School work goes regardless of trick or treating. But at least I got an interesting lecture and discussion out of it!
My professor posed the question, "Richard Foster describes the contemplative life as 'the steady gaze upon the God who loves us.' Is such a steady gaze possible, practical or realistic?"
I believe a steady gaze upon God is possible. After all, people fixate their attention on what they love—be it their career, hobby, politics, sports, or Star Trek. So I can say, "I love God and my attention is naturally drawn to him" and I would be truthful in a sense.
Contemplation, however, implies a thoughtful observation. It is my experience that this kind of observation does not often come naturally. But we can train ourselves to be observant. When I first began directing television programs it seemed impossible that I could pay attention to the output of multiple cameras, VU meters, waveform monitor, vectorscope, and the clock simultaneously. Over time I found that it came easily and could carry on a conversation at the same time with my camera operators.
The quality most helpful to me in the practice of thoughtful living was noted in this evening's lecture: “living the tensions of life reflectively rather than avoiding them." I missed out on a lot of spiritual growth in the past because I tried to make my life fit an ideal of Christian living where no tensions existed and every issue could be easily resolved. (Oddly enough, I didn't learn about living life reflectively so much from any of the works I read on spiritual formation as I did by catching a glimpse of this quality in the writings of Frederick Buechner.)
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Roger Corman Double Feature
Can I just take a moment to point out that television's treatment of Halloween is pretty poor this year? Unless of course, your idea of horror is Ghost or The Butterfly Effect... Sheesh...
I decided to scope out the new Family Video store in Jamestown, NY to see if I could find anything more suitable for my weekend viewing. To my surprise, they had a large collection of Roger Corman films. Jackpot!
First up was Death Race 2000, a cross country car race where racers score points for killing people. This is a film that played endlessly on cable TV in the 1970s and it was just as fun as I remembered it!
The second film was Pirahna. Although the poster and concept would lead one to believe that it's a takeoff on the previous year's Jaws, Pirahna is actually a pretty original little horror/adventure flick. The big bag U.S. Goverment develop a highly-intelligent mutant strain of Pirahna which are accidentally let loose to munch on summer campers and scuba divers.
Neither of these films fit into my beloved category of so bad they're good, because both films avoid the pitfalls common to most low budget pictures of this type. The films are very action packed and the directors accomplish some high production values on a shoestring. Thank you, Roger Corman, for saving my weekend!
I decided to scope out the new Family Video store in Jamestown, NY to see if I could find anything more suitable for my weekend viewing. To my surprise, they had a large collection of Roger Corman films. Jackpot!
First up was Death Race 2000, a cross country car race where racers score points for killing people. This is a film that played endlessly on cable TV in the 1970s and it was just as fun as I remembered it!
The second film was Pirahna. Although the poster and concept would lead one to believe that it's a takeoff on the previous year's Jaws, Pirahna is actually a pretty original little horror/adventure flick. The big bag U.S. Goverment develop a highly-intelligent mutant strain of Pirahna which are accidentally let loose to munch on summer campers and scuba divers.
Neither of these films fit into my beloved category of so bad they're good, because both films avoid the pitfalls common to most low budget pictures of this type. The films are very action packed and the directors accomplish some high production values on a shoestring. Thank you, Roger Corman, for saving my weekend!
Friday, October 27, 2006
Warning Signal
What do you do when you feel restless?
We often distract ourselves from restlessness. We can turn on the TV, surf the net, smoke some weed, take a nap, go shopping, eat a Whopper, listen to the iPod—well, you get the drift. Anything to not feel the restlessness. As if being restless is inherently bad.
I think anesthetizing the restlessness is akin to pulling the batteries out of a wailing smoke alarm and probably just as dumb. We short-circuit a warning system that is pointing out that all is not well with our soul.
I'm writing this from experience. (Except the weed part in case my mother is reading this.) A lot of spiritual growth began to occur in my life when, instead of trying to snap out of a mood, I began to ask myself questions like:
Why am I feeling restless/sad/angry, etc?
What does this mean?
When did I start feeling this way?
We often distract ourselves from restlessness. We can turn on the TV, surf the net, smoke some weed, take a nap, go shopping, eat a Whopper, listen to the iPod—well, you get the drift. Anything to not feel the restlessness. As if being restless is inherently bad.
I think anesthetizing the restlessness is akin to pulling the batteries out of a wailing smoke alarm and probably just as dumb. We short-circuit a warning system that is pointing out that all is not well with our soul.
I'm writing this from experience. (Except the weed part in case my mother is reading this.) A lot of spiritual growth began to occur in my life when, instead of trying to snap out of a mood, I began to ask myself questions like:
Why am I feeling restless/sad/angry, etc?
What does this mean?
When did I start feeling this way?
Interesting thought about discipleship & evangelism
I am reading Organic Church by Neil Cole right now. I picked it up at the Missional Church conference we attended a few weeks ago. The author, in his commentary on the parable of the sower and the seeds, points out that the majority of soil does not bear fruit. He writes:
"One might find this parable discouraging, as only one out of four soils actually bears fruit. I find it encouraging and life-affirming, because it reflects my true experience. I have now come to expect two-thirds of those who accept the message of the Kingdom to fizzle out and not bear fruit. This has given me hope. Why? Because I no longer feel responsible for the fruit, or lack thereof, in the lives of disciples. If ten people accept the Gospel and only two bear fruit, I no longer babysit the unfaithful eight. Instead, I invest my life in the two. These two will bear much fruit" (69).
WORK CITED
Cole, Neil. Organic Church: Growing Faith Where Life Happens. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005.
"One might find this parable discouraging, as only one out of four soils actually bears fruit. I find it encouraging and life-affirming, because it reflects my true experience. I have now come to expect two-thirds of those who accept the message of the Kingdom to fizzle out and not bear fruit. This has given me hope. Why? Because I no longer feel responsible for the fruit, or lack thereof, in the lives of disciples. If ten people accept the Gospel and only two bear fruit, I no longer babysit the unfaithful eight. Instead, I invest my life in the two. These two will bear much fruit" (69).
WORK CITED
Cole, Neil. Organic Church: Growing Faith Where Life Happens. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Two Texts About Spiritual Direction
I am enjoying reading the assigned texts, Holy Invitations and Spiritual Direction and the Care of Souls. I think the concurrent reading of two books about the same topic will result in a more balanced understanding of the art and discipline of Spiritual Direction.
In Holy Invitations, Jeanette Bakke defines spiritual direction as a "particular kind of helping relationship whose primary objective is to discern how God is inviting someone to be, to live, to appreciate, and to act in the midst of life" (11).
In Spiritual Direction and the Care of Souls, Gary W. Moon and David G. Benner do not offer their own definition of spiritual direction. They rather endorse a definition by William A. Barry and William J. Connelly: "…[a] help given by one Christian to another which enables that person to pay attention to God's personal communication to him or her, to respond to this personally communicating God, to grow in intimacy with this God, and to live out the consequence of this relationship. The focus of this type of spiritual direction is on experience, not ideas, and specifically on religious experience, i.e., any experience of the mysterious Other whom we call God" (15).
The former definition emphasizes discernment while the latter emphasizes a lived out experience in addition to discernment. In my opinion, that makes the latter statement a more complete definition of spiritual direction. (However, Bakke does address obedience in her book.)
A difference that particularly stands out to me is how the authors saw spiritual direction in the greater scheme of things. Moon and Brenner view it as a component of soul care, which involves a wider group of relationships such as pastoral care, pastoral counseling, and clinical psychotherapy. Bakke, however, sees spiritual direction as "…a part of many elements of faith life" and states it is most closely related to "pastoral counseling, mentoring, and discipling" (27). I will withhold my verdict until the end of my reading, but preliminary indications point to Moon and Brenner placing spiritual direction as a discipline that can be learned, whereas Bakke indicates that it is a ministry more along the lines of a spiritual gift.
WORKS CITED
Bakke, Jeanette. Holy Invitations. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000.
Moon, Gary W. and David G. Benner (editors). Spiritual Direction and the Care of Souls. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004.
In Holy Invitations, Jeanette Bakke defines spiritual direction as a "particular kind of helping relationship whose primary objective is to discern how God is inviting someone to be, to live, to appreciate, and to act in the midst of life" (11).
In Spiritual Direction and the Care of Souls, Gary W. Moon and David G. Benner do not offer their own definition of spiritual direction. They rather endorse a definition by William A. Barry and William J. Connelly: "…[a] help given by one Christian to another which enables that person to pay attention to God's personal communication to him or her, to respond to this personally communicating God, to grow in intimacy with this God, and to live out the consequence of this relationship. The focus of this type of spiritual direction is on experience, not ideas, and specifically on religious experience, i.e., any experience of the mysterious Other whom we call God" (15).
The former definition emphasizes discernment while the latter emphasizes a lived out experience in addition to discernment. In my opinion, that makes the latter statement a more complete definition of spiritual direction. (However, Bakke does address obedience in her book.)
A difference that particularly stands out to me is how the authors saw spiritual direction in the greater scheme of things. Moon and Brenner view it as a component of soul care, which involves a wider group of relationships such as pastoral care, pastoral counseling, and clinical psychotherapy. Bakke, however, sees spiritual direction as "…a part of many elements of faith life" and states it is most closely related to "pastoral counseling, mentoring, and discipling" (27). I will withhold my verdict until the end of my reading, but preliminary indications point to Moon and Brenner placing spiritual direction as a discipline that can be learned, whereas Bakke indicates that it is a ministry more along the lines of a spiritual gift.
WORKS CITED
Bakke, Jeanette. Holy Invitations. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000.
Moon, Gary W. and David G. Benner (editors). Spiritual Direction and the Care of Souls. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
All Christians need spiritual direction
Our lecture tonight included a quote by Douglas Hardy, a professor at Nazarene Theological Seminary. Professor Hardy indicated that all Christians need spiritual direction and gave several reasons in support of his claim. I agree. Listening and responding to God's spirit is a characteristic that desperately needs to be nurtured in Christians today.
We have largely lost a sense of the supernatural in our faith. In the void has grown a subculture that substitutes routine for surprise and wonderment. We no longer participate in God's dreams, but rather shrink our image of God to fit ours. We have systemized a love affair into rules and regulations.
We all have routines with which we have to comply. People have expectations of us that we feel obligated to live out. Our good intentions consistently outnumber our productive hours. All of these things can drown out that still, small voice, which ironically, is the only voice that matters in the end.
Spiritual Direction, for me at least, provides a place for those half-heard or un-reflected upon conversations to be revisited. Sometimes I can easily recall a statement and other times I struggle to piece together the words or the meaning. But the process eventually gets it all out there.
Spiritual Direction makes time to heed the still small voice. My director helps bring clarity to the situation. Sometimes he only acts as a sounding board. But it's important to have someone to keep me accountable to this kind of introspection—otherwise I would probably have a full calendar and a lot of regrets.
I wonder what it would take to get our churches from here to there? Perhaps a good place to start would be to introduce some of the concepts of Spiritual Direction into already existing aspects of the church. Maybe we could pursue some group guidance for a start in Sunday Schools or with a ministry team. An old tradition that might be revived in churches is the question, "How is your soul?"
An important aspect to keep in mind is that direction should be part of the life of the church and not just the domain of the "experts".
One of the most detrimental things for young people today is that we have fooled ourselves into thinking that professionals and programs are the only people capable of working with youth. A lot more good would be accomplished at a fraction of the cost if adults just became engaged with kids where they are. (Learning the names of kids in the neighborhood, volunteering for youth programs, etc.) I'll get back of my soapbox now.
The point is, we can't let the same thing happen in the church. Looking back I can see where I've had plenty of mentors in my Christian walk, even if they didn't carry any official title. As I've been reading through this week's assigned text I've become convinced that my friend Brad and I were already doing mutual spiritual direction even if we didn't know it!
Spiritual Direction is an important but by no means the only aspect of spiritual development. Spiritual Direction needs to be part of a well-rounded program that includes corporate worship, Christian education, discipleship, mentoring, and service.
We have largely lost a sense of the supernatural in our faith. In the void has grown a subculture that substitutes routine for surprise and wonderment. We no longer participate in God's dreams, but rather shrink our image of God to fit ours. We have systemized a love affair into rules and regulations.
We all have routines with which we have to comply. People have expectations of us that we feel obligated to live out. Our good intentions consistently outnumber our productive hours. All of these things can drown out that still, small voice, which ironically, is the only voice that matters in the end.
Spiritual Direction, for me at least, provides a place for those half-heard or un-reflected upon conversations to be revisited. Sometimes I can easily recall a statement and other times I struggle to piece together the words or the meaning. But the process eventually gets it all out there.
Spiritual Direction makes time to heed the still small voice. My director helps bring clarity to the situation. Sometimes he only acts as a sounding board. But it's important to have someone to keep me accountable to this kind of introspection—otherwise I would probably have a full calendar and a lot of regrets.
I wonder what it would take to get our churches from here to there? Perhaps a good place to start would be to introduce some of the concepts of Spiritual Direction into already existing aspects of the church. Maybe we could pursue some group guidance for a start in Sunday Schools or with a ministry team. An old tradition that might be revived in churches is the question, "How is your soul?"
An important aspect to keep in mind is that direction should be part of the life of the church and not just the domain of the "experts".
One of the most detrimental things for young people today is that we have fooled ourselves into thinking that professionals and programs are the only people capable of working with youth. A lot more good would be accomplished at a fraction of the cost if adults just became engaged with kids where they are. (Learning the names of kids in the neighborhood, volunteering for youth programs, etc.) I'll get back of my soapbox now.
The point is, we can't let the same thing happen in the church. Looking back I can see where I've had plenty of mentors in my Christian walk, even if they didn't carry any official title. As I've been reading through this week's assigned text I've become convinced that my friend Brad and I were already doing mutual spiritual direction even if we didn't know it!
Spiritual Direction is an important but by no means the only aspect of spiritual development. Spiritual Direction needs to be part of a well-rounded program that includes corporate worship, Christian education, discipleship, mentoring, and service.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Spiritual Direction
I began my new class tonight. It's called Spiritual Direction: Seminar for Spirituality and Ministry. I'm not sure yet if spiritual direction is something that can be taught or if it is a spiritual gift, but I'm looking forward to finding out over the next 8 weeks.
A few years back I heard an individual from my old church describe himself as the spiritual director of a particular ministry in town. To be honest, the title seemed a bit "Gothardy" to me. Plus I knew from my previous experience with this individual that he was in no way, shape, or form trustworthy to give direction to anyone under any circumstances.
Ahem.
So that's my lovely story of the first time I heard about spiritual direction. Of course, later I read about the topic in Celebration of Discipline and understood it in the wider context of guidance. A year or two ago I started attending some programs at a monastery in my region, but never quite got around to taking advantage of spiritual direction.
I began sessions with my spiritual director last semester as a requirement of the MARSF program. I chose a pastor in town who has a good reputation and whom I personally admire. It's a good experience seeing this relationship unfold.
My understanding of spiritual direction at this point is that it is an encouraging relationship between two Christians. The relationship is a formalized mentor/mentee relationship. (Is mentee a real word or did I just make that up?)
Actually, the mentor description isn't totally apt. It's more like the spiritual director is a sounding board for the thoughts and feelings about God that I have kicking around inside myself. He asks questions and helps bring that stuff up to the surface.
Spiritual Direction is a positive experience for me–-how else can I so intently focus my attention on the things of the spirit?
A few years back I heard an individual from my old church describe himself as the spiritual director of a particular ministry in town. To be honest, the title seemed a bit "Gothardy" to me. Plus I knew from my previous experience with this individual that he was in no way, shape, or form trustworthy to give direction to anyone under any circumstances.
Ahem.
So that's my lovely story of the first time I heard about spiritual direction. Of course, later I read about the topic in Celebration of Discipline and understood it in the wider context of guidance. A year or two ago I started attending some programs at a monastery in my region, but never quite got around to taking advantage of spiritual direction.
I began sessions with my spiritual director last semester as a requirement of the MARSF program. I chose a pastor in town who has a good reputation and whom I personally admire. It's a good experience seeing this relationship unfold.
My understanding of spiritual direction at this point is that it is an encouraging relationship between two Christians. The relationship is a formalized mentor/mentee relationship. (Is mentee a real word or did I just make that up?)
Actually, the mentor description isn't totally apt. It's more like the spiritual director is a sounding board for the thoughts and feelings about God that I have kicking around inside myself. He asks questions and helps bring that stuff up to the surface.
Spiritual Direction is a positive experience for me–-how else can I so intently focus my attention on the things of the spirit?
Friday, October 20, 2006
Quote of the Day: Names
“Names are not always what they seem. The common Welsh name BZJXXLLWCP is pronounced Jackson.” — Mark Twain
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Little Hands
I was away from home for a few days again, and I missed my family terribly. The time I have with them is too short, too packed with things to do and places to be. I find myself longing for the salad days when my kids were babies and I had time to actually read a book for fun every now and again.
It may be that as soon as Halloween get here I automatically begin to feel the pressure of the Holiday season bearing down on me. The hoopla that comes along with it; either the kind we create or the kind that others establish as necessities makes it difficult to appreciate really what we're celebrating.
This morning, I awoke to my son snuggled in bed beside me. He was so happy to just be with me that he smiled and said, "I missed you." from his still closed eyes. I rolled over and hugged him, told him I missed him too and then took his hand in mine.
He squeezed my hand in return.
How many times have I held my son? How many times have I held his hands as I used to sit in the rocking chair with him when he was so small. It struck me this morning as he squeezed my hand just how blessed I am. My husband loves me, my daughter loves me, my son loves me - so much love surrounds me. God love me, more than I can even imagine. God loves me! Then I could go on to all the extended family and friends that are there for me, that care for me, and that love me. But by now, I'm sure you get the idea - there are alot of people that love me and I see that and appreciate that so much.
Mary the mother of Jesus probaby held her child's hand, rocked him and saw and felt how he missed her if she had been away for a day... she was a Mom just like me. Her son's love for her was so big that he was willing to miss a great deal in life. I can't imagine the loss she felt when she saw his hands injured and bleeding. They were her little one's hands'.
Jesus gave himself as a ransom for the world. Jesus sacrificed his life so that others could live. Jesus essentally took the world by the hand and said, "I missed you - so I gave myself up to make a way for us to be close."
Jesus had little hands once, but his hands grew up and became the hope for all of us. So as the holidays rush towards me, I hope to remember that Christmas can be a time where I reach out to others: family, friends, strangers; with my heart and hands. It can be a time where I can say, "I missed you." or "Get out of my way - I'm in a hurry."
What lessons we can learn from little hands. They now how to get to the heart of the matter and stay there.
It may be that as soon as Halloween get here I automatically begin to feel the pressure of the Holiday season bearing down on me. The hoopla that comes along with it; either the kind we create or the kind that others establish as necessities makes it difficult to appreciate really what we're celebrating.
This morning, I awoke to my son snuggled in bed beside me. He was so happy to just be with me that he smiled and said, "I missed you." from his still closed eyes. I rolled over and hugged him, told him I missed him too and then took his hand in mine.
He squeezed my hand in return.
How many times have I held my son? How many times have I held his hands as I used to sit in the rocking chair with him when he was so small. It struck me this morning as he squeezed my hand just how blessed I am. My husband loves me, my daughter loves me, my son loves me - so much love surrounds me. God love me, more than I can even imagine. God loves me! Then I could go on to all the extended family and friends that are there for me, that care for me, and that love me. But by now, I'm sure you get the idea - there are alot of people that love me and I see that and appreciate that so much.
Mary the mother of Jesus probaby held her child's hand, rocked him and saw and felt how he missed her if she had been away for a day... she was a Mom just like me. Her son's love for her was so big that he was willing to miss a great deal in life. I can't imagine the loss she felt when she saw his hands injured and bleeding. They were her little one's hands'.
Jesus gave himself as a ransom for the world. Jesus sacrificed his life so that others could live. Jesus essentally took the world by the hand and said, "I missed you - so I gave myself up to make a way for us to be close."
Jesus had little hands once, but his hands grew up and became the hope for all of us. So as the holidays rush towards me, I hope to remember that Christmas can be a time where I reach out to others: family, friends, strangers; with my heart and hands. It can be a time where I can say, "I missed you." or "Get out of my way - I'm in a hurry."
What lessons we can learn from little hands. They now how to get to the heart of the matter and stay there.
You can sit with us
I have this habit of going to meetings and conferences by myself. Not that I dislike going with friends, it's just that calenders and personal schedules make it difficut to make a group trips happen. So I sometimes make the trip flying - well, driving solo.
This week marks trip number 3 to the Pittsburgh area for such meetings. Last fall I attended the Youth Specialties National Conference, this year Emergent Mission Conference and finally the Alph Course Conference. (All of which would be well worth the time and money - I'm rather thrifty concerning both resources.)
Two of the three (ys and Alpha) I attended by myself. There are some things that make attending anything in the Pittsburgh area helpful - a live navigatior to look at your mapquest print out or a GPS system. I have driven in New Jersey area and had an easier time finding my way around than I did in the Mkeesport and Pleasant Hills area of Pittsburgh. Between the landscape and road built on hills perfect for a mountian goat and the various belt colors (orange, yellow, blue...)its a miracle that I found my location two days in a row and in one collective piece. Be prepared with maps a plenty if you are heading to Steel City anytime soon.
Alson, it can be very tiring always talking about: 1. Who you are, 2. Why you are there, 3. Are you there alone (gasp!) 4. and Did you drive here? (gasp! gasp!) Maybe it's because I'm a woman, or maybe it's because I'm a woman in a field primaraly filled by men - but I felt somewhat a spectacle and a tired one at that. It helps to ask other people these questions as soon as you get in conversation. This is the only talking rest that occurs in these circumstances that I've found. Also, I'm a talker. There are times when it is nice to have people that know you already with you. Thankfully, I stayed with my parents so when I go back in the evening it wasn't necessary to recycle my conversation yet again.
Sometimes, if you are lucky you will find people that a genuine and kind and willing to include you in their group. Sometimes you get stuck in a never ending cycle of conversation that you know by heart and are bored to tears with, but is all new to the audience.
Thankfully there were three wise men that asked if they could sit with me during coffee break the first morning. They asked the typical questions and carried on with polite conversation, but they took it one step further...
" You are welcome to sit with/ hang out with us during the conference if you like - you don't have to feel like you have to, but we'd like it if you would."
So let me make something clear. No they were not hitting on me. No they were not Jeff Dahlmer wanna bes. Yes they were three nice guys from a Vineyard church in the Philadelpha area. It was their kindness and hospitality that helped a frustrated, directionally challenged, and road weary traveler feel at home.
Thanks guys - your friendship was greatly appreciated! You can sit and have coffee with me anytime.
Peace.
This week marks trip number 3 to the Pittsburgh area for such meetings. Last fall I attended the Youth Specialties National Conference, this year Emergent Mission Conference and finally the Alph Course Conference. (All of which would be well worth the time and money - I'm rather thrifty concerning both resources.)
Two of the three (ys and Alpha) I attended by myself. There are some things that make attending anything in the Pittsburgh area helpful - a live navigatior to look at your mapquest print out or a GPS system. I have driven in New Jersey area and had an easier time finding my way around than I did in the Mkeesport and Pleasant Hills area of Pittsburgh. Between the landscape and road built on hills perfect for a mountian goat and the various belt colors (orange, yellow, blue...)its a miracle that I found my location two days in a row and in one collective piece. Be prepared with maps a plenty if you are heading to Steel City anytime soon.
Alson, it can be very tiring always talking about: 1. Who you are, 2. Why you are there, 3. Are you there alone (gasp!) 4. and Did you drive here? (gasp! gasp!) Maybe it's because I'm a woman, or maybe it's because I'm a woman in a field primaraly filled by men - but I felt somewhat a spectacle and a tired one at that. It helps to ask other people these questions as soon as you get in conversation. This is the only talking rest that occurs in these circumstances that I've found. Also, I'm a talker. There are times when it is nice to have people that know you already with you. Thankfully, I stayed with my parents so when I go back in the evening it wasn't necessary to recycle my conversation yet again.
Sometimes, if you are lucky you will find people that a genuine and kind and willing to include you in their group. Sometimes you get stuck in a never ending cycle of conversation that you know by heart and are bored to tears with, but is all new to the audience.
Thankfully there were three wise men that asked if they could sit with me during coffee break the first morning. They asked the typical questions and carried on with polite conversation, but they took it one step further...
" You are welcome to sit with/ hang out with us during the conference if you like - you don't have to feel like you have to, but we'd like it if you would."
So let me make something clear. No they were not hitting on me. No they were not Jeff Dahlmer wanna bes. Yes they were three nice guys from a Vineyard church in the Philadelpha area. It was their kindness and hospitality that helped a frustrated, directionally challenged, and road weary traveler feel at home.
Thanks guys - your friendship was greatly appreciated! You can sit and have coffee with me anytime.
Peace.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
"42"
What does it mean to be human?
It is to have a conscience and free will.
Conscience is defined as "the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good" (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary). I argue that conscience is not merely the result of socialization; it is something that inherent and unique to humankind.
Nietzsche believed that it made no sense to speak about right and wrong, to wit: "No act of violence, rape, exploitation, destruction, is intrinsically unjust, since life itself is violent, rapacious, exploitative, and destructive and cannot be conceived otherwise" (Pojman 188). Yet, humankind does conceive of life differently all the time.
In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis gives a few examples of everyday quarrelling and then delves into the assumptions behind them: "Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: 'To hell with your standard.' Nearly he always tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse…It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behavior or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football" (Lewis 17-8).
Saint Augustine said much the same thing in his Confessions some millennium-and-a-half earlier: "Theft is punishable by Thy law, O Lord, and by the law written in man's hearts, which not even ingrained wickedness can erase. For what thief will tolerate another thief stealing from him" (Pojman 73-4)?
It may be argued that this sense of right and wrong is something learned through the process of socialization. Although it is true that behavior is taught and modeled to others, there are also many cases where this kind of instruction is inadequate. Even so, "A person might be badly informed about what the right and wrong are; yet conscience is an urge to do the one and avoid the other" (Grider 238).
Another analysis might be that morality is a function of the state to keep people in line. Morality is nothing more than adherence to the law. The weakness in this view is that societies are remarkably similar in their approach to right and wrong: "There have been differences [in] moralities, but there has never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him is how very like they are to each other and to our own…[I] only ask the reader to think of what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of doublecrossing all the people who had been kindest to him…Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked" (Lewis 19).
A people with a radically different sense of right and wrong will never emerge because it is an impossibility. One might just as well search for an island where waterfalls run upwards and people can taste purple.
A human being possesses a conscience. A human being also possesses the ability to obey or disobey its impulse. Free will is defined as "the power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will" (Yahoo Online Dictionary).
The biological determinist would disagree with the previous statement, as "…every act and event in the universe is caused by antecedent events" (Pojman 250). In other words, everything, including human behavior, is determined by other events. Free will is an illusion. But biological determinism grossly oversimplifies the complexity of human behavior. As Steven Rose, Richard Lewontin, and Leon J. Kamin point out in their critique of sociobiology, "Humanity cannot be cut adrift by its own biology, but neither is it enchained by it" (Stevenson 311).
The materialist is also in opposition to free will, believing that "…what we call a mind is really a function of the brain" (Pojman 234), which is to put all of our decisions down to instinct. A cursory survey of history demonstrates that humans have higher capacities in their thinking: "Animals may seem to make decisions at times, but they are only acting on the basis of stimulus-response programming. They make decisions, but not moral ones. They make decisions, but not costly ones. Human history shows that moral decision is a capacity of ours" (Grider 237).
C.S. Lewis illustrated the difference between instinct and a moral conscience: "We all know what it feels like to be to be prompted by instinct—by mother love, or sexual instinct, or the instinct for food. It means that you feel a strong want or desire to act in a certain way. And, of course, we sometimes do feel just that sort of desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd instinct. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not. Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires—one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away…But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same" (Lewis 22).
This impulse to do the noble, the altruistic, and the courageous when it would be more expedient to cut and run is a compelling argument against animalistic instinct. As Immanuel Kant put it, "When we have the course of nature alone in view, "ought" has no meaning whatsoever. It is just as absurd to ask what ought to happen in the natural world as to ask what properties a circle ought to have" (Pojman 133).
To be human is to know the difference between good and evil and to have the ability to choose between the two. This can inform the process of spiritual formation in many different ways.
First, it is an important reminder that humankind knows the difference between right and wrong. That is not to say that the decisions that life thrusts upon us are easy, but neither are they perhaps as complex as the culture of today would have us believe. So often an issue is covered in layer after layer of debate and point/counterpoint when a simple and direct examination would lead to clarity.
There is an increasing shift in our religious communities to use the language of psychology, business, education, and social work to explain the problems of humankind. While these sectors contribute a lot of insight to life, it is also important to be reminded that good and evil still exist. Good people will lead to thriving neighborhoods and communities. People behaving in right relation to each other will alleviate poor social conditions.
Free will means that we aren't victims of fate or circumstance. We have choices. Knowing good and evil isn't enough—it is important to act on those "oughts" too.
WORKS CITED
Grider, J. Kenneth. A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology. Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1994.
Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1960.
Pojman, Louis P. Who Are We?: Theories of Human Nature. New York, NY: Oxford, 2006.
Stevenson, Leslie (ed). The Study of Human Nature. New York: Oxford, 2000.
It is to have a conscience and free will.
Conscience is defined as "the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good" (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary). I argue that conscience is not merely the result of socialization; it is something that inherent and unique to humankind.
Nietzsche believed that it made no sense to speak about right and wrong, to wit: "No act of violence, rape, exploitation, destruction, is intrinsically unjust, since life itself is violent, rapacious, exploitative, and destructive and cannot be conceived otherwise" (Pojman 188). Yet, humankind does conceive of life differently all the time.
In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis gives a few examples of everyday quarrelling and then delves into the assumptions behind them: "Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: 'To hell with your standard.' Nearly he always tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse…It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behavior or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football" (Lewis 17-8).
Saint Augustine said much the same thing in his Confessions some millennium-and-a-half earlier: "Theft is punishable by Thy law, O Lord, and by the law written in man's hearts, which not even ingrained wickedness can erase. For what thief will tolerate another thief stealing from him" (Pojman 73-4)?
It may be argued that this sense of right and wrong is something learned through the process of socialization. Although it is true that behavior is taught and modeled to others, there are also many cases where this kind of instruction is inadequate. Even so, "A person might be badly informed about what the right and wrong are; yet conscience is an urge to do the one and avoid the other" (Grider 238).
Another analysis might be that morality is a function of the state to keep people in line. Morality is nothing more than adherence to the law. The weakness in this view is that societies are remarkably similar in their approach to right and wrong: "There have been differences [in] moralities, but there has never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him is how very like they are to each other and to our own…[I] only ask the reader to think of what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of doublecrossing all the people who had been kindest to him…Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked" (Lewis 19).
A people with a radically different sense of right and wrong will never emerge because it is an impossibility. One might just as well search for an island where waterfalls run upwards and people can taste purple.
A human being possesses a conscience. A human being also possesses the ability to obey or disobey its impulse. Free will is defined as "the power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will" (Yahoo Online Dictionary).
The biological determinist would disagree with the previous statement, as "…every act and event in the universe is caused by antecedent events" (Pojman 250). In other words, everything, including human behavior, is determined by other events. Free will is an illusion. But biological determinism grossly oversimplifies the complexity of human behavior. As Steven Rose, Richard Lewontin, and Leon J. Kamin point out in their critique of sociobiology, "Humanity cannot be cut adrift by its own biology, but neither is it enchained by it" (Stevenson 311).
The materialist is also in opposition to free will, believing that "…what we call a mind is really a function of the brain" (Pojman 234), which is to put all of our decisions down to instinct. A cursory survey of history demonstrates that humans have higher capacities in their thinking: "Animals may seem to make decisions at times, but they are only acting on the basis of stimulus-response programming. They make decisions, but not moral ones. They make decisions, but not costly ones. Human history shows that moral decision is a capacity of ours" (Grider 237).
C.S. Lewis illustrated the difference between instinct and a moral conscience: "We all know what it feels like to be to be prompted by instinct—by mother love, or sexual instinct, or the instinct for food. It means that you feel a strong want or desire to act in a certain way. And, of course, we sometimes do feel just that sort of desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd instinct. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not. Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires—one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away…But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same" (Lewis 22).
This impulse to do the noble, the altruistic, and the courageous when it would be more expedient to cut and run is a compelling argument against animalistic instinct. As Immanuel Kant put it, "When we have the course of nature alone in view, "ought" has no meaning whatsoever. It is just as absurd to ask what ought to happen in the natural world as to ask what properties a circle ought to have" (Pojman 133).
To be human is to know the difference between good and evil and to have the ability to choose between the two. This can inform the process of spiritual formation in many different ways.
First, it is an important reminder that humankind knows the difference between right and wrong. That is not to say that the decisions that life thrusts upon us are easy, but neither are they perhaps as complex as the culture of today would have us believe. So often an issue is covered in layer after layer of debate and point/counterpoint when a simple and direct examination would lead to clarity.
There is an increasing shift in our religious communities to use the language of psychology, business, education, and social work to explain the problems of humankind. While these sectors contribute a lot of insight to life, it is also important to be reminded that good and evil still exist. Good people will lead to thriving neighborhoods and communities. People behaving in right relation to each other will alleviate poor social conditions.
Free will means that we aren't victims of fate or circumstance. We have choices. Knowing good and evil isn't enough—it is important to act on those "oughts" too.
WORKS CITED
Grider, J. Kenneth. A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology. Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1994.
Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1960.
Pojman, Louis P. Who Are We?: Theories of Human Nature. New York, NY: Oxford, 2006.
Stevenson, Leslie (ed). The Study of Human Nature. New York: Oxford, 2000.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Life together
We've been discussing the merits of small groups and Sunday School in regards to people's spiritual growth. Personally, I think you can call it whatever you want, but the important thing is that people are sharing life together. You can't love your neighbor in a vacuum.
One of the missional churches my wife and I scoped out in Pittsburgh last week was the Open Door. One of the covenants of spiritual formation that they've made is to eat together with people:
"We strive to eat with at least 2 people we don't live with (1 from the Open Door and 1 not) each week.
"Jesus regularly ate with friends and strangers. He culminated his ministry in the last supper, where he told us to do likewise. Eating with others is a place of conversation, community and hospitality and it is practiced throughout scripture in regular celebrations, feasts, sacrifices and gatherings of the people of God. Whether with one or many, whether coffee or a feast, whether serving or being served, sharing a meal together provides an opportunity to grow in relationships, to build trust, and ultimately for Christ to work through us in those relationships" (The rhythms and practices of the Open Door).
If eating counts as spiritual formation, just call me Thomas Merton!
One of the missional churches my wife and I scoped out in Pittsburgh last week was the Open Door. One of the covenants of spiritual formation that they've made is to eat together with people:
"We strive to eat with at least 2 people we don't live with (1 from the Open Door and 1 not) each week.
"Jesus regularly ate with friends and strangers. He culminated his ministry in the last supper, where he told us to do likewise. Eating with others is a place of conversation, community and hospitality and it is practiced throughout scripture in regular celebrations, feasts, sacrifices and gatherings of the people of God. Whether with one or many, whether coffee or a feast, whether serving or being served, sharing a meal together provides an opportunity to grow in relationships, to build trust, and ultimately for Christ to work through us in those relationships" (The rhythms and practices of the Open Door).
If eating counts as spiritual formation, just call me Thomas Merton!
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Spiritual Formation and Groups
My wife and I participated last week in a conference about the Missional Church organized by Emergent Pittsburgh. On Thursday evening I took part in a conversation about Missional Rhythms and Practices. The session was unique because it emphasized the neglected role of community in the process of spiritual formation. I only mention this because tonight's readings and last week's experiences are all stirring together in a stew.
Matt Ridley points out in his interesting essay about trust, "Utopia is impossible because society is an uneasy compromise between individuals with conflicting emotions" (326). While I wouldn't state it quite that starkly, I think it is important for individuals involved in a group process of formation to address those emotions, attitudes, and behaviors that work against cohesiveness. The only way that we're ever going to be able to love our neighbor is to be in relationship with our neighbor, conflicts and all.
The authors of Not in Our Genes went after biological determinism and demonstrated that if you go far enough left or right that you'll end up in a big circle. Some people use biological theories to explain the superiority of traditional values. I would caution against this in group formation, despite how ingrained is the vision of a superior past in many faith communities. Faith development is about conforming to what God is up to in the world now, not trying to resuscitate the church of the 1950s. As Rose and company point out, "Humanity cannot be cut adrift by its own biology, but neither is it enchained by it" (311).
The description of the "New Left...[as seeing] human nature as infinitely plastic, to deny biology and acknowledge only social construction" (311) reminded me of some unpleasant churches I've observed, where spirituality somehow trumped "real life" as if the two could be separated. Discipleship should challenge people to stretch, but do so in a way that takes into account the stages and rhythms of life. For instance, a youth program is not composed of fifteen-year-old "adults".
WORK CITED
Stevenson, Leslie (ed). The Study of Human Nature. New York: Oxford, 2000.
Matt Ridley points out in his interesting essay about trust, "Utopia is impossible because society is an uneasy compromise between individuals with conflicting emotions" (326). While I wouldn't state it quite that starkly, I think it is important for individuals involved in a group process of formation to address those emotions, attitudes, and behaviors that work against cohesiveness. The only way that we're ever going to be able to love our neighbor is to be in relationship with our neighbor, conflicts and all.
The authors of Not in Our Genes went after biological determinism and demonstrated that if you go far enough left or right that you'll end up in a big circle. Some people use biological theories to explain the superiority of traditional values. I would caution against this in group formation, despite how ingrained is the vision of a superior past in many faith communities. Faith development is about conforming to what God is up to in the world now, not trying to resuscitate the church of the 1950s. As Rose and company point out, "Humanity cannot be cut adrift by its own biology, but neither is it enchained by it" (311).
The description of the "New Left...[as seeing] human nature as infinitely plastic, to deny biology and acknowledge only social construction" (311) reminded me of some unpleasant churches I've observed, where spirituality somehow trumped "real life" as if the two could be separated. Discipleship should challenge people to stretch, but do so in a way that takes into account the stages and rhythms of life. For instance, a youth program is not composed of fifteen-year-old "adults".
WORK CITED
Stevenson, Leslie (ed). The Study of Human Nature. New York: Oxford, 2000.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
It's about time you get to work...
I've been greatly frustrated lately by situations that I have no power to change. I've tried to express my thoughts and feelings, but all the response I get is "Be patient, pray about it, try to understand where that person is coming from..."
I've had it.
I was discussing the importance of community and how the church could access so many more connections if it were willing to adapt it's approach by being relationship/people centered instead of building centered. In the midst of this conversation, I was derailed by a phone call. On my way to address the call an individual said to me, "It's about time you got up and did something."
At first I was ticked. Every day it seems this person has to comment on the why, how, and what I could be doing to be "working". It became apparent that this person has no clue of what my kind of work is, so that takes the sting away from all the sarcastic remarks. In fact, I have no issue with this person at all, because my eyes were opened to something rather important by the continual commentary on my work ethic.
I've been functioning in the wrong system.
Community, hospitality, worship, creativity, social action and relationships are at the heart of who I am and who I was created to be. It is when these aspects of my life are used that I have a sense of well-being, effectiveness and peace. So back to the comment about getting back to work.
The work I need to get back to is the work of building community, hospitality, creativity, worship, relationships and social action into my everyday life. The repeated comments on my work ethic are the expression of others seeing the short circuit of what I'm trying to attempt in a system focused on program, numbers and time clocks. The two worlds are difficult to merge.
So instead of being offended, I will take the comments as conformation of the work that is to come. I've had it living and working in my current shoebox - it's time to break down the walls and live in community. God help me rebuild and move into the place you intended all along.
It's time to go back to work..
I've had it.
I was discussing the importance of community and how the church could access so many more connections if it were willing to adapt it's approach by being relationship/people centered instead of building centered. In the midst of this conversation, I was derailed by a phone call. On my way to address the call an individual said to me, "It's about time you got up and did something."
At first I was ticked. Every day it seems this person has to comment on the why, how, and what I could be doing to be "working". It became apparent that this person has no clue of what my kind of work is, so that takes the sting away from all the sarcastic remarks. In fact, I have no issue with this person at all, because my eyes were opened to something rather important by the continual commentary on my work ethic.
I've been functioning in the wrong system.
Community, hospitality, worship, creativity, social action and relationships are at the heart of who I am and who I was created to be. It is when these aspects of my life are used that I have a sense of well-being, effectiveness and peace. So back to the comment about getting back to work.
The work I need to get back to is the work of building community, hospitality, creativity, worship, relationships and social action into my everyday life. The repeated comments on my work ethic are the expression of others seeing the short circuit of what I'm trying to attempt in a system focused on program, numbers and time clocks. The two worlds are difficult to merge.
So instead of being offended, I will take the comments as conformation of the work that is to come. I've had it living and working in my current shoebox - it's time to break down the walls and live in community. God help me rebuild and move into the place you intended all along.
It's time to go back to work..
Monday, October 09, 2006
Today's topic: Sex and Race
The soul is the essential distinctive of humankind. That makes sex and race so much window dressing... Sadly, we have a tendency to notice differences between the sexes and races rather than how we are similar. Henry M. Braken recounts a sad history of racism where "...we get into the ranking business in the first place because we want to justify...our pushing people around" (269). Who says philosophers can't get to the point?
John Stuart Mill's assessment, "...what is contrary to women's nature to do, they will never be made to do by simply giving their nature full play" (161) is interesting as it reveals the philosopher's gender bias -- it is implied that man's nature is the mean. (And he was advocating for women's rights!) That said, the essential point he was making is still valid. Women have more opportunity than they've had in the past and are thriving. That would indicate to me that the "weakness" or "differences" of the past had more to do with the way society functioned than a distinctive female nature.
WORK CITED
Stevenson, Leslie (ed.). The Study of Human Nature. New York: Oxford, 2000.
John Stuart Mill's assessment, "...what is contrary to women's nature to do, they will never be made to do by simply giving their nature full play" (161) is interesting as it reveals the philosopher's gender bias -- it is implied that man's nature is the mean. (And he was advocating for women's rights!) That said, the essential point he was making is still valid. Women have more opportunity than they've had in the past and are thriving. That would indicate to me that the "weakness" or "differences" of the past had more to do with the way society functioned than a distinctive female nature.
WORK CITED
Stevenson, Leslie (ed.). The Study of Human Nature. New York: Oxford, 2000.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Darwinism, Part Two
My professor asked me to follow up my comments on Darwinism with my assessment of the theory. However, this may turn out to be more of an assessment of myself than the theory!
I've discovered that I'm inconsistent in my opinion of science. That is to say that I'm quite content to let scientists be the authority on all things scientific, except this one particular theory. (Similar to fundamentalists who hail archeological discoveries that lend credence to the Biblical account but then criticize or try to undermine the integrity of archeology when it digs up dinosaur bones.)
The theory, for the most part is almost universally recognized. Wide acceptance isn't a proof of anything -- just look at the continued popularity of Adam Sandler -- but it is a good barometer of its worth among people who understand the methodology.
One approach to take is that God is the creator and it doesn't really matter how it happened. But isn't that kind of like the story of the Gremlin and the watch (247)? Does Occam's Razor indicate that the most obvious answer is usually the best?
Another approach is that God formed Adam as an adult, so perhaps the earth was created as a certain age? The fossil record, oil deposits, etc. were already there. Is this just another variation on the Gremlin?
Teilhard de Chardin got put away by the Catholic church for suggesting that religion and science were compatible. Still, I don't have a lot of faith in his Omega Point, in which "humanity...[evolves] toward perfection...where it will be fit for the Kingdom of God" (209). (Maybe I should write my final on this guy.)
Another opinion, which I alluded to in another post, is just to pick and choose what I like from a variety of philosophies, which doesn't make me any different from the other six billion people on the planet. This just doesn't sound intellectually honest anymore after this course.
The final thing is that my personal experience with God is so powerful that no philosophical arguments can chip away at it. There's something "burning bright" that keeps me connected. I can't explain it, but I live it. Maybe in the end that's the best account I can give of the hope that is in me.
WORK CITED
Pojman, Louis P. Who Are We? New York: Oxford, 2006.
I've discovered that I'm inconsistent in my opinion of science. That is to say that I'm quite content to let scientists be the authority on all things scientific, except this one particular theory. (Similar to fundamentalists who hail archeological discoveries that lend credence to the Biblical account but then criticize or try to undermine the integrity of archeology when it digs up dinosaur bones.)
The theory, for the most part is almost universally recognized. Wide acceptance isn't a proof of anything -- just look at the continued popularity of Adam Sandler -- but it is a good barometer of its worth among people who understand the methodology.
One approach to take is that God is the creator and it doesn't really matter how it happened. But isn't that kind of like the story of the Gremlin and the watch (247)? Does Occam's Razor indicate that the most obvious answer is usually the best?
Another approach is that God formed Adam as an adult, so perhaps the earth was created as a certain age? The fossil record, oil deposits, etc. were already there. Is this just another variation on the Gremlin?
Teilhard de Chardin got put away by the Catholic church for suggesting that religion and science were compatible. Still, I don't have a lot of faith in his Omega Point, in which "humanity...[evolves] toward perfection...where it will be fit for the Kingdom of God" (209). (Maybe I should write my final on this guy.)
Another opinion, which I alluded to in another post, is just to pick and choose what I like from a variety of philosophies, which doesn't make me any different from the other six billion people on the planet. This just doesn't sound intellectually honest anymore after this course.
The final thing is that my personal experience with God is so powerful that no philosophical arguments can chip away at it. There's something "burning bright" that keeps me connected. I can't explain it, but I live it. Maybe in the end that's the best account I can give of the hope that is in me.
WORK CITED
Pojman, Louis P. Who Are We? New York: Oxford, 2006.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Road Trip for 2
We got to go to Pittsburgh for a conference called "Heart of the Missional Church". What a great group of people to bounce ideas off of and share our hearts and what we feel God is calling us to.
Go here to see what we had a chance to be a part of...
www.emergentpittsburgh.org
Also we met on the East side of Pittsburgh at the Union Mission -- the building is beautiful and has been converted from a delapidated old Baptist catherdral to a community center, pottery and stained glass art center, cafe' and more.The church that meets there is called, "The Open Door"--- here's the url.
http://www.unionproject.org/
http://www.pghopendoor.org/
One other location we met at in the burbs was called Fountain Park Church...http://www.fountainpc.com/
We're home and feel refreshed knowing that there are other Christians out there that see the church in this new light.
Peace,
Lamont
Go here to see what we had a chance to be a part of...
www.emergentpittsburgh.org
Also we met on the East side of Pittsburgh at the Union Mission -- the building is beautiful and has been converted from a delapidated old Baptist catherdral to a community center, pottery and stained glass art center, cafe' and more.The church that meets there is called, "The Open Door"--- here's the url.
http://www.unionproject.org/
http://www.pghopendoor.org/
One other location we met at in the burbs was called Fountain Park Church...http://www.fountainpc.com/
We're home and feel refreshed knowing that there are other Christians out there that see the church in this new light.
Peace,
Lamont
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Free Will, Determinism, and an inappropriate use of a Matrix quote
Tonight's million dollar question is: are humans free?
I found the assigned reading tonight challenging, but enjoyable. There are many good arguments both for free will and determinism. I'm not trying to sidestep the question, but is it possible to be as free as we perceive ourselves to be?
My options in life are a result of my experiences and my current environment. If I want to quit my current job, I'm reasonably sure that my education and work experience will make it possible for me to find a new one in a similar career field. I am free to make a change.
I know a genuine millionaire. If he looked at my life, he may see me as having little to no options at all. His options in a similar situation might be to not work at all, travel the world, go back to school, or any number of other choices. Similarly, an unwed 16-year-old mother may feel that I have a world of opportunities awaiting me.
It's kind of like the part in the Matrix where Cypher says: "I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious."
What do you think: Sense, no sense, or nonsense?
I found the assigned reading tonight challenging, but enjoyable. There are many good arguments both for free will and determinism. I'm not trying to sidestep the question, but is it possible to be as free as we perceive ourselves to be?
My options in life are a result of my experiences and my current environment. If I want to quit my current job, I'm reasonably sure that my education and work experience will make it possible for me to find a new one in a similar career field. I am free to make a change.
I know a genuine millionaire. If he looked at my life, he may see me as having little to no options at all. His options in a similar situation might be to not work at all, travel the world, go back to school, or any number of other choices. Similarly, an unwed 16-year-old mother may feel that I have a world of opportunities awaiting me.
It's kind of like the part in the Matrix where Cypher says: "I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious."
What do you think: Sense, no sense, or nonsense?
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Soul Man
Boy, is my C-fiber ever firing in quadrant D11 of cerebral cortex LP! Translation: today's assigned reading is making my brain overheat!
Dualistic Interactionism is defined as "the view that there are two types of substance or reality in conscious beings, mind and matter, and that these interact with each other, the body producing mental events and the mind leading to physical action" (282).
This explanation makes common sense. As Pojman points out, "Intuitively, there seem to be two different types of reality: material and mental...Bodies are solid, material entities, extended in three-dimensional space, publicly observable, measurable, and capable of causing things to happen in accordance with the invariant laws of mechanics...mental entities have no shape, weight, length, width, height, color, mass, velocity, or temperature...Yet, common sense tells us that these two entities somehow interact" (225-6).
Rene Descartes believed that "the mind interacts only with the brain" which is "the classic expression of dualastic interactionism" (230).
However, there are also some compelling arguments against Dualistic Interactionism. First, no one has identified how the mind/soul and brain interact or pinpointed where the exchange takes place. Secondly, it is not easily reconciled with physics. The third objection is philosophical in nature: "How can the idea of two realities, body and mind, be reconciled with Occam's Razor, the principle of simplicity (231)?
Materialism -- "the metaphysical view that only physical matter and its properties exist" (284) -- holds that "what we call a mind is really a function of the brain; that when the brain is injured...or diseased, the effect is seen in behavior and impaired mental functioning" (234). Medicine can present us with a number of these scenarios. Alas, the opposing view appeals to my common sense, too!
According to a Handbook of Theological Terms, "soul...in traditional Christianity, referred to the originative seat of reason and will in the human person. Created by God, it is regarded as a spiritual entity that survives physical death" (Harvey 226).
The soul/mind could easily be a function of the brain/body. As a Christian, I believe in a resurrection of my soul and body someday. Is that a simple and elegant answer or am I dodging the question?
WORKS CITED
Harvey, Van A. A Handbook of Theological Terms. New York: Touchstone, 1992.
Pojman, LouisP. Who Are We. New York: Oxford, 2006.
Dualistic Interactionism is defined as "the view that there are two types of substance or reality in conscious beings, mind and matter, and that these interact with each other, the body producing mental events and the mind leading to physical action" (282).
This explanation makes common sense. As Pojman points out, "Intuitively, there seem to be two different types of reality: material and mental...Bodies are solid, material entities, extended in three-dimensional space, publicly observable, measurable, and capable of causing things to happen in accordance with the invariant laws of mechanics...mental entities have no shape, weight, length, width, height, color, mass, velocity, or temperature...Yet, common sense tells us that these two entities somehow interact" (225-6).
Rene Descartes believed that "the mind interacts only with the brain" which is "the classic expression of dualastic interactionism" (230).
However, there are also some compelling arguments against Dualistic Interactionism. First, no one has identified how the mind/soul and brain interact or pinpointed where the exchange takes place. Secondly, it is not easily reconciled with physics. The third objection is philosophical in nature: "How can the idea of two realities, body and mind, be reconciled with Occam's Razor, the principle of simplicity (231)?
Materialism -- "the metaphysical view that only physical matter and its properties exist" (284) -- holds that "what we call a mind is really a function of the brain; that when the brain is injured...or diseased, the effect is seen in behavior and impaired mental functioning" (234). Medicine can present us with a number of these scenarios. Alas, the opposing view appeals to my common sense, too!
According to a Handbook of Theological Terms, "soul...in traditional Christianity, referred to the originative seat of reason and will in the human person. Created by God, it is regarded as a spiritual entity that survives physical death" (Harvey 226).
The soul/mind could easily be a function of the brain/body. As a Christian, I believe in a resurrection of my soul and body someday. Is that a simple and elegant answer or am I dodging the question?
WORKS CITED
Harvey, Van A. A Handbook of Theological Terms. New York: Touchstone, 1992.
Pojman, LouisP. Who Are We. New York: Oxford, 2006.
Take a load off
Matthew 11:28-30
Jesus said, "Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
I've read this verse amillion times. In fact, I have it on my fridge right now- in the Message translation. It's hard to imagine something that is placed around the neck to be light (ie. yolk) .
Something struck me about this image in a new way today.When observing cattle wearing a yolk- they are in pairs.
So if Jesus is saying Come carry this- he's not telling us to do it alone. He's yolked with us, if we let him help.
I'm saying loudly, "Here's my neck. Will you help me carry life your way. In your time?"
Jesus answers yes.He will help me and give me rest in the midst of the labor. I will accept his rest so my soul can reap His harvest.
Blessings for autumn.
Jesus said, "Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
I've read this verse amillion times. In fact, I have it on my fridge right now- in the Message translation. It's hard to imagine something that is placed around the neck to be light (ie. yolk) .
Something struck me about this image in a new way today.When observing cattle wearing a yolk- they are in pairs.
So if Jesus is saying Come carry this- he's not telling us to do it alone. He's yolked with us, if we let him help.
I'm saying loudly, "Here's my neck. Will you help me carry life your way. In your time?"
Jesus answers yes.He will help me and give me rest in the midst of the labor. I will accept his rest so my soul can reap His harvest.
Blessings for autumn.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Evolution Working Man Blues
I looked forward to this class because I knew it would stretch my thinking. It hasn't disappointed. It's been good to dig into Darwinian theory this week because, frankly, I had never really explored it. (I went to a Christian private school.) Isn't that kind of sad that I've dismissed something I've never examined?
The main thrust of Darwin's theory is that "humanity gradually evolved over time by natural selection through chance (genetic mutation) and necessity from less developed life forms" (207). Darwin proposed that the mechanism for this change was "natural selection under conditions of scarcity" (205) and this was confirmed by Watson and Crick's 1954 "[discovery] of the structure of DNA" (206).
Other key points of the theory is that the universe is "15 billion years old", everything originated from one single source of nonliving matter, and that life developed from simpler life forms to more complex (206).
There is a large amount of circumstantial evidence to support the theory: "the fossil record"..."embryonic replication"..."vestigial organs"...and "biochemical characteristics" (207).
I'm a little light on the commentary tonight and that's intentional. I don't want to make the same mistake I made with Nietzsche last week: Tonight I'm just laying out the basic ideas of the theory. I have the rest of the week to reflect.
WORK CITED
Pojman, Louis P. Who Are We? New York: Oxford, 2006.
The main thrust of Darwin's theory is that "humanity gradually evolved over time by natural selection through chance (genetic mutation) and necessity from less developed life forms" (207). Darwin proposed that the mechanism for this change was "natural selection under conditions of scarcity" (205) and this was confirmed by Watson and Crick's 1954 "[discovery] of the structure of DNA" (206).
Other key points of the theory is that the universe is "15 billion years old", everything originated from one single source of nonliving matter, and that life developed from simpler life forms to more complex (206).
There is a large amount of circumstantial evidence to support the theory: "the fossil record"..."embryonic replication"..."vestigial organs"...and "biochemical characteristics" (207).
I'm a little light on the commentary tonight and that's intentional. I don't want to make the same mistake I made with Nietzsche last week: Tonight I'm just laying out the basic ideas of the theory. I have the rest of the week to reflect.
WORK CITED
Pojman, Louis P. Who Are We? New York: Oxford, 2006.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
My Weight is My Love
"Spiritual Formation", writes M. Robert Mulholland, "is the process of being conformed to the image of Christ for the sake of others" (15). It occurs "primarily at the points of our unlikeness to Christ’s image” (37). Individuals will not get far in a spiritual formation or discipleship program without topics like sin, obedience, temptations, and conflicting desires being discussed.
Saint Augustine was no stranger to the struggle. Perhaps no one else has written so extensively on this topic, and in the case of his Confessions, with such candor! The contemporary reader will find many of the same issues and temptations at work despite the intervening centuries. As Malcolm Muggeridge noted, "The similarity between his circumstances and ours is striking, not to say alarming. There is the same moral vacuity, leading to the same insensate passion for new sensations and experiences; the same fatuous credulity opening the way to every kind of charlatanry and quackery from fortune telling to psychoanalysis; the same sinister combination of great wealth and pointless ostentation with appalling poverty and unheeded affliction" (28).
Centuries of Greek philosophy set wisdom, knowledge, and reason as the pinnacles of human experience. This worldview led to the belief that "no one would purposely choose evil because it is bad for us. All evil is chosen under the guise of the good through ignorance. However, Augustine, following St. Paul makes the will, rather than reason, our dominant feature" (Pojman 75). Augustine writes of himself in the Confessions, "…when I willed to do or not do anything, I was quite certain that it was myself and no other who willed, and I came to see that the cause of my sin lay there" (Augustine 109).
Owning up to our own actions is a critical aspect of spiritual growth. We often attribute our actions to circumstance, moods, misunderstanding, coercion, and any number of other creative excuses to avoid our own complicity. A domestic abuser will say he lost control of his temper, when in truth he lost control of his wife and willed violence upon her to reassert his control.
Not everyone performs the same action when confronted by the same circumstance. That indicates free will. We can fan any number of smokescreens to avoid our responsibilities, but the reality is that human beings choose the particular course of action that they believe will attain the results they most desire. So the will is not directed by logic, but by love:
"A body finds its own place by entrusting itself to its own which carries it not to the place which is lowest but to the place that is its own. A flame rises and a stone falls…My weight is my love. By love I am drawn to wherever I am drawn" (Augustine, as quoted in Meagher 100-1).
If people could have made themselves pleasing to God through the law, there would have been no need for a savior in Jesus Christ. Louis Pojman points out in his introduction to Augustinian thought: "Morality does not consist in following rigid rules against one's nature but having a transformed character whereby one does the right thing out of a moral motive" (78). This idea—minus the transformed character, of course—is similar to the logic of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics: "...someone who does not enjoy fine actions is not good; for no one would call a person just, for instance, if he did not enjoy doing just actions" (11)... and "an end pursued in its own right is more complete than an end performed because of something else" (7)...
Human nature, in Augustine's estimation is "…a fictitious fabric of will, a web of self-made, self-imposed loves" (Meagher 131). In other words, "One's love determines one's person, and one's person determines one's love. What I love is both constitutive and expressive of who I am, of what kind of person I am" (Meagher 100).
Just as those schooled in Greek philosophy thought it impossible for people to choose a wrong course of action if they knew it was harmful, we may find it hard to comprehend how love can direct an individual to sinful acts. Alas, that is the paradox—and tragedy—of addiction: the behavior that throws a life into chaos is the very same behavior that an individual most cherishes and is compelled to do.
Augustine observed this at work in his African congregation in regards to making oaths: "'In our present state, we do have the free power to do or not do anything, before we are caught up in any habit. When we have used this freedom to do something, the sweetness and pleasure of the act holds our soul, and it is caught in the sort of habit that it cannot break—a habit that is created for itself by its own act of sin. We see around us many men who do not want to swear, but, because their tongue has picked up the habit, words escape from their lips which they are just unable to control…If you want to know what I mean, start trying not to swear: then you will see how the force of habit goes its own way'" (quoted in Brown 150).
There is an old saying that goes, "Watch your habits—they become your character." That is what Augustine is getting at here. Robert Meagher explains, "One's own loves, whether appropriate or not to what one is, fashion and fit who one is. One's own life or word, whether finally a lie or not, acquires a certain personal truth. Although nature places no necessity upon person, person generates a necessity of its own. Although the fact that I am a human being does not force me to be this or that kind of person, the fact that I have become a particular sort of person somehow necessitates that I live a corresponding kind of life. This personal necessity, the momentum of one's loves, is what Augustine calls habit or custom (consuetudo). Habit, though originating in the will, a creature of the will, becomes virtually natural. In fact, 'there are as many contrary natures [in human being] as there are wills which resist one another'" (105).
People will sometimes risk anything to satisfy a sinful craving. Reputations are ruined. Ministries fold. Families deteriorate. Self-respect is lost. Sin retains just enough allure to keep a soul coming back for more. We mistake a mirage for the Promised Land in more ways than one.
God reigns gloriously supreme in Augustine's reckoning. Running away in denial is futile, as the saint writes: "…where does he go or where does he flee save from Thee to Thee—from God well-pleased to God angered" (Augustine 58)? Greek thought characterized people as searching for perfection. Augustine indicates that what we are all really searching for fulfillment. We seek to fill our appetites with the pleasures of sin, but the appetite is misdirected. It is in reality a hunger for God: "Seek what you seek, but it is not where you seek it. You seek happiness in the land of death, and it is not there. For how shall there be happiness of life where there is no life" (Augustine 60)?
In Book Two, Chapter IV, Augustine describes a long list of sins and explains how each of them are a shallow reflection of an attribute of God. He states: “…the soul is guilty of fornication when she turns from You and seeks from any other source what she will find pure and without taint unless she returns to You. Thus even those who go from You and stand up against You are still perversely imitating You” (Augustine 29). The great tragedy of our sin is that we are trying to fulfill a genuine desire with a counterfeit that can never satisfy.
What can we do to conquer habit and redirect the will? Nothing in and of ourselves, but God can set us free. Augustine relays his futile experience with self-reliance: "[I] did not think of [God's] mercy as a healing medicine for that weakness, because I had not tried it. I thought that continency was a matter of my own strength" (Augustine 101). A lesson for Christians who think they can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps!
The Confessions of Saint Augustine demonstrates a number of activities and attitudes that are related to spiritual formation. The first, and most important, is that Augustine recognizes his need for transformation and that it is God who does the transforming. "It was pleasing in Your sight to reshape what was deformed in me" (115). Confession is a process that must be entered into because "I should only be hiding You from myself, not myself from You" (173). Book Ten is mostly about (and the result of) meditation and study. He describes the importance of holy leisure and meditation on God's word, specifically the Psalms (152-5).
Sin is the result of a desire for blessedness horribly misdirected. A program of spiritual formation must keep individuals directed to God as the object of their love and fulfillment.
WORKS CITED
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. Terence Irwin. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1999.
Augustine. The Confessions of Saint Augustine. Trans. F.J. Sheed. Kansas City, MO: Sheed & Ward, 1970.
Brown, Peter. Augustine of Hippo. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1967.
Meagher, Robert E. An Introduction to Augustine. New York: New York University Press, 1978.
Muggeridge, Malcolm. A Third Testament. New York: Ballentine, 1976.
Mulholland Jr., M. Robert. Invitation to a Journey. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993.
Pojman, Louis P. Who Are We?: Theories of Human Nature. New York: Oxford, 2006.
Saint Augustine was no stranger to the struggle. Perhaps no one else has written so extensively on this topic, and in the case of his Confessions, with such candor! The contemporary reader will find many of the same issues and temptations at work despite the intervening centuries. As Malcolm Muggeridge noted, "The similarity between his circumstances and ours is striking, not to say alarming. There is the same moral vacuity, leading to the same insensate passion for new sensations and experiences; the same fatuous credulity opening the way to every kind of charlatanry and quackery from fortune telling to psychoanalysis; the same sinister combination of great wealth and pointless ostentation with appalling poverty and unheeded affliction" (28).
Centuries of Greek philosophy set wisdom, knowledge, and reason as the pinnacles of human experience. This worldview led to the belief that "no one would purposely choose evil because it is bad for us. All evil is chosen under the guise of the good through ignorance. However, Augustine, following St. Paul makes the will, rather than reason, our dominant feature" (Pojman 75). Augustine writes of himself in the Confessions, "…when I willed to do or not do anything, I was quite certain that it was myself and no other who willed, and I came to see that the cause of my sin lay there" (Augustine 109).
Owning up to our own actions is a critical aspect of spiritual growth. We often attribute our actions to circumstance, moods, misunderstanding, coercion, and any number of other creative excuses to avoid our own complicity. A domestic abuser will say he lost control of his temper, when in truth he lost control of his wife and willed violence upon her to reassert his control.
Not everyone performs the same action when confronted by the same circumstance. That indicates free will. We can fan any number of smokescreens to avoid our responsibilities, but the reality is that human beings choose the particular course of action that they believe will attain the results they most desire. So the will is not directed by logic, but by love:
"A body finds its own place by entrusting itself to its own which carries it not to the place which is lowest but to the place that is its own. A flame rises and a stone falls…My weight is my love. By love I am drawn to wherever I am drawn" (Augustine, as quoted in Meagher 100-1).
If people could have made themselves pleasing to God through the law, there would have been no need for a savior in Jesus Christ. Louis Pojman points out in his introduction to Augustinian thought: "Morality does not consist in following rigid rules against one's nature but having a transformed character whereby one does the right thing out of a moral motive" (78). This idea—minus the transformed character, of course—is similar to the logic of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics: "...someone who does not enjoy fine actions is not good; for no one would call a person just, for instance, if he did not enjoy doing just actions" (11)... and "an end pursued in its own right is more complete than an end performed because of something else" (7)...
Human nature, in Augustine's estimation is "…a fictitious fabric of will, a web of self-made, self-imposed loves" (Meagher 131). In other words, "One's love determines one's person, and one's person determines one's love. What I love is both constitutive and expressive of who I am, of what kind of person I am" (Meagher 100).
Just as those schooled in Greek philosophy thought it impossible for people to choose a wrong course of action if they knew it was harmful, we may find it hard to comprehend how love can direct an individual to sinful acts. Alas, that is the paradox—and tragedy—of addiction: the behavior that throws a life into chaos is the very same behavior that an individual most cherishes and is compelled to do.
Augustine observed this at work in his African congregation in regards to making oaths: "'In our present state, we do have the free power to do or not do anything, before we are caught up in any habit. When we have used this freedom to do something, the sweetness and pleasure of the act holds our soul, and it is caught in the sort of habit that it cannot break—a habit that is created for itself by its own act of sin. We see around us many men who do not want to swear, but, because their tongue has picked up the habit, words escape from their lips which they are just unable to control…If you want to know what I mean, start trying not to swear: then you will see how the force of habit goes its own way'" (quoted in Brown 150).
There is an old saying that goes, "Watch your habits—they become your character." That is what Augustine is getting at here. Robert Meagher explains, "One's own loves, whether appropriate or not to what one is, fashion and fit who one is. One's own life or word, whether finally a lie or not, acquires a certain personal truth. Although nature places no necessity upon person, person generates a necessity of its own. Although the fact that I am a human being does not force me to be this or that kind of person, the fact that I have become a particular sort of person somehow necessitates that I live a corresponding kind of life. This personal necessity, the momentum of one's loves, is what Augustine calls habit or custom (consuetudo). Habit, though originating in the will, a creature of the will, becomes virtually natural. In fact, 'there are as many contrary natures [in human being] as there are wills which resist one another'" (105).
People will sometimes risk anything to satisfy a sinful craving. Reputations are ruined. Ministries fold. Families deteriorate. Self-respect is lost. Sin retains just enough allure to keep a soul coming back for more. We mistake a mirage for the Promised Land in more ways than one.
God reigns gloriously supreme in Augustine's reckoning. Running away in denial is futile, as the saint writes: "…where does he go or where does he flee save from Thee to Thee—from God well-pleased to God angered" (Augustine 58)? Greek thought characterized people as searching for perfection. Augustine indicates that what we are all really searching for fulfillment. We seek to fill our appetites with the pleasures of sin, but the appetite is misdirected. It is in reality a hunger for God: "Seek what you seek, but it is not where you seek it. You seek happiness in the land of death, and it is not there. For how shall there be happiness of life where there is no life" (Augustine 60)?
In Book Two, Chapter IV, Augustine describes a long list of sins and explains how each of them are a shallow reflection of an attribute of God. He states: “…the soul is guilty of fornication when she turns from You and seeks from any other source what she will find pure and without taint unless she returns to You. Thus even those who go from You and stand up against You are still perversely imitating You” (Augustine 29). The great tragedy of our sin is that we are trying to fulfill a genuine desire with a counterfeit that can never satisfy.
What can we do to conquer habit and redirect the will? Nothing in and of ourselves, but God can set us free. Augustine relays his futile experience with self-reliance: "[I] did not think of [God's] mercy as a healing medicine for that weakness, because I had not tried it. I thought that continency was a matter of my own strength" (Augustine 101). A lesson for Christians who think they can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps!
The Confessions of Saint Augustine demonstrates a number of activities and attitudes that are related to spiritual formation. The first, and most important, is that Augustine recognizes his need for transformation and that it is God who does the transforming. "It was pleasing in Your sight to reshape what was deformed in me" (115). Confession is a process that must be entered into because "I should only be hiding You from myself, not myself from You" (173). Book Ten is mostly about (and the result of) meditation and study. He describes the importance of holy leisure and meditation on God's word, specifically the Psalms (152-5).
Sin is the result of a desire for blessedness horribly misdirected. A program of spiritual formation must keep individuals directed to God as the object of their love and fulfillment.
WORKS CITED
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. Terence Irwin. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1999.
Augustine. The Confessions of Saint Augustine. Trans. F.J. Sheed. Kansas City, MO: Sheed & Ward, 1970.
Brown, Peter. Augustine of Hippo. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1967.
Meagher, Robert E. An Introduction to Augustine. New York: New York University Press, 1978.
Muggeridge, Malcolm. A Third Testament. New York: Ballentine, 1976.
Mulholland Jr., M. Robert. Invitation to a Journey. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993.
Pojman, Louis P. Who Are We?: Theories of Human Nature. New York: Oxford, 2006.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)