Be content to live unknown for a little while, and to walk your weary way through the fields of poverty, or up the hills of affliction; for by-and-by you shall reign with Christ, for he has "made us kings and priests unto God, and we shall reign for ever and ever."
-Spurgeon
I went to the woods...
Friday, April 22, 2005
Thursday, April 21, 2005
"Our Lord must be repeatedly astounded at us - astounded at how un-simple we are. It is opinions of our own which make us stupid, when we are simple we are never stupid, we discern all the time."
My Utmost for His Highest
My Utmost for His Highest
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
What value does baptism have to the believer? A Catholic might describe its effects as "graces" that are bestowed by God, but this is a question that seems to not have a strong consensus throughout the Protestant churches.
We are commanded to baptize, but does it have any type of spiritual value beyond "we're doing a good thing that God told us we should do"? Because if that's all it is, then it is the equivalent of obeying parents, loving your neighbor, going to communion, etc (ie I mean to describe here general actions that we should do, but that aren't normally ascribed with any spiritual power in a Protestant context).
But yet, people often want to look at the action of baptism as being something "more". Why? Perhaps it has something to do Jesus being baptized (although he did many other good things as well that we don't ascribe with that power). Perhaps it has something to do with God's reaction to Jesus's being baptized (although a similarly powerful experience occurred at the mount during the transfiguration, but yet we don't ascribe spiritual significance to climbing mountains...I think it had more to do with Jesus and less to do with the baptism). Perhaps it has something to do with the way people "feel" once they've been baptized (since people's "feelings" are quite subjective, I don't believe that this is sufficient reason to believe that there is some higher level of significance in this one particular area).
Inevitably, I find myself wondering about the institution. We all agree that events like baptism and communion have a symbolic role, but there seems to be lingering confusion concerning possible other roles they might have (and a definitive lack of specification about what that role may be). Many people "just believe" it, not realizing that very little of their "own understanding" is not very biblical in extent (depending on how much you'd like to read in to any one passage).
Now, none of this is to look down on the institution of baptism as an institution. We were told to do it by Jesus. We should do it. It's important (even if we don't know why). Can't we leave it at that (to impute anything more would be both anachronistic and quite wrong).
A better question to leave you all (one that is much further beyond my own understanding or ability): So, is baptism the "new" circumcision?
We are commanded to baptize, but does it have any type of spiritual value beyond "we're doing a good thing that God told us we should do"? Because if that's all it is, then it is the equivalent of obeying parents, loving your neighbor, going to communion, etc (ie I mean to describe here general actions that we should do, but that aren't normally ascribed with any spiritual power in a Protestant context).
But yet, people often want to look at the action of baptism as being something "more". Why? Perhaps it has something to do Jesus being baptized (although he did many other good things as well that we don't ascribe with that power). Perhaps it has something to do with God's reaction to Jesus's being baptized (although a similarly powerful experience occurred at the mount during the transfiguration, but yet we don't ascribe spiritual significance to climbing mountains...I think it had more to do with Jesus and less to do with the baptism). Perhaps it has something to do with the way people "feel" once they've been baptized (since people's "feelings" are quite subjective, I don't believe that this is sufficient reason to believe that there is some higher level of significance in this one particular area).
Inevitably, I find myself wondering about the institution. We all agree that events like baptism and communion have a symbolic role, but there seems to be lingering confusion concerning possible other roles they might have (and a definitive lack of specification about what that role may be). Many people "just believe" it, not realizing that very little of their "own understanding" is not very biblical in extent (depending on how much you'd like to read in to any one passage).
Now, none of this is to look down on the institution of baptism as an institution. We were told to do it by Jesus. We should do it. It's important (even if we don't know why). Can't we leave it at that (to impute anything more would be both anachronistic and quite wrong).
A better question to leave you all (one that is much further beyond my own understanding or ability): So, is baptism the "new" circumcision?
Sunday, April 17, 2005
I'm not sure that there is such a thing as "blind submission". Once submission becomes blind, it becomes one of two things: laziness or ignorance (and often, these two aspects coexist quite peacefully). In our attitude towards God, we are never commanded to be stupid. We are commanded to be submissive. We are not commanded to ignore the world around us, but to separate from it. Our submission to God, by its very definition, is an act of submission.
Strangely enough, we are often led to believe that submission is a negative aspect of society. After all, the slaves were submissive, right? Are we supposed to be slaves? (subtext: since slavery is bad, anything in Christianity that makes it seem like slavery to me must be bad too). Obvious by now, I believe that both of these answers must be given in the negative.
Our lives must be living sacrifices to God. However many times we hear this idea over the radio, as Americans we find it incredibly easy to ignore. We think that we can be who we want to be while serving God (and if we can't, then it's God's fault for making us this way, huh?). However, while engorging ourselves in the fat of society, we can never seem to see the hypocritical truth of our statements. Unlike those who are starving to death and live in a "backwards" world without tv or internet, we are one of the few peoples in the world who can't see our own (as individuals) weakness. This has been assumed away.
Instead, we should make it our everwaking goal to submit to our authorities as much as possible (now I don't have time to discuss the concept of authority here, but I will at a later date).
In the beginning of this essay, I mentioned that blind submission leads to ignorance and/or laziness (both quite pitiable senses of character, wouldn't you say?). Nietzsche tried to solve the problem by flipping it all around. Instead of blind submission, active rebellion must be the way of truth. It is interesting how close he could have come had he not been surrounded with the same Christendom that Kierkegaard "rebelled" against. However, ultimately, rebellion to one thing means submission to another (ie what are you rebelling for?). As such, there is no such thing as "pure rebellion". Inevitably, you stand for yourself or for something external to you.
Just as the laziness and ignorance I mentioned earlier are the result of a lack of true submission to God, they are in themselves acts of rebellion against God. And this is what makes sin so egregious. It's a direct denial of what God has given.
We can easily be blind in our faith, but this quickly leads to inactivity (why should I do something if I have faith that God will do it anyway?). Inevitably inactivity (practically) brings us to the same point in spiritual development whether we're rebelling or submitting...because we're not really going anywhere. Imagine a person leading you through a dark room. If you sit down in the middle, can you really say that you're not tugging against that person's pull?
Or, if we accept the necessity of activity, we can choose to rebel or submit and ultimately, this is simply a question of where our own priorities fall. For either entails the other, and neither is not an option (for it leads back to the previous paragraph).
Ultimately, our submission must be active. Our faith must be passive. For if not, what are we?
Strangely enough, we are often led to believe that submission is a negative aspect of society. After all, the slaves were submissive, right? Are we supposed to be slaves? (subtext: since slavery is bad, anything in Christianity that makes it seem like slavery to me must be bad too). Obvious by now, I believe that both of these answers must be given in the negative.
Our lives must be living sacrifices to God. However many times we hear this idea over the radio, as Americans we find it incredibly easy to ignore. We think that we can be who we want to be while serving God (and if we can't, then it's God's fault for making us this way, huh?). However, while engorging ourselves in the fat of society, we can never seem to see the hypocritical truth of our statements. Unlike those who are starving to death and live in a "backwards" world without tv or internet, we are one of the few peoples in the world who can't see our own (as individuals) weakness. This has been assumed away.
Instead, we should make it our everwaking goal to submit to our authorities as much as possible (now I don't have time to discuss the concept of authority here, but I will at a later date).
In the beginning of this essay, I mentioned that blind submission leads to ignorance and/or laziness (both quite pitiable senses of character, wouldn't you say?). Nietzsche tried to solve the problem by flipping it all around. Instead of blind submission, active rebellion must be the way of truth. It is interesting how close he could have come had he not been surrounded with the same Christendom that Kierkegaard "rebelled" against. However, ultimately, rebellion to one thing means submission to another (ie what are you rebelling for?). As such, there is no such thing as "pure rebellion". Inevitably, you stand for yourself or for something external to you.
Just as the laziness and ignorance I mentioned earlier are the result of a lack of true submission to God, they are in themselves acts of rebellion against God. And this is what makes sin so egregious. It's a direct denial of what God has given.
We can easily be blind in our faith, but this quickly leads to inactivity (why should I do something if I have faith that God will do it anyway?). Inevitably inactivity (practically) brings us to the same point in spiritual development whether we're rebelling or submitting...because we're not really going anywhere. Imagine a person leading you through a dark room. If you sit down in the middle, can you really say that you're not tugging against that person's pull?
Or, if we accept the necessity of activity, we can choose to rebel or submit and ultimately, this is simply a question of where our own priorities fall. For either entails the other, and neither is not an option (for it leads back to the previous paragraph).
Ultimately, our submission must be active. Our faith must be passive. For if not, what are we?
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Action philosophers, the comic (ok, not quite as cool as Pilgrim detectives, but definitely the funniest thing I've seen in awhile).
Friday, April 15, 2005
For anyone interested in finding a place to live (and who trusts craigslist) here's a brilliant combination of craigslist and google maps.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
If anyone wonders what the typical "argument" that comes to mind when an Atheist (equal to reverence for God?) thinks when reading Swinburne's "Is there a God?", just click over to the RIP's site. Honestly, I think this is the intellectual hanging point for most atheists..."is God a solution or just another question?"
This page takes a nicely written (though wrong-headed and disingenuous) look at GK Chesterton's idealistic view of England being apart from the British Empire and the resultant social dogmas that it may imply. Although interesting, I'm afraid that it misses any appreciation for simplicity and instead attempts to once more proclaim the need to bow down before the almighty god of Progress.
Just a little random philosophical wandering.
Previous Posts
- Well...I'm off to my Biotech test. Who knew there ...
- In response to 'No Evolution For Us' over at Coran...
- Free food in Atlanta, anyone?
- Maybe Lenin was onto something when he said "Imper...
- I think that faith is what inevitably emerges from...
- How should the government judge teachers' abilitie...
- Dawkins rebut to Paley's watchmaker is quite commo...
- Here's a nice little article on the death of the "...
- Here is the first evolutionist I know of who's rea...
- Be content to live unknown for a little while, and...
Archives
- 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004
- 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004
- 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004
- 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005
- 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005
- 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005
- 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005
- 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005
- 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005
- 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005
- 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005
- Current Posts
