Graduate 68: Settling in

So here are a couple of images of my apartment.







The weather in Riverside has been wonderful so far. Wednesday it rained and the temperature has been fairly mild all the rest of this week. I was lucky enough to miss, by about a week, the late-August heatwave. So I am forced to acknowledge that my happy experience up to this point does not necessarily reflect normative conditions. Oh well.








There are some disconcerting aspects to living alone. For instance, rolls of toilet paper last an unusually long time. But on the whole, things are going well. I've been a bit lazy this last week and will have to discipline my time very deliberately in the future.







There's a Food-4-Less across the street, a laundromat, Kragen Auto store, and all sorts of restaurants within easy walking distance. My apartment is a little over a mile from UCR and on a very convenient bus route. I'm settling in nicely and looking forward to orientation and beginning classes next week.

Blessings all,

--

God is in this place,
and that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.

Graduate 67: So It Begins

I'm writing from the Tómas Rivera Library at the University of California at Riverside. Over the weekend, I moved to my new residence near the intersection of University Ave. and Chicago Ave. about a mile from campus. I'm very thankful for the help I received from my parents, Alan and Sally, and Kevin and Melissa.

I would post a picture or two but I can't find the USB cable for my camera. (Drat!)

At the moment, the pace is leisurely. We'll see how long that lasts. At the moment, my nerves are not so agitated as I might have expected, and I am actually quite content. (We'll see how long that lasts.)

There's still plenty to be done (even without a television or easy access to the Internet) so if you catch wind of my being indolent, feel free to let me have it.

God bless, all,

--

God is in this place,
and that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.

Graduate 66: The Great Glass

Once upon a time in land where everyone lives happily ever after, there lived a bad stepmother who shut up a kind girl, who sang and talked to birds, away in a tall tower. A good prince came and saved her and the prince and the singing bird girl lived happily ever after. The End.

Now, does this simplified version of Cinderella have a point? Does any good story need a point? I mean, Can't you just sit back and enjoy a good story instead of searching for a meaning to understand what is going on?

These questions are just about as old as the wheel, and in short, one is trying to understand whether books or stories should attempt to strictly entertain the reader or challenge the reader.

When thinking about Cinderella, We all know that no one lives happily ever after. But is that the main point of the story? No. The story is supposed to inspire hope and inspire children to model their lives on the good Cinderella. If one says the tale is meaningless, then the child reader no longer has any reason to want to do right instead of wrong--to follow the example of Cinderella and not the evil stepmother.

When you tell a story about good winning over evil (like Cinderella), you inspire people to move toward goodness. When you tell a wishy-washy story about good and evil sometimes winning, you don't inspire anyone. In fact, your “inspiration” may cause people not what to do good at all. The best stories connect the reader to a True Reality beyond themselves. The best stories encourage someone to live for the good- for justice.

There are two types of stories: stories about justice (the way things ought to be) and injustice (the way things ought not to be).

Some argue that there is no such thing as justice. And when one looks at the world they may find that sometimes good triumphs and sometimes evil triumphs. Sometimes criminals are caught, sometimes they escape. Sometimes good things happen to good people; sometimes bad things happen to good people. This is the way things are. But is that the way things ought to be? Does this prove that justice does not exist?

These two conclusions, about justice and injustice, create a dramatic tension. We live in a world of "injustice," but we desire "justice." If an unfair world was all we knew then we would simply accept that the world is unfair and try to survive as best we could. However, in this world, we see and experience "injustice"; but we desire "justice" and that desire for justice remains unfulfilled.

But the skeptic still complains, “why should I try to do good? Why should I sacrifice my happiness on behalf of others? Why should I do anything more or less than what I want to do right now for my own personal gratification and whatever it takes to achieve my personal satisfaction? Why should I write for the good?”

In order to argue persuade the skeptic that they should indeed do good (write for the good), even when s/he doesn't feel like it, one must appeal to a truth that is above the injustice we see all around. The Bible describes the world, as we experience it now, as a world filled with injustice instead of a world meant to be filled with justice. In the beginning God created a perfect world, but Adam and Eve rebelled against God. The result is a universe that no longer reflects God's perfect justice. However, injustice will not win in the end; even now, God is in the process of redeeming and restoring the universe. One day, it will be made perfect again. The scales will be balanced. So we should live our lives in preparation for that final day when all the universe will be set right, essentially You should do Good because God will win in the end. (If the reader does not believe in God than I will discuss the existence of God in another note)

A passage from 2nd Peter reminds of this point. Peter emphasizes how the people should live in light of the future reality. He writes at the end of his letter:
“Since everything here today might well be gone tomorrow, do you see how essential it is to live a holy life? Daily expect the Day of God, eager for its arrival. The galaxies will burn up and the elements melt down that day—but we'll hardly notice. We'll be looking the other way, ready for the promised new heavens and the promised new earth, all landscaped with righteousness. my dear friends, since this is what you have to look forward to, do your very best to be found living at your best, in purity and peace. Interpret our Master's patient restraint for what it is: salvation. Our good brother Paul, who was given much wisdom in these matters, refers to this in all his letters, and has written you essentially the same thing.”

The story of God redeeming the world is the best story of all. The good God will win, He must. What use is a story if it does not move one to that good/justice, or help one understand that good which will eventually rule the world. If we look deep within our souls we know our hearts cry for goodness, justice, and love. Why not write about what we long for and we know is true. The best stories connect the reader to a True Reality beyond themselves. The best stories encourage someone to live for the good- for justice. Stories that merely entertain with no expectation to challenge the audience are meaningless.

(I clarify that I am not qualified to write on this topic inasmuch as I lack the scholarly and literary qualifications to do so. These are just my musings.)

--

The preceding is a revised version of my blog entry, Graduate 62: The Greatest Story. This revision was drafted by a friend of mine. (Could you tell just from reading it that I didn't write it?) His goal was to shorten, streamline, and clarify the presentation of the central theme and topic of that entry. Like my own writing, it has been posted without extensive editing, hence the peculiar title and intermittent typos. It's very interesting to compare, evaluate, and reevaluate writing styles.

--

God is in this place,
and that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.

Graduate 65: Other-centeredness

In my last blog entry, I made the following comment:

"Hopefully, what we begin to see through this reflection is that there is a disposition in our modern mentality that is naturally opposed to seeing a world that is anything other than me-centered. And if God is the ultimate anti-thesis of me-centeredness, is it any wonder that so many me-centered people can't find Him."

The question I want to consider is: Is God truly the anti-thesis of me-centerdness? Some try to argue that He is not. In fact, some people see God as the worst kind of egoist--one who is all-powerful and, therefore, can impose His will on anybody, demand adoration and worship of everybody, and punish with impunity all who fail to toe the line. That God is the center of all and expects us to fall into line in our prescribed orbit, revolving around Him, frustrates some.

Of course, the philosopher can point out that this simply is the nature of reality. For us to object to it is like objecting to the fact that the sky is blue or objecting to the fact that people cannot spontaneously generate thousands of dollars at the snap of their fingers or objecting to the fact that people are gifted in different ways. What would it mean for the sky to be red? How would that affect the elemental composition of the atmosphere, photosynthesis in plants, the properties of the color-spectrum? How would a society function if people could generate, spontaneously and with no effort, large amounts of money? How would it be if everybody in the world had exactly the same abilities in exactly the same proportions? And what would it mean for God to not be the center of the cosmos?

But consider what God demands of us, One might object. In Luke 14:26 he says, "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." He says that the greatest command is this: "You shall love the Lord your God will all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." (Matthew 22:37) We are expected to give ourselves completely to God.

And if the philosopher will choose to not simply rehearse his earlier answer, he might shift tactics and point out that God's desire is also for our good and benefit. He might cite Jeremiah 29:11, " 'For I know the plans that I have for you,' declares the LORD, 'plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope.' " Or he might cite Jesus' words in John 10:10, "I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly."

But, but, One might still object, life isn't free of calamity or abundant. There is suffering and there is hurt. Moreover, there is intentional suffering and intentional hurt. The author of Hebrews writes that "those whom the Lord loves he disciplines and He scourges every son whom He receives." (Hebrews 12:6) And it isn't even by our choice that we come into this life. We are elected; elected to live a life that is not even our own but belongs to someone else to do with as He pleases for His glory and exaltation, while we have to endure all the pain and the hurt and the trouble involved in reaching that final destination.

--

I wonder if my words so far sound at all convincing? There are many men and women who have articulated these kinds of objections much more clearly and forcefully than I am doing here. The material above is a simple caricature intended only to get the general idea across. In fact, I believe there are good answers to all of the objections that have been raised thus far. And, by the way, there's nothing wrong with "philosophical" answers. But often, when these kinds of objections are raised, it seems to be in a context where strictly-"philosophical" answers are not appropriate or most effective. As when someone is going through hardship or suffering for their faith. Sometimes the last thing that they want to hear is that God is working out His plan for their lives; because that plan is just what is causing them to suffer. And God sits in heaven, pulling the strings of the marionettes, and we have to endure all the pain and hurt and heartache that is for His glory.

The most dangerous part of posting something like this is that it will plant in the mind of the reader an objection for which I cannot give an adequate reply. Of course, I will try. But what if I fall short and the reader is not convinced?

Imagine if you were bringing this objection and complaint before the throne of God. How would He respond? Would He give you a philosophical answer? Would He assure you that what He is doing is for your benefit as well? Again, I think that these are valid and true (respectively). And learning to accept these two kinds of answers is a part of growing in our knowledge of God and part of learning to trust Him more and more fully. But set that aside for a moment.

--

I think, if we could stand in the presence of the Lord Jesus and offer this objection and complaint, that He would do two things.

First, He would remind us that, "Even I do not live for my own glory," which might surprise us at first. After all, isn't He supposed to be the center? Aren't His plans being worked out for His name's sake?

And He would say, "Don't you remember what I told my disciples: 'I can do nothing on My own initiative. I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.' (John 5:30) 'I do nothing on My own initiative, but speak these things as the Father taught Me.' (8:28) 'I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.' (8:42) 'For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.' (12:49) 'The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His work.' (14:10)" He would remind us, "I do not live for myself, but to bring glory to the Father."

In fact, we are called to emulate His example: "Have this attitude in yourselves," Paul writes, "which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." (Philippians 2:5-8) And Hebrews 5:8 reminds us that, "Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered."

Finally, He might invite us to consider His words in Mark 10:42-45, "You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

But then you might wonder, Doesn't that make the Father the cosmic egoist? Isn't He the one hoarding glory for Himself? And Jesus would reply, "No, but remember what I said: 'If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me'. (John 8:54) Also the author of Hebrews reminds of the LORD's words about the Son: "Sit at my right hand, until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet". (1:13) Paul goes on in Philippians 2:9ff, 'For this reason also, God highly exalted Him (Jesus), and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord' and this, in turn, brings more glory to the Father.' " He would remind you of Paul's words about how God "seated Him (Jesus) at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all," (Ephesians 1:20-23) and of what the author of Hebrews says, that "You have put all things in subjection under His (Jesus') feet. For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him". (2:8)

"The Father does not hoard honor and glory," Jesus would say, "Neither do I look to my own exaltation. Instead, I am always submitting to and obeying and honoring the Father. And He is always lifting up and exalting and glorifying Me. (John 17:2)

And maybe after listening long enough, you would begin to understand the remarkable relationship that exists between the members of the Triune God-head; that there is no selfishness, not even the smallest self-serving impulse to be found there, but that each member, Father, Son, and Spirit, is ever and always looking to the Other--always other-centered and other-focused.

--

And if you were satisfied with that first answer, then He would turn to answer the second complaint--that God sits by, pulling the strings of providence and fate, while we humans have to struggle with the consequences of their movements and the hurt and pain that often follows.

At first He might not say anything. Instead, He would take your hand, and place your fingers in the open wounds in His wrists and into the open wound in His side.

Then he would remind you of the words of the author of Hebrews about Jesus, "who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart." (12:2-3) He would repeat the true words of the prophet Isaiah, "He was despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him." (53:3-6) He would remind you that He has been tempted in all the ways that you are. (Hebrews 4:15)

And maybe after standing there long enough, you would begin to understand how much our salvation cost. It's a cost you don't have to pay because He has taken it upon Himself. And maybe you would realize that He is not distant or removed from your pain but, rather, He has known it all.

--

I don't know if these answers are any more satisfying. Kierkegaard could write convincingly in this way; I'm not sure that I can. The point, I suppose, is that we must always fight against the tendency in our nature to collapse into self-centeredness. That is hard for us. Especially when the call to follow God involves such total commitment and a willingness to endure suffering and hurt. We can easily begin to resent this call and invitation--always focusing on God, always enduring suffering.

In those moments we can too-easily convince ourselves that God must be the most self-centered being in the cosmos. Besides that, He is exempt from suffering, from having to endure any of the trials that we face. But neither of these is really true. The Father, Son, and Spirit, alike, are all supremely selfless--glorifying and uplifting one another and reaching out, as a servant, even to humanity. Moreover, Jesus is no stranger to pain or suffering; in fact, he has taken upon himself the collective suffering of the whole world. How might these truths change us?

--

God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.

Graduate 64: Without Excuse

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:18-20)

"And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper... and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. Therefore you are without excuse, every man of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things." (Romans 1:28, 32-2:2)

--

In both these passages, humankind is declared to be without excuse in regard to their failure to acknowledge and obey God.

Do you think that's fair? Do you think that God really has made himself evident in creation? Do you think there really is enough evidence in the world for a reasonable person to conclude that God exists and is to be honored? Do you think we really are left with no excuse?

Of course, there are many people who make just this sort of objection to Paul's words. There isn't enough evidence, they argue. The case is inconclusive. I can't be held responsible if I am not convinced and converted.

This touches on a fascinating and complicated subject in epistemology--the ethics of belief. The basic idea is that just as we can make positive and negative evaluations of people's actions, so we can also make positive and negative evaluations of people's beliefs. In ethics, the morality of an action is evaluated. In epistemology, the epistemic propriety of a belief is evaluated.

(1) So consider your belief that the world is round. Do you have good grounds for believing that? Do you have ample evidence for your belief that the world is round? Have you considered defeaters and counter-evidence? On the whole, most of us probably think we have fairly good reasons for believing that the earth is round.

(2) Now consider the Nazis' belief that Jews are inferior and should be exterminated. Are there good grounds for believing that? Is there ample evidence for believing that? What are the relevant defeaters and counter-evidence? Actually, this may not be the best example because its easy to confuse epistemic reasoning from moral reasoning. The question being asked, relating to the ethics of belief, is: Is the Nazi in question acting epistemically-responsibly in holding his belief? This question is different from: Is the Nazi in question acting morally-responsibly in holding his belief? The questions may be related but they are distinct. So let's turn to a different example.

(3) Consider a person's belief that his or her favorite sports team will win the championship this year? I don't follow sports myself so I can't offer a specific example (which also means I can't offend anyone by poking fun at their team). But I suspect we all know someone who holds onto the belief, albeit misguided, that his or her team will win the championship, despite all evidence to the contrary. Is that person being epistemically responsible? (By the way, I'm not saying that a person should never root for the underdog. Sigh. All my analogies so far seem to be tainted in one way or another. This is one of the hard things about analogies in philosophy--trying to distill the essential point without a lot of additional and complicated baggage.)

So one way of phrasing the central question is: Is the believer acting epistemically-responsibly? Or is the believer being naive? Believing things he ought not to believe? Accepting evidence uncritically? Ignoring counter-evidence?

Another way of phrasing the central question is: Is the non-believe acting epistemically-responsibly? Or is the non-believer being unduly recalcitrant? Refusing to believe what he ought to believe? Being overly critical about evidence? Ignoring counter-evidence?

The size of the issues involved in this philosophical investigation are enormous and I will not delve into them here. Instead of focusing on that, I would like to direct your attention to two fairly simple, yet potentially-profound considerations. (Profound because people much smarter than me have written about them, and much more clearly than I will do here.)

--

I have touched on both these points in previous blog entries, but would like to bring them together here. The first goes back to a theme in Graduate 47: Reflection on Psalm 8. Consider, Paul says that God's "invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made." But how much attention do we give to what "has been made"--to the natural world? We live in enormous cities, are constantly surrounded by buildings and other man-made structures, travel by car and bus and plane, spend most or all of our time indoors, and sit for hours in front of the television. Is it possible that we have fallen into the habit of ignoring a massive body of evidence--namely, THE WORLD? (And wouldn't we consider it epistemically irresponsible to be ignoring such a massive body of evidence?)

When was the last time you saw the stars? I mean, really saw the stars? I was up in the mountains of Washington in June 2007 and on a clear night I still couldn't see the stars because of one house on a neighboring hill that had this dreadfully bright porch-light (or something like that). The last time I remember really seeing the stars was in junior high on a church camping trip to Joshua Tree. That was over eight years ago. And I hope it goes without saying that seeing stars on television doesn't count. The sensory experience of seeing something on television, while it can be compelling, falls far, far short of the reality and is, frankly, not worthy to be compared.

When was the last time you really sat in nature? That's hard too, because to confront nature is to confront something unaccountably larger and other than oneself. And the modern spirit rebels violently against that. We don't like to feel small or insignificant; and if we cannot conquer the whole of Nature, we will settle with conquering one small corner of it. So we settle into our houses and surround ourselves with things that make us happy and gratify our wants; we focus on what will bring us satisfaction and contentment and shut out, as much as possible, if not entirely, the world of THE OTHER. Is it possible that we have cut ourselves off from yet another massive body of evidence--namely, everything that is outside of ourselves? (And wouldn't we consider it epistemically irresponsible to be ignoring such a massive body of evidence?)

Key for understanding what I am saying is that I am not dealing just with lists of evidences, but also with our dispositions. It will not be enough, to silence my concerns, to take a weekend camping trip to the desert or to circulate a survey of your next door neighbors' religious beliefs. Hopefully, what we begin to see through this reflection is that there is a disposition in our modern mentality that is naturally opposed to seeing a world that is anything other than me-centered. And if God is the ultimate anti-thesis of me-centeredness, is it any wonder that so many me-centered people can't find Him.

C.S. Lewis does a masterful job of driving this point home in his (greatest fiction) book, "Till We Have Faces." The main character, Orual, deals with just this question of whether or not she had enough evidence to believe in and know about the real existence of the gods. But Lewis turns that question on its head and asks, instead: Is it because there wasn't enough evidence that Orual did not believe or because of her jealousy and selfishness that she refused to believe?

Who would deny that we are naturally self-centered people? But is it possible that that natural self-centeredness is actually a hindrance to seeing the world as it really is? To seeing reality as it really is? The eighth saying in Graduate 63: adagium maxima begins, "We live from our hearts." The dispositions of our heart do affect our ability to reason. The person who tries to ignore his feelings--to put them out of his life--only succeeds in blinding himself to the power and influence they exercise on his life, including his intellectual life. Before we accuse God of not giving us enough evidence, we need to look inside ourselves and ask whether we are open to receiving the evidence He will give us.

--

The second point is also developed with astonishing clarity by C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, in the first section entitled: "Right and Wrong: A Clue to the Meaning of the Universe." Consider what Paul says: "Therefore you are without excuse, every man of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things."

Do you realize that every time we pass judgment on someone, we presuppose some kind of universal moral law? There is more involved than just expressing personal preference. And this is made still more evident by the fact that when we are caught transgressing that law, our first reaction is to attempt to justify ourselves--to demonstrate why our actions represent an exceptional case and should not be counted as infringing on the norm. If we really believed there was no moral law, we would not place expectations on others; and if we really believed there was no moral law, we would not feel awkward about being caught in hypocrisy. But we do.

Now, it is at this point that people begin to divide. There are those who follow Lewis and Paul, and acknowledge how even our personal inconsistency and hypocrisy point to an overarching universal law and law-giver. But others will dismiss this argument with the anodyne assertion that, That is just the way things are.

But here again is where our modern dispositions can cloud our ability to see things clearly. Indeed, we have, as a culture, simply come to accept a disjointed and inconsistent reality. People say one thing and do another. Politicians never keep their promises. People of apparent integrity always have skeletons in their closets. The most spotless life masks the darkest stains. We have become so used to this that it no longer surprises us. We have come to accept mediocrity from everybody instead of striving for excellence. (See Graduate 52: Duplicity, Deceitfulness, and Darkness.)

We have allowed ourselves to forget that this is not the way things ought to be. But as far down this path as we have gone, we're still not thoroughly consistent. When people hurt us, we still react with anger. When we are caught hurting others, we still try to make excuses. This is, perhaps, the most dangerous kind and form of hypocrisy, because it so thoroughly justifies a complete self-centeredness. I can pursue my interests at the expense of others--attempting to force others to serve me--but can also weasel out of any attempt to impose on me accountability or responsibility, because there is no moral law. Of course it's inconsistent--but we've come to accept that.

And that is just the point. Lewis and Paul do not accept inconsistency. So they recognize that the way we behave reflects the existence of an absolute moral law. To deny that is to accept inconsistency, which some philosophers are willing to do in the abstract, but does it really work that well in real life. What is remarkable about Christianity is that it offers redemption and transformation (through a process) that moves us increasingly away from contradiction into consistency and integration with reality.

--

The evidence of creation and the evidence of morality. I used to be skeptical of these arguments, but I am learning to take them more and more seriously. Think about it: if you're not convinced by creation, is that because there's not enough evidence or because you have not really taken a good look at the evidence? If you're not convinced by the moral argument, is that because there isn't enough evidence or because you have chosen to accept a fundamental inconsistency?

Think about it. Where is your heart? Are you self-centered or other-centered? Are you really open to receiving revelation or are you just looking for any excuse to ignore the evidence?

--

Remember,
God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.

Graduate 63: adagium maxima

A collection of a dozen different things I've been thinking about, some of which have been expressed as short (or relatively short) sayings, along with clarifying commentary. Some of them are expressed hyperbolically. They are germ-ideas for further reflection.

--

(1) One of the marks of true freedom is the ability to receive and derive benefit from even the harshest, the most biting, and unfair criticisms. In an age when personal happiness is the highest conceivable good, freedom from judgment and criticism is essential. But what is that, in truth, except enslavement to the satisfaction of one's ego? The person who does not need to impress or prove himself to anyone--to whom a critique is not a threat but a genuine opportunity for self-examination and growth--, that is a truly free person. Similarly, the mark of true wisdom is not that one never needs to be corrected, but that one learns and grows from every reproof that she receives.

(2) Wisdom is understanding the proper course of action combined with the conviction and ability to carry it out. For who was ever counted wise who, knowing the best thing to do, failed or neglected to carry it out?

(3) God's is never a zero-sum economy. It is human wisdom that says in the same breath, "Blessed are the poor" and "Woe to the rich," as if the one must necessarily imply the other. The beatitudes are no less revolutionary because they do not entail the debasement of their opposite corollaries. First, consider that Jesus only said that those who found comfort in their wealth (not the wealthy as a class) were accursed. Second, consider the peoples that were driven out of the promised land during the conquest under Joshua. Was this necessary in order to make room for the people of Israel? Certainly not. Rather, it was for their disobedience that they were punished and to be expelled from the land. If you doubt this, (besides reading the Scriptures) consider the case of Rahab the prostitute. Yes, the prostitute, who lived in the city of Jericho. But she chose to put her faith in God and, as a result, not only were she and her family saved, but she was included in the human ancestry of Jesus Christ.

(Also) Our's is a God who can send camels through the eye of the needle.

(4) There is nothing laudable about suffering. No one should try to suffer or pursue suffering in life. But in what sense, then, can we sincerely "rejoice in suffering"? Suffering is what naturally comes to those who do not make the pursuit of happiness their goal in life. In a world where personal happiness is the highest good, suffering must be the greatest evil and to be avoided at all costs. But in a world where relationship with God is the greatest good, suffering is not the greatest evil. And in a world opposed to walking in obedience to God, it is natural that those who pursue that goal should be persecuted and suffer as a result. When suffering comes to a life devoted to the pursuit of something truly worthwhile, one can rejoice in the midst of it, because that suffering does not thwart one's aims and goals in life as it would for the person whose greatest goal in life is just the avoidance of such suffering.

Indeed, there is nothing in this life that God desires for us that can be lost to us, nothing which we can lose that is truly worthwhile, nothing that can be taken from us that God intends us to have, no joy that will be withheld which is for our good and the best. This is the truly free person who cannot be victimized by the treachery of wicked men.

(5) Those who doubt or deny genuineness and sincerity in others do so because they cannot comprehend in other people what they utterly lack in themselves. I remember a time when I doubted whether it was even possible to be of one mind and pure in motive. It is quite something to come to that quiet, dawning realization, e.g. "I really care about that person." "You mean you appreciate what they can do for you." "No, I mean I really care about that person." Altruism is another good example. Of course, it is true that we are needful creatures, essentially contingent and dependent. But does that mean that our love is always tainted by the pursuit of personal interests? No, in fact, it is the promise and assurance of unconditional love that makes altruism possible.

(6) Vision comes first. In a fallen world where the reality of God's goodness, love, and reign is obscured and hidden, capturing a vision of what really underlies perceived reality is of paramount importance. Dallas Willard (Renovation of the Heart) outlines a three-step approach to living--Vision, Intention, and Means. Chuck Swindoll (Living Above the Level of Mediocrity) begins puts forward a four-step process--Vision, Determination, Priorities, and Accountability. Notice the similarities. We must begin with a goal, an ideal, toward which we can move and realize, in the course of life.

(7) Words always fall short of the reality. Sometimes, I find myself trying unsuccessfully to believe the words that I say and the truths I profess. I say that I believe in God Almighty who loves and protects--but I still struggle with anxiety and guilt and doubt. (I just don't blog about them much.) I want to find the perfect words that will bring peace, confidence, and encouragement to my friends. I want the words that will persuade them to pursue what is good and right and holy and just and virtuous. But those words continue to elude me. That is because the words cannot actually capture the full reality of that to which they refer. It is one thing to talk about wisdom and love and God. It is quite another thing to be wise and loving, and to know God. Does that mean words are useless? Certainly not, but we must be careful that we not lose sight of the reality (as Ignorance did in Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress) and substitute mere speculation for the reality.

(8) We live from our hearts. The contents of our minds (knowledge, information, ideas) inform our actions, but they are not themselves our actions. The heart is what wills, chooses, makes decisions. It is also the seat of emotions, feelings, and the habitual affective tendencies that we regularly associate with the content of our mind and actions. For those who are strongly intellectual, it is especially important that they not neglect the care of the heart. A hardened heart can cloud one's ability to think clearly, carefully, and critically. The heart can refuse to believe what it does not want to believe, even when there is enough intellectual evidence. A well-nurtured heart is a trustworthy guide, even in those areas that are dark to reason.

(9) It is God, and God alone, who makes us able to stand in His presence. Once set in the presence of the almighty, terrifying, and holy God, what can we do but fall on our faces as Isaiah, Daniel, John, Peter, James, and every other person, so confronted, has done? Then it is He who lifts us up, gives us strength and grace to stand before Him. And isn't that appropriate--since it is only by the grace of God that we draw each breath, that we wake each morning, that we have strength at all. And the appropriate response: to stand. But beware, lest we mistakenly begin to think that we can stand on our own merits and strength.

(10) First he says, "Do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper for your money belts, or a bag for your journey, or even two tunics, or sandals, or a staff; for the worker is worthy of his support." Then he says "But now, let him who has a purse take it along, likewise also a bag, and let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one." The first is to teach them to rely on Him for all their needs. The second to teach them to use effectively the gifts he has given. If only the second, they might rely on the gifts rather than on the source of the gifts. If only the first, then they might never grow to maturity in the use and rule of the things God has created and given.

(11) The person who cannot recognize the real diversity that exists in a group of white, upper-middle class men of similar upbringing, social situation, and religious background is not suited or fitted to appreciate what really counts, in terms of diversity, in an ethnically, economically, socially, culturally, and religiously mixed community.

(12) Walking with God begins and ends with worshipping God.

--

God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.