let the characters suffer, but at anytime you can hit win…
Jones: But we're not in a video game. We make our own decisions. You believe that God will make us responsible eternally for the decisions we make here in a few years, with incomplete information, to sustain his glory. I believe that God will save us knowing that we are flawed, but taking mercy on us anyway.
Coppin: But if there's no possibility of losing, then it's not saving.
Jones: There is a possibility of losing -- if God decides not to save us. It's not a game, it's the drowning metaphor again. Saving all of the people that were drowning doesn't mean there was no risk of losing them. It just means the "saviors" were perfect at what they did. And no, they didn't get permission from the drowners. They didn't phone down before lowering the ladder "I want to respect your choice, so, would you mind, uh, I mean, do you want to be saved?"
Coppin: If you knew they were all going to be saved, then there was no risk of losing them. If God is perfect and he will save us perfectly, there’d be no risk.
Jones: But that doesn't diminish the greatness of those who do the saving.
Coppin: Yes it does.
Jones: So let me get this straight: in order to be great, you have to fail on half of what you try to do, in order to show that it was hard, and that you overcame the hardness, because if you get it 100% right, then it was just too easy, so you suck.
Coppin: If someone pushes away your hand when you're saving them, you don't suck, they do.
Jones: But guess what, even when they push you away, you still keep saving them because you assume that it's a misunderstanding. No one in their right mind would refuse being saved from death
Coppin: But I don't think it's a good analogy because drowning people didn't do anything wrong. Let's talk about the real thing.
Jones: Hold on. What we do wrong doesn't play into it at all. We all do many things wrong. What we've done wrong (or right, for that matter) is irrelevant.
Coppin: But you understand that people in this world don't realize they're drowning, so they do push the hand away.
Jones: Perhaps, but it would be an evil Red Cross volunteer who would say "Oh well they pushed the hand away ‘cause they don't know they're drowning, so let 'em die!" God must understand that those who reject him here do so because they do not understand their position and they do not understand who God is. After all, it's easy to get the wrong idea! He created us, and he knows us, how we think, and our inabilities. Do you think he then holds those against us and expects us to make the right guess or else eternal torment?
Coppin: Okay, but if every Red Cross person came along and saved everyone perfectly every time, than it would no longer be great or even good. It would be the norm, and the people would no longer be in danger unless the Red Cross person chose not to save any of them at all.
Jones: That's where I think you misunderstand it -- we wouldn't perceive it as being good anymore, but it would be no less good than it was when I started.
Coppin: It wouldn't be good cause there's no danger.
Jones: But if they stopped saving, there'd be big danger, so the fact that they do not stop, means there's no danger, so not stopping = good.
Coppin: But the only way there is danger is if the saving is stopped, meaning that has to be an option.
Jones: God has an option of not saving us. He doesn't just occasionally not save one of us in order to make himself look better, though.
Coppin: So it's either save all of us or save none of us?
Jones: Otherwise it's up to us, isn't it? It's down to something we do. So yes, that's where my thoughts and studies have taken me—I believe that God either saves all of us or none of us.

God’s Options

Coppin: So, my question would be, if God has the option to let us die, than hell exists right?
Jones: Sure, hell can exist. I just think it will end up empty in the end, if it’s there.
Coppin: If God lets us die, than it means he failed, right?
Jones: Failed or maybe he’s just evil…
Coppin: So neither of those can be options because we believe in a perfectly good, perfectly logical God.
Jones: Haha, perfectly good I’d agree with! Perfectly good and perfectly capable, I’d say.
Coppin: Then he cannot fail.
Jones: Okay.
Coppin: He's perfect, so he can only save all of us.
Jones: It would seem that way to me.
Coppin: Then there's no danger
Jones: When looked at like this, there is no perceived danger, right.
Coppin: Okay, so God doesn't make any sense to you. God makes sense to me, but He is a God who is perfectly loving yet perfectly just. He created a world where people could choose or not choose him, meaning some people will be condemned to hell. Perhaps life isn't fair, but rather than dwell on that, I want to do my best to tell everyone out there about him.

More On Glory and Danger

Jones: What about when people do get to hell and realize their mistake? Can they ask for mercy then? I just don't see how anyone can accept that "yeah, eternal punishment sounds about right for misunderstanding their choice they had on earth... Sounds fair of God"
Coppin: But the fact that you have a big heart and don't want people to die eternally doesn't change the truth and our discussion.
Jones: You’re right---I would only hope that God's heart is much bigger than my own.
Coppin: But things that we think are good are not always good, and what's fair to us might not be fair at all. Saying life isn't fair doesn't mean that everyone is or isn't saved, it just means there's an option for everyone to be or not be saved. Then based on the Bible and our discussion, we come to the conclusion that some die.
Jones: We came to that conclusion? Funny, I don't recall doing so...
Coppin: Well, feelings aside, this conversation came to that conclusion on it’s own, didn’t it?
Jones: It did?
Coppin: I thought we had established that God is perfect so he has to save us meaning that we're in no danger. And if we're in no danger, than God receives only temporal glory, meaning there's no point to life.
Jones: That's the line I don't get. I don't understand the whole temporal glory issue -- I’ve explained how I feel that saving us all brings God the most glory and no other explanation has really made sense.
Coppin: God can have no glory if we're in no danger. It's expected, so it’s not great.
Jones: Just because we forget we're in danger doesn't mean God isn't still saving us.
Coppin: But remember, there is no danger---not that we forget the danger, but there really is none.
Jones: Excuse me? The danger is that God could stop saving us at any time. The fact that we believe he won't because we believe he is good doesn't change the fact that he could stop---
Coppin: Yes it does. God wouldn't be God if he wasn't perfect, and we have to start with the assumption that God is perfect.
Jones: Okay, so are you saying that God being perfect means he necessarily must save everyone, otherwise he is not perfect?
Coppin: No. I'm saying that if God must either save all or none, it has to be all because none would mean God had failed.
Jones: I believe that he would either save us all or save none of us. Those are the only two propositions I can give my mental assent to. But I’m not saying those are the only two options God is capable of because hell, he's capable of anything in my opinion.
Coppin: But we have to rule out saving no one, because that would mean he’d failed.
Jones: Well wait a second. Wouldn’t that would be the ultimate glory, in your opinion? Saving no one? All that suffering? I mean, his glory would be through the roof!
Coppin: No, if God creates us and then let's us die because he's not happy with us, then he failed.
Jones: Unless he created all of us in advance as objects of his wrath prepared for eternal torment because who are we to question God?
Coppin: But then he's not perfectly loving.
Jones: Why not? H can send some to eternal torment, just not all? What's the cut off before he stops being perfectly loving?
Coppin: I don't know, but isn't perfectly loving and perfectly just a paradox? Yet God does it. He holds out his hand, and he doesn't damn us---we damn ourselves.
Jones: Yes, with all of our might we try to. Bumbling fools without the slightest idea of what's going on. To me, it seems at least possible that God would decide to show us mercy, understanding us and all of our incapacities, in spite of our misguided choices. That's all I’m saying, that it's possible in my mind.

The Role of Feelings

Jones: I guess I just sympathize with people who say they would rather not be in heaven if the reason they're there is because they made the "right choice" on earth. That's not the feeling I get about the God I experience every day
Coppin: Yeah, but now you're talking about feelings, and we can't run on them.
Jones: I don’t know--feelings are very important.
Coppin: But not always truthful.
Jones: They’re just as truthful as anything else though!
Coppin: No. If I feel like God doesn't exist, it doesn't matter.
Jones: Not if God exists, no. And if I write a book about God not existing, it doesn't matter either. Feelings and experience are just as true as any other source of information that we have, and they’re an important part of what we know about God.
Coppin: They’re important, but when it comes face to face with truth, the truth wins. I can believe with all my heart that the ice will hold me, but if it's too thin, it won't.
Jones: Yes, and I can "feel" it will hold me just as much as I can "read" it will hold me, just as much as someone can "tell me" it will hold me. Any source of information can be wrong, and any source can be right, from time to time. We shouldn’t look at it as though it’s Truth vs. Feelings. Rather, feelings can encompass truth sometimes.
Coppin: You're right, but if all this talking happens, a point is made, and you end with "but I feel this way," then what was the point of the whole discussion?
Jones: True, that would be a dishonest and unfruitful way of handling things. I’m just saying that the feeling is one part of a bigger discussion.
Coppin: But let's not confuse experience with God and our feelings. Sometimes they're the same, but not always.
Jones: Just like sometimes feelings are wrong and sometimes they're right.

A Graceful Exit

Coppin: Do you believe in the Bible?
Jones: Do I believe it exists? Do I believe it's inspired? Do I believe it's inerrant? Yes, yes, and no.
Coppin: Okay, well Iook at Matthew 7:13-14, 21-23

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it…

Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' [NIV]

Coppin: Could you leave me your thoughts on that?
Jones: Sure.
Coppin: I need to get going.
Jones: Me too, sir.
Coppin: I have to be honest: first, you're the most reasonable guy to debate with ever (I know I'm not).
Jones: Haha, yeah right. It's really good for me to get to hear what smart Christians think, trust me.
Coppin: Thanks, but I'm worried about you, and I don't mean that condescendingly. Believing everyone goes to heaven isn't a trivial thing---that's going against a fundamental truth. I think that most any Christian would question your faith. I don't just because I know you.
Jones: Well, if my worst offense to God is overestimating his love, I’ll be okay with that.
Coppin: Have you talked with people at your church?
Jones: I talk to lots of people that I trust. There's actually a lot more people that believe this type of thing than you'd think, and of course, many who don't. Anyway, I’ll let you go. Don’t be too worried---you and I will have a good laugh in heaven on how wrong we both were.
Coppin: Haha, yes. Everyone will be laughing. Night, Jack.
Jones: Goodnight.

Propensity To Like?

2005-10-10T21:51:00.000-05:00

Antidisestablishmentarianism. Makes you feel smart just looking at the word, doesn't it? It's been claimed that this is the longest word in the English language, or at least one of a list of such "longest" words. It's length comes from the winding path of a monstrous double negative which means the belief that opposes removing the tie between church and state. Being opposed to someone else's opposition. That's a good starting point for the real story, here.

Think about this example. Upon experiencing stimulus X, our default reaction has changed from the polite, more ancient "That's nice" response to a newer, more modern "Eh, I've (experienced) better." There are things we all like, of course, but they're exceptions. We actually have a propensity to hate. The formula could probably be written as n*i:(1/L) where n=the number of people who like the stimulus, i=the intensity with which the stimulus is liked, and L=how much I will like the stimulus. In other words, how much I will like X will be inversely proportional to how much other people like it.

And it goes deeper. Not only do we hate new, liked things, but we actively seek to like unknown things. These new and liked things are better and more succinctly described as "popular" things. And as popularity decreases, our like for the stimulus increases. That's how it works.

Take pop music, for example. Boy, do we hate that. There's no more severe propensity to hate than the loathing of a true punk rawker for the likes of some Good Charlotian pop travesty. We strongly oppose pop music simply on principle.

I mean, ignore the fact that pop music becomes POPular because of its success. Ignore that to remain popular over any given amount of time involves keeping a hard-to-please audience happy at all times. Ignore the fact that music takes talent to produce, no matter how much you happen to dislike it. Ignore all of that.

Just think about how fake it is. And how... popular it is (shudder). I speak from experience in the art of hating popular things, believe me. I turned my burnt-american-flag-laden back on the likes of Blink 182 and Lit. I laughed at the mere mention of the Bare Naked Ladies and scoffed in the face of Dave Matthews Band. I mean, people liked those bands! Why couldn't these people see how awful that was making their music?

****

Some years ago, as I neared Baltimore on my journey, suddenly a light from The Music Industry flashed around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, "Jason, Jason, why do you persecute me?"

"Who are you?"

"I am Casey Kasum, whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and turn on your radio, and you will be told what you must do."

****

Well, it wasn't exactly like that, but you get the picture. It was a conversion experience, but it wasn't all at once. You see, I had started to like John Mayer. He had it all--a good voice, amazing guitar skills, clever songs, and unbelievable execution of seemingly impossible guitar parts. There was just one thing--he was immensely popular. Then, it started to hit me. "Popular" doesn't mean "bad"!

That was only the beginning. From there I began to think about "popular" differently. I noticed that it was simply describing an element of the music that made it accessible enough to a very wide audience. Something that was catchy--something that would get stuck in your head. Good musicians can write popular music, and they often do. And then I came across Kelly Clarkson.

I know. It's one thing to admit to liking John Mayer. After all, he's kind of safe because he's a proven musician who has earned a lot of respect from the music community. It's much different to admit to liking the first winner of American Idol. But that's why it finally hit me--good musicians can write popular, catchy music. Clarkson doesn't try to sell her music using boobs or skin, or by publicity stunts, or by controversial lyrical content. She sings well and it's music that people like. Slowly I am becoming okay with that.

So yes, I'm opposed to opposing pop simply on the principle that says, "It's pop, so it sucks." You might even say I have a "propensity to like" it now. But let's be clear. Britney Spears? Everclear? White Stripes? Ashley Simpson? You're not off the hook.

You still suck.

Philippic 001: Quadrinity

2005-10-04T23:12:00.000-05:00

Evangelicalism has abolished the doctrine of the Trinity in favor of a new, more accurate doctrine--the Quadrinity. Pundits have made their guesses about the newest member of this elite group, ranging from the Pope to Billy Graham to some rotating "Super Sola Fide Man" to be decided on a monthly basis. But, much to the religious world's surprise, the lucky inductee is not human at all. In fact, though today's induction marks the official entry into the newly christened Quadrinity, the change is merely semantic and ceremonial, as this long-time authority has been an honorary member for quite some time. In case you haven't already guessed it, without any further introductions necessary, we introduce to you the Standard whose place has for too long been among the Triune Godhead but has yet to receive Its official recognition--the Bible!

Let's be honest with each other. It's true. In the same way that God the Son revealed to us the aspects of God the Father that we did not fully understand, God the Scripture now reveals to us all that we could want to know or believe about all things religious and Godly. The task now is to become acquainted with this new title and to begin to honestly refer to God the Scripture in the manner in which It appropriately deserves. Perhaps a holiday to commemorate the canonizational "virgin" birth. Or perhaps a Mel Gibson blockbuster about the relativist persecution that God the Scripture has faced at the hands of the Evil Post-Modern Empire.

Except, there is one problem. God the Scripture has done something that, to our knowledge, none of the other Quadrinity members has ever done. God the Scripture has claimed that It is not God. It is useful for teaching and rebuking. It is filled with powerful stories about man's struggle to understand God. But it has never claimed to be God itself, or to have any of the supreme authority currently ascribed to it, for that matter.

In fact, within its very pages (Mark 10) it records a story where God the Son tells the religious leaders of the day that their Law (Scripture at the time) was given to them because of their hardness of heart. God the Son goes on to say that in spite of that Law, they should stick with their wives anyway. God the Son refuted the authority of the would-be God the Scripture. Even more revealing, God the Son promises to leave God the Spirit with his people to guide them and nurture them in God the Son's absence. Nowhere within scripture's pages does it record any mention of God the Anything leaving God the Scripture as a guide. The closest it comes is when David admits to hiding God's word in his heart, a practice we would all imitate for the sake of the Speaker and not some record of the word itself.

But what about this "word of God" title? In the (inadvertant) attempt to expand the Trinity, Evangelicals have made their case from an understanding of the Scripture as "The Word of God" or "God's Word." Again, the would-be God the Scripture differs in this understanding, as it never refers to itself with this title. The phrase "word of God" is most often used to describe things that have been spoken by God (things that have been spoken = words). The only time God the Scripture even refers to the WORD OF GOD in a mysterious sense is when John writes about the Logos. And he's not referring to scripture at all--he's referring to God the Son as this "Logos," or "Word" of God.

The Word of God title, as far as can be determined, is used by moderns to describe the primary means by which GOD speaks to his people. Not the only means, perhaps, but the primary one. Meaning, if two interpretations meet in collision, Word of God wins. This is arguable. But evangelicals understand God the Scripture to be the final say on all theology and belief--thus, the Word of God. More orthodox belief systems understand a mixture of Tradition and Scripture to be this final say. What no one seems willing to consider (besides maybe Anne Hutchinson) is the idea that perhaps the Word of God, the Final Say, is God himself. Perhaps he speaks today as clearly as ever. Listening, however, is at times difficult and almost always confusing. It leads to arguments and it leaves no way of proving that you are, in fact, right.

So in the interest of maintaining order, let's continue our induction ceremony of God the Scripture. There's only one small detail yet to be determined--which translation?

Skeptic Circles (The End That Started It All)

2005-10-02T22:31:00.000-05:00

People say that I'm too skeptical. (Well, some people would say that I'm too "sceptical". Damn Brits.) I assume that being around someone who is constantly questioning every little thing must get quite annoying. Why is that?

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search a matter out is the glory of kings.

That's from Proverbs. Somewhere in Chapter 15, I think. A good friend pointed that verse out to me a few summers ago, at a time in my life when I was quite sure I knew or would recognize any and every verse found in even the most obscure corners of the Holy Bible. So this initial revelation of this verse was extremely significant to me for several reasons.

God conceals things. It is part of his glory to do so.
Some of us are meant to search out these things. They're not meant to simply be accepted with no question. God desires us to spend time, effort and energy pondering, searching and pursuing the matters that he conceals for that purpose.
There were parts of the Bible that I was unaware of, or had not ever hit me before, or that could speak to me in ways that I was completely unaccustomed to.

So we can be called to question things. We can have fresh encounters with God's spirit through his scripture and through interactions with other people. I was being reinforced in the paths that I had been travelling for a few years, and it felt refreshingly real. The blast of 40 degree air that crashes headlong against your face as you step outside into the first crisply cool day of autumn is real, but the reality quickly fades into the monotony of cold days and colder months. The jab of pain that jumps through your knuckles and runs straight up your arm upon finger-testing a sweetly hot stovetop is real, until the next time you wish to quickly discern the temperature of an unknown surface. Reality fades.

God conceals things and wants us to find them. That was real. It faded, and what it left behind was nothing more than me and God and a few good questions. People believe that questions produce answers. It's that exact belief that gets too many people into a good deal of trouble, too. From everything I've seen and experienced and known and felt, the best questions reproduce. As the first questions die in their relevance and poignancy, they leave behind more, smaller questions that have since grown. It's a cycle, a circle.

Am I too skeptical? Answering that would be ironic, wouldn't it?

Soul Meets Body

2005-10-01T00:09:00.000-05:00

Figure meets form. Soul meets body.

I want to live where soul meets body
And let the sun wrap its arms around me
And bathe my skin in water cool and cleansing
And feel what it's like to be new

Cause in my head there's a Greyhound station
Where I send my thoughts to far-off destinations
So they may have a chance of finding a place where
They're far more suited than here

-Death Cab for Cutie

My life's been immersed in this theme of "tension" for years. One extreme is bad, the other is ignored, and yet I keep learning that the tension found in the middle is what we all should pursue. Aristotelian ethics, you might say.

This tension is found where "soul meets body" and where figure meets form in the idea that heart can meet mind without either being destroyed. Science, as a child, playing sweetly with Religion and everyone having a great time. And though ideals they may be, they make for wonderful dreams and fascinating foundations to build upon.

So, unless otherwise noted, I carry these assumptions with me.

Strange Ways To Save The World

2005-09-30T22:54:00.000-05:00

I can see now that I was meant to think. Blessings come in curse-shaped boxes (or is it the other way around?), and I've done my share of struggling to figure out which is which. I like where I am. I like looking around from here--the old things taking shapes and tastes that live out different lives from where I like to sit.

As thoughts float down and explode in my lap, there is a general concern about just what exactly should be done. Collection efforts have been minimal at best. Retention over the last nine years can't sit higher than 10%, honestly. And yes, I said "nine years." Ninth grade may have made all of the threats, but it was tenth grade that actually gave the push, and over I went. Since then, I've been a mess. I've run into many people who have been in the business of putting their thoughts together, getting good ideas to sit up on solid foundations without the support of cheap metaphors and easy answers. I've seen people overcome doubts, situate themselves inside of a straightforward vision, and move on ahead in nice, purposed lines. I've even seen people ask questions that have answers, discuss problems that have solutions, and generally make a lot of sense.

Me? I'd like to save the world. From what, I'm not exactly sure. Not from hell, of course. From thoughts that tie other thoughts down, perhaps. Or something bigger, or even smaller. And though I'm not sure sitting and generating more thoughts is the most direct way to that end, I'm convinced that something close to that is very close to here.