It Takes a Village...

As I sat listening to a lecture about the role of the politician and the role of the philosopher in Ancient Greece, an interesting thought occurred to me: "What if one took the principle of Romans 12:3-10 and extrapolated that to the rest of society?" It seems to me to be an extraordinary principle that would help all of society run a whole lot smoother. Take the example of the politician and the philosopher. It is the peculiar ability of the philosophically-minded individual to think abstractly about important ethical and political topics. It is the peculiar ability of the politician to take abstract concepts and work them into practical legislation that benefits society. Yet the two are often at loggerheads. 

I think that this idea could serve in plenty of different arenas. The scientist might restrict his categorical annunciations to the field of his inquiry rather than believe his microscope gives him insight into fields in which he has no expertise. The priest might realize that he would be silly to tell the scientist what he observes in the lab is untrue. If every profession looked at itself a bit more humbly and realized that its vision of the world is not complete, it is likely that there would be far less strife and far more brotherhood in the world today.

Amazingly, this isn't a new thought. Plato dealt with such thoughts in his own time. In the Gorgias he was dealing with the Sophists who knew nothing about the subject matter they spoke yet still won arguments through subtle persuasion. In the Euthyphro he makes a passing comment about those who assume their proficiency in one area gives them the right to speak in all arenas. His conclusion in the Republic is to take everyone over the age of ten in a city, whack them, and then let Philosopher-Kings rule. 

This illustrates my point succinctly. There is an inherent hubris in mankind that divides the world into the "us"and "them." We justify the "us" and demonize the "them" in, what I truly believe, is an attempt to establish a righteousness of our own. We want so desperately to be good and right that the only way we can do this is by cutting everyone else to pieces.

I think Paul's solution is far better than Plato's. We need to realize that each one of us needs the other in order for the world to run correctly. Just one person who doesn't contribute their unique part robs the world of its potential. This humility (which I believe finds its consummation in the Gospel) doesn't take anything away from us or belittle our contributions. Rather it establishes them and confirms us in the work that we are uniquely able to do without having to steal meaningfulness from somebody else's area of expertise.

Weariness, Pleasure, and Pain

While listening to a Ravi Zacharias address on my car the other day I heard him quote somebody else (missed his name) who said that "meaninglessness does not come from being weary of pain, it comes from being weary of pleasure." The quote struck me immediately as containing some deep wisdom but I needed a little longer to digest it.

I believe that this statement reflects what I have seen in my own life. The
"problem of pain" (as Lewis stated it) and theodicy are problems that I come across quite often in philosophical readings and seem to be a major reason people reject the idea of God. The band Everclear even has a song "Why I Don't Believe in God" which tells the story of his father's absence in his life. It is one of the most recurrent and crushing doubts in my own life as I attempt to come to grips with the parts of Christianity that are unpalatable to both Modern and Postmodern ears.

If I understand the quote correctly, it is the hollowness of fleeting pleasure that creates meaninglessness in life, not the existence of pain. I have seen this in my own life. I love clothes, gadgets, and music, and the collection of them is something I truly enjoy. Yet tonight as I folded my laundry I looked at the shirts I just "had to have" and realized that--surprise--they didn't lead to fulfillment. In fact, I think I need to change detergents because the colors seem to be fading a bit too fast.

As a friend reminded me, Piper's injunction to "love God and enjoy Him forever" is still bedrock. I have sought pleasure in just about everything except God and each one disappointed after a time. I have grown weary of pleasure, not pain, and have felt the weight of meaninglessness on my shoulders. As Lewis noted, it is like a child making mud pies in the gutter because he has no idea what a holiday at the sea means.

Notice to meaningless monkey: Get off my back.

Dropping Africa's Debt...Thoughts of NT Wright

Here is a link to Bishop NT Wright's brief statement on dropping the debt of Africa's countries. It might not sit well with us dyed-in-the-wool Capitalists, but it's good reflection material.

http://twurl.nl/z8y86o

What do you think? (Comment)

Give a Deserving Child Some Shoes

Here's one you don't really have to think twice about. For the price of a venti half-caf skinny iced caramel macchiato and a tip for your smiling barista, you can put shoes on two kids feet. "Sounds great," you say, "but how?"

1) Visit Soles4Souls and click on the donate button.

2) Fill in a brief form

3) Enter credit card info (you don't even have to have money to do it!)

4) Save a few kids' feet.

That wasn't that hard, was it? It took me about 3 minutes. I hope you get on board and help save some soles. Granted, they look like flip flops, but it's better than cutting your heel on a pop top (unless you have booze in the blender that will soon render a frozen concoction to help you hang on...).

One Reason All Christians Should be Glad Obama Won

I did not vote for Barack Obama. While he is an amazing personality and is certainly a formidable figure, I just couldn't agree with his principles. I think they are popular and I hope they are realizable, but I was not convinced that they are good for running a country in the complex world in which we live. But I think there is one thing that Christians (and Americans) can rejoice in concerning his historic win.

Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech gives me chills every time I listen to it. I would differ from him on some theological points, but I agree wholeheartedly with his belief that human beings created in the image of God are worthy of respect and dignity. The parts that have always moved me most deeply are his hope that "little white boys and girls will walk hand-in-hand with little black boys and girls," and that men should be judged on "the content of their character and not on the color of their skin." I think that it is a hope firmly rooted in the bringing of the Kingdom of God to earth, and that is reflects the truth that all mankind stands on level ground at the foot of the cross. 

With this truth in mind, I hope that all Christians can rejoice with me in his election to the Presidency, even if they think he might be bad for the country. Through the sacrifice of many, sin has been restrained and a man was elected based on his stances rather than his color, and in that respect, I think God is honored. I also ask that, even if he raises your vitriol, that you continue to pray for him. Paul urged us toward this in his first letter to Timothy, and it is assuredly true that fault-finding and gossip will never, ever please God. He is in control, even in this election. Let us trust Him to lead us through all things, whatever tide may befall. 

"I'm Tom Schiavon and I approve this message."

How to Love the Church

It should be fairly obvious that, for the moment, it's not the best of times for the economy. In America we lean pretty heavily on the government for the resolution of social ills, and so the government is spending trillions of dollars to try to jump start the economy. These things take time, and many economic forecasters project that we will be is deep water for at least several quarters, until the economy can get back into gear after having a severe meltdown. Let's just say our economy is in time-out for the moment.

Since I have been in the church I have heard people deploring big government, stating that it's the church's responsibility to care for the poor. Ironically, the comment seems to reflect more on the person's political alignment that it does their religious, since many people I have heard make that comment don't really get involved too much with working with the poor. What can we do then as the Church to literally "put our money where our mouth is?"

Not surprisingly there is a strong biblical precedent, particularly in the New Testament. Simply put, the answer is to love others more than ourselves. But to elaborate a little, Acts 2:45 tells us that the early believers sold some of their possessions in order to care for the poor in the Church. In 2 Cor. 8:1-5 we find the amazing concept that persecuted and poverty-stricken Macedonian Christians begged Paul to let them give money (beyond what they were able) to relieve the afflictions of other saints. In James 2:15-17 we get the sobering statement that if a member in our midst is poorly clothed and hungry and we give them God's blessing without helping them that our faith is dead. 

We as the Church will have an opportunity in the next few years that is unprecedented in most of our lifetimes. We will have the ability to stop trusting in Adam Smith and take Scripture seriously by laying down our lives to serve others. We must be willing to put aside that fact that people sometimes make bad economic decisions and that their position might be their own fault. Christian love demands that we do not ignore the plight of those in trouble. If we are prone to argue that they got themselves into this, let us remember the example of Christ, who loved us when we were helpless in our sins.

The economic crisis will affect us and our churches. We must be thoughtful, like the ant of Proverbs, and prepare ourselves for this need that will arise in our midst. Let us pray for self-sacrifice and wisdom on the parts of our church leaders and congregants. We have the God of all Creation to provide abundantly our needs within the Church. Please pray for me, because my heart shudders at this thought. May we give him all of our heart (and money).

The New (Old) Ecumenicalism

Most people who have looked at the history of Western Christianity since just before the beginning of the 20th Century will see a strong trend toward ecumenicalism. This has been true not only of Protestant denominations working together, but even between Roman Catholics and Protesting Catholics. This can be seen in some of the decisions of Vatican I and II, as well as in the Lausanne Movement.

There was a difficulty in selling this to many Western Christians. Our denominational structures are such that doctrine was the guiding principle in annunciating our differences, and it was sometimes seen as rank Liberalism or a lack of doctrinal integrity to work with other denominations. In my observation and experience there was sometimes an unstated understanding that ecumenicalism was tantamount to heresy, or at least just plain wimpy Christianity.

While it predates the birth of Modernism, the Reformation shared its emphasis on rational inquiry the codification of these ideas into a logically coherent whole. With the full onset of the Modern era, doctrine became the decisively divisive tool for excluding others, often based on the finer points of theology. These effects still linger. Many denominations are critical of others who do not share their particular view of sanctification, or eschatology, or spiritual gifts. The result is a lack of love and unity that Christ said would be a mark of the Church.

The desire for ecclesiastical ecumenicalism is nothing new. In fact, there were several Ecumenical Councils in the early church, all of which settled important doctrinal positions such as the deity of Christ, as well as that of the Spirit. The complete theologies of these pastor/teachers were not a single unity, but they were able to come up with credenda that formed a broad outline for defining the limits of orthodoxy.

It is my opinion that these ancient creeds (Nicene, Chalcedon, Apostle's) may hold the key for ecumenicalism without compromise. In them we find a distinctly biblical framework for understanding our faith, but in such a manner that some latitude for interpretation is given while still remaining orthodox. In the early church, these creeds were the "new members class" for entry into the church.

The glue that holds it all together is the joyous celebration of the redeemed in the sacraments. I may not be unified with the Greek Christians, or the Copts, or the Romans, or the Russians in the interpretation of the creeds. But when I take the body and blood of my Lord who was "made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate...suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures" along with the rest of His body on earth and among the Host of Heaven, I experience the unity of the Spirit in Christ.

And that, my friends, is real unity.