Graduate 132: BT 06: Sec. 04

Introduction, Chapter 1. The Necessity, Structure, and Priority of the Question of Being
Section 04. The Ontical Priority of the Question of Being

In sec. 02, Dasein was presented as the proper starting point for asking and investigating the question of being. Heidegger clarifies this point in sec. 04. This "scientific" investigation and the impulse to scientific investigation, in general, reflects a "manner of Being" that Dasein possesses, according to Heidegger. It, in part, also reflects how Dasein is distinct from other entities in the world.

Heidegger writes, "Dasein is an entity which does not just occur among other entities. Rather it is ontically distinguished by the fact that, in its very Being, that Being is an issue for it. But in that case, this is a constitutive state of Dasein's Being, and this implies that Dasein, in its Being, has a relationship towards that Being--a relationship which itself is one of Being. And this means further that there is some way in which Dasein understands itself in its Being, and that to some degree it does so explicitly. It is peculiar to this entity that with and through its Being, this Being is disclosed to it. Understanding of Being is itself a definite characteristic of Dasein's Being. Dasein is ontically distinctive in that it is ontological." (BT 32/12)

The idea here is this: Part of what makes Dasein different from coffee mugs and book cases--or perhaps what fundamentally makes Dasein different from those things--is that its distinctiveness is an issue for it. Coffee mugs do not think about what makes them what they are; but Dasein does. Dasein does think about what it means to be Dasein and whether there is a best way to be Dasein. It is an issue for it. So part of what it is to be Dasein is to be concerned about what it is to be Dasein. To be so concerned is what it is to be Dasein. No other entities are so concerned. The concerns are fundamentally ontological and so, Heidegger says, "Dasein is ontically distinctive"--that is, Dasein is distinguished from other entities--"in that it is ontological."

Now Heidegger is quick to clarify that saying that Dasein is ontological or "being-ontological" does not mean that every person has worked out a theory of ontology. Few people have, in fact. However, every person does ask these sorts of questions about what it means to be a human being and thus are possessed of this distinctive kind of being--this "being-ontological." They are ontological.

Here's where we run into some vocabulary. It will be very important to get these definitions and to get them straight because Heidegger will continue to use these very particular terms in his own very particular way throughout this paper. First, he says, "That kind of Being towards which Dasein can comport itself in one way or another, and always does comport itself somehow, we call "existence" [Existenz]. And because we cannot define Dasein's essence by citing a "what" of the kind that pertains to a subject matter [eines sachhaltigen Was], and because its essence lies rather in the fact that in each case it has its Being to be, and has it as its own, we have chosen to designate this entity as "Dasein", a term which is purely an expression of its Being [als reiner Seinsausdruck]." (BT 32-33/12)

So when Heidegger says, "Dasein exists," he is not attributing to Dasein the same kind of quality that he would attribute to an apple by saying, "The apple exists." "Existence" in the technical sense that Heidegger is using does not refer to what we might call "mere existence" where an object can be found at some point the space-time continuum. Rather, the "existence" to which he is referring belongs distinctively to Dasein. It is a kind of being that belongs to Dasein and reflects and is reflected in Dasein's being able to comport itself in any of various ways--in its ability to ask the question, "What does it mean to be human?" and to answer it in various ways.

Heidegger continues: "Dasein always understands itself in terms of its existence--in terms of a possibility of itself: to be itself or not itself." (BT 33/12) Later we will clarify what is meant by, "to be itself or not itself." What is important is that it is tied to that question, "What does it mean to be human?" and the various answers that can be offered to that question. Dasein can and does answer that question by choosing to live in a certain way. "The question of existence never gets straightened out except through existing itself. The understanding of oneself which leads along this way we call "existentiell"."

Here is our next vocabulary word. "Existentiell" refers to that understanding of oneself which leads along this way..." What way is that? The way of existence. "Existentiell" refers to that understanding in virtue of which one can pose the question of being and answer by stepping into the possibilities presented by that question.

Now both "Existence" and the "existentiell" are pre-theoretical. Even ordinary people who have never heard of philosophy or ontology still exist and possess this basic understanding of their existence. Heidegger is attempting to express, theoretically, what every human being understands pre-theoretically. He is asking the question of being. "The question about that structure [i.e. the ontological structure of existence] aims at the analysis [Auseinanderlegung] of what constitutes existence. The context [Zusammenhang] of such structures we call "existentiality". Its analytic has the character of an understanding which is not existentiell, but rather existential." (BT 33/12. "[i.e...]" is mine.)

Heidegger insists that the ontological analytic of Dasein (the investigation of the being of Dasein) requires that existentiality be considered beforehand. "By "existentiality" we understand the state of Being that is constitutive for those entities that exist." (BT 33/13) But since this state of being, itself, incorporates the idea of being (since human beings are the kinds of entities for which their own being is an issue) our investigation into that state of being must involve some understanding of being in general. So Heidegger says, "And thus even the possibility of carrying through the analytic of Dasein depends on working out beforehand the question about the meaning of Being in general." (BT 33/13)

Is it possible that Dasein possesses this understanding of being in general? Heidegger thinks, Yes, insofar as its pretheoretical understanding of being is reflected both in its comportment toward itself as being in the world and in its comportment toward entities within that world. Heidegger will talk more later about what it means for Dasein to be-in-the-world. Just like saying, "Dasein exists," involves something more than saying, "The apple exists," so saying, "Dasein is-in-the-world," involves more that saying, "The apple is in the world." It is Dasein's fundamentally being-in-the-world that enables it to engage entities within that world as entities.

Heidegger concludes from this: "Therefore fundamental ontology, from which along all other ontologies can take their rise, must be sought in the existential analytic of Dasein." (BT 34/13) This confirms that Dasein is, indeed, the appropriate starting point for this investigation and attempt to answer the question of being. Dasein is uniquely suited to be both the investigator and the thing-investigated in this inquiry. Let us summarize, again, why this is so.

First (ontically), "Dasein is an entity whose Being has the determinate character of existence." (BT 34/13) In other words, amongst all the entities in the world (of which Dasein is one), Dasein is the only one that has existence as part of its determinate character.

Second (ontologically), "Dasein is in itself 'ontological', because existence is thus determinative for it." (BT 34/13) In other words, Dasein is specially related to being, in a way that other entities are not--by virtue of its being being an issue for it.

Third, "...with equal primordiality Dasein also possesses--as constitutive for its understanding of existence--an understanding of the Being of all entities of a character other than its own." (BT 34/13) Dasein is in a unique position to take up the ontological investigation, not only of its own being and being in general, but also of the being of other entities in the world. Dasein has a natural grasp of the being and character of other entities and thus is the ground for all ontologies and the best starting point for a general inquiry into the meaning of being.

This third feature of Dasein, Heidegger refers to as the ontico-ontological priority of Dasein. He points out that the unique position of Dasein to understand and grasp the being of entities--"both in the fact that they are, and in their Being as they are--that is, always in their Being." (BT 34/14) Heidegger thinks that this ability has nothing in common with "a vicious subjectivizing of the totality of entities." (BT 34/14) In other words, Heidegger wants to set apart his recognition of the ontico-ontological priority of Dasein from certain trends in philosophy that assert a similar kind of priority but only by "subjectivizing" entities.

The point of these sections has been to establish the propriety of taking Dasein as the starting point for our investigation of the meaning of being. What has been shown is that Dasein, because of its unique relationship to being, in general as well as in entities, is in a unique position to illuminate fundamental ontology generally. Not only is Dasein well-suited to this investigation but, as it turns out, such an investigation is quite natural and appropriate to it. So, Heidegger writes:

"But now it has been shown that the ontological analytic of Dasein in general is what makes up fundamental ontology, so that Dasein functions as that entity which in principle is to be interrogated beforehand as to its Being. / If to Interpret the meaning of Being becomes our task, Dasaein is not only the primary entity to be interrogated; it is also that entity which already comports itself, in its Being, towards what we are asking about when we ask this question. But in that case the question of Being is nothing other than the radicalization of an essential tendency-of-Being which belongs to Dasein itself--the pre-ontological understanding of Being." (BT 35/14-15)

--

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 131: BT 05: Sec. 03, Part 2

Introduction, Chapter 1. The Necessity, Structure, and Priority of the Question of Being
Section 03. The Ontological Priority of the Question of Being

In the course of trying to make detailed summaries, it is easier then one might at first suspect to dig at the details without actually getting the point. I fear that I have done that with regard to Sec. 03 of the Introduction. What I said in my last entry about Heidegger's view of the progress of science and the development of the various sciences is, I think, basically correct. However, I did not bring that treatment back around to illuminate the question of being. Before moving on to sec. 04, I would like to do just that.

Heidegger writes, "Basic concepts determine the way in which we get an understanding beforehand of the area of subject-matter underlying all the objects a science takes as its theme, and all positive investigation is guided by this understanding." (BT 30/10) This basic understanding forms the foundation of ordinary science. "Laying the foundations, as we have described it, is... a productive logic--in the sense that it leaps ahead, as it were, into some area of Being, discloses it for the first time in the constitution of its Being, and, after thus arriving at the structures within it, makes these available to the positive sciences as transparent assignments for their inquiry." (BT 30/10)

Hopefully this helps us to understand just what is meant by "being." Being has to do with that which makes entities appear to us as entities--particularly as entities capable of being studied, where the sciences are concerned. Heidegger uses the example of "historiology". He writes, "To give an example, what is philosophically primary is neither a theory of the concept-formation of historiology nor the theory of historiological knowledge, nor yet the theory of history as the Object of historiology; what is primary is rather the Interpretation of authentically historical entities as regards their historicality." (BT 31/10) We will not unpack, here, what Heidegger understands by historiology, but I think we can still get an idea of what he considers to be basic to that discipline. It is not some complicated set of theoretical concepts and models; neither is it a collected body of facts; neither is it "history" itself, understood as the proper object of historiological study. Rather, what is basic to historiology is our ability to identify certain entities as "historical" at all. What is that thing in virtue of which we recognize an object as "historical"? We may not be able to answer that question at this stage; however, we must still acknowledge that the existence of the discipline of "historiology" presupposes our ability to recognize objects as "historical" and as bearing a family resemblance around which a scientific discipline could be constructed.

That may still seem very abstract. Consider this analogy; perhaps it will help. Imagine that you are in a room looking at a blank wall. The wall is plain and white and flat--nothing particularly interesting to report. However, if you were to walk very close to the wall, you would probably begin to recognize imperfections in the wall. It would no longer present itself as flat or plain. Instead, you would begin to recognize irregularities, bumps, and shades of coloring. At the same time, the wall would still appear to be solid, opaque, and impenetrable. But suppose you were to move in still closer--say, with a microscope. Imagine if you had a microscope that would allow you to examine the wall at the molecular level. At that level, you would recognize that the wall is not solid and not impenetrable. You would see that it is a mass of discrete particles--atoms--and, with the appropriate equipment, you would "see" that it is constantly being penetrated by particles and by various forms of radiant energy.

At each level, one uses a different set of basic concepts to grasp and understand the wall. Scientists will analyze the wall in an attempt to grasp the most basic and fundamental particles that compose the wall. They will likely construe the being of the wall in terms of those most basic particles. Certain philosophers might try to grasp the wall in terms of discrete parts and wholes. They might construe the being of the wall in terms of some basic substratum. Heidegger takes us one step further. He does not construe being in terms of basic particles or substances but in terms of those most basic "features" in virtue of which the wall shows up to the scientist or the philosopher as something that can be studied--that can be the object of an investigation.

He writes, "The question of Being aims therefore at ascertaining the a priori conditions not only for the possibility of the sciences which examine entities as entities of such and such a type, and, in so doing, already operate with an understanding of Being, but also for the possibility of those ontologies themselves which are prior to the ontical sciences and which provide their foundations." (BT 31/11)

[I think that in the background of Heidegger's investigation is a disillusionment with traditional science which just assumes that atoms or other physical particles form the basic constituents of the world, as well as with traditional philosophy which has also bought into this basic materialism. He points out that both these operating theses are assumptions that are, themselves, open to being questioned. So he is trying to question those assumptions. But that is not enough for him. It won't do for him to just propound another set of operating assumptions. He wants to know that his set of operating assumptions is correct and therefore must call into question and investigate the very method of his questioning of those operating assumptions. Now there is a danger of regress lurking in this investigation. Forestalling that regress must, I expect, be an important part of this project.]

I'm not sure whether that helps anyone else, but I think it helps me. So we can now move on to the next section.

--

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 130: 1 Corinthians 5:1-13

Chapter five begins a new section of Paul's letter in which he addresses a number of particular concerns about which members of the Corinthian congregation have written to him. Some of them take the form of responses to specific questions. In this case, Paul is responding to a disturbing report that he has received. Though his responses will tend to be fairly context-specific, many of the themes that Paul has already raised (concerning arrogance and knowledge, for instance) will continue to play a part in what he says to the Corinthians. Here he addresses the problem of sexual immorality.

"It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife. And you have become arrogant, and have not mourned instead, in order that the one who had done this deed might be removed from your midst. For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (5:1-5)

Paul's tone is extremely severe. Not only is this kind of relationship (probably between a man and his step-mother) clearly condemned in the Old Testament law (Leviticus 18:8; Deuteronomy 22:30; 27:20), but it is also rejected universally throughout the Roman world as incestuous and immoral. Yet there is at least one man in the Corinthian church who is continuing to carry on such a relationship without serious opposition. Paul doesn't mince words when speaking of what should be done to this man. Many people, when reading this passage, will focus on Paul's instructions ("deliver such a one to Satan")--what they mean and whether or not they are too severe. But there is more going on here than the identification of a sin within the community and the prescription of a proper response.

Paul's frustration is as much directed at the Corinthian congregation as a whole as at that particular individual who is sinning sexually. "And you have become arrogant," he says to the Corinthians, "and have not mourned instead, in order that the one who had done this deed might be removed from your midst." (5:2) The Corinthians have failed to respond as they should. Paul emphasizes this point further by indicating to them his own judgment concerning the situation.

Paul does not say, simply, "Go deliver such a one to Satan." Rather, he says, "I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan." He is not just telling them what they should do but is pointing out their failure to make the proper judgment. Paul, "though absent in body... [has] already judged him who has so committed this." Paul isn't even with the Corinthians; he has had no contact with the particular man who is sinning; he has heard it all at second hand--and yet, the proper course of action is so obvious as to make the Corinthians ridiculous for failing to reach the assessment that Paul comes to.

That is the gist of his rebuke. In my mind, I picture Paul coming before the Corinthians frustrated and bewildered, and asking them, "WHAT ON EARTH IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!? HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY THINK THAT IT WAS OKAY TO ALLOW THIS TO GO ON IN THE CHURCH? HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY FAIL TO ADDRESS SUCH A BLATANTLY SINFUL SITUATION?"

Does that sound too harsh? Even if we agree with Paul about the sinfulness of incest, we might not be comfortable with the severity of his response. Here, then, is a challenge to us. Does Paul's response strike us as too severe because he is off the mark in some way or because we are? Let me attempt to make the question still more difficult. Consider this:

I think it unlikely that this man and his step-mother entered into this illicit relationship for the sheer purpose of flouting the Old Testament law. Nor is it likely that they did so just in order to flaunt their freedom (though the Corinthians' muddled grasp of their freedom in Christ is a recurring theme in this letter). Why do people pursue sexual relationships? The simple answer: Love. Of course, some will want to make the proper distinction, here, between love and mere lust. That distinction is valid, but my point is that these people probably had feelings for one another. They probably loved each other very tremendously and very deeply. They may even have been very committed to one another. There's no reason to doubt any of these things. And yet, Paul still brings the full weight of righteous condemnation on their heads. ("WHAT ON EARTH IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!?")

This may be difficult to hear. After all, we live in a world and culture where a great many things can be justified by invoking "love" and "desire". If two people love each other, our culture more and more affirms, then sex is completely natural and appropriate. It would be wrong to try and stop them from sharing it. "We love each other," is considered an adequate reason. "Well, I just don't love him (or her)," is also considered an adequate excuse (for divorce, for extra-marital affairs).

Paul stands in complete opposition to that kind of 'reasoning.' There is no excuse, no adequate reason, for this illicit sexual relationship to be going on within the community of believers. Wow. Even to my ears that sounds rather harsh and unfeeling, but again, we need to consider, is that because Paul is off the mark or because we are. I fear that we have become increasingly comfortable with sin, and increasingly skilled at rationalizing our sins. We need not confine these reflections to the sexual realm, either. How honest are you on your time-card at work? How conscientiously do you observe the traffic laws? Do you really strive for honesty and transparency with everybody, or are you willing to twist the truth when advantageous? What are you "skimming off the top"? What "corners" are you cutting? What are the areas in your life where, if Paul were looking over your shoulder, he might be tempted to scream in your ear, "WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU DOING?!?" "But it's not that big a deal... Well, this is just the way we do things... I know it might not look very good, but... You just don't understand my situation... Look, I can't explain it, but...". These are the excuses we concoct, but will they really stand up?

Now am I denying that there are some gray areas in life? No. Don't I recognize legalism lurking in the background of what I'm saying? Certainly. But I also believe that we have become, as a church, way too comfortable with the presence of sin in our midst and sin in our lives. This is not about saying who is and isn't allowed to be in the church. Again, a lot of people focus on that question in connection with this passage; but there is a much deeper issue. Are you allowing sin to take up residence in your life?

How is it that we come to allow sin to inhabit us and our Christian communities? Oftentimes we are unwilling to hold people accountable because we are aware of the same sins in our own lives and don't want to fall under condemnation or be accused of hypocrisy. In the Corinthian church, it is possible that they had misconstrued what is involved in the reality of freedom in Christ. Usually this kind of lapse involves being caught up, somehow, in the value-system of the world. (Recall the discussion of the wisdom of the world from chapters 1-4.) But none of these is an adequate reason for allowing sin to persist in our lives and churches. The only proper solution is to root out the wickedness.

This sort of conclusion is doubtless behind Paul's directive in vv. 4-5. What that looks like in a particular situation and context may differ from place to place. I like to think of "deliver[ing] such a one to Satan" as exposing the individual to the unfortunate (that's a highly sanitized word) reality of his situation. Especially in the church, one can find oneself insulated from the consequences of one's sinful actions. A person can imagine that he is alright because he is associated with the church even though his sin is actually corrupting him from the inside. Removing the protection and insulation and support of the church may allow a person to see how truly damaging his behavior is. Hopefully this would lead him to reject (destroy) his fleshly ways and so be saved.

Later Paul will tell the Corinthians, quite explicitly, "Remove the wicked man from among yourselves." (v.13) Such a practice (e.g. "excommunication") was not unknown to the Jewish communities of that day and so may have been used by Christian communities as well. Is that how we ought to treat people today? I will not try to answer that question here. Actually, I think that to attempt to answer it would be distracting. The main question we need to consider (and, I think the main thrust of this chapter) is: Are we taking sin seriously? Do we recognize sin (all sins) for the destructive, ugly, hurtful, degrading, wicked, vile, terrible thing that it is? That is the question that we must consider. Paul continues to develop that point in the material that follows:

"Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." (5:6-8)

This image would have been particularly poignant for those familiar with Jewish Passover rituals. The Passover is the celebration of the nation of Israel's deliverance from slavery. On the night of the tenth plague, the angel of death visited all the families of Egypt but spared all those of the people of Israel--passing over all their houses. One part of this celebration is the feast of unleavened bread. When the people of Israel left Egypt, they had to do so quickly so they took unleavened (rather than leavened) bread with them. Unleavened bread, then, was a symbol of haste. During the feast, people would eat only unleavened bread. Over time the symbolism of this feast grew and developed. Not only were they required to eat unleavened bread, but they had to remove all leaven from their houses. Leaven came to symbolize sin and the cleansing of the houses before the feast became symbolic of spiritual purification.

The ritual of the search for and removal of leaven is accompanied by a blessing: "Blessed are You, Lord, our God, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the removal of chametz." ("Chametz" is Hebrew for "leaven.")

Other blessings are also involved, but the final blessing, said after the burning of the chametz, goes like this: "May it be Your will, our God and God of our fathers, that just as I remove the chametz from my house and from my possession, so shall You remove all the extraneous forces. Remove the spirit of impurity from the earth, remove our evil inclination from us, and grant us a heart of flesh to serve in truth. Make all the sitra achara, all the kelipots ["chaff"], and all wickedness be consumed with a spirit of destruction and a spirit of judgment all that distress the Shechina, just as You destroyed Egypt and its idols in those days, at this time. Amen, Selah." [1]

So the imagery of leaven and unleavened bread would have been very strong to those who were familiar with the Passover ritual. It is the nature of leaven that only a small quantity is necessary to leaven the whole lump of dough. Likewise, a very small amount of sin, if allowed to remain, can have a widespread corrupting influence--either within an individual or within a community. Interestingly, the ritual cleansing would take place on the evening and afternoon before Passover. Paul's exhortation is made even more forceful, thereby: "For Christ our Passover also has [already] been sacrificed." Since the Passover has been sacrificed, the cleansing should already have been done, is the implication. Put away from yourselves the "leaven of malice and wickedness" and take up the "unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."

Now some will wonder about the force of Paul's instructions and perhaps the Corinthians too were led so to wonder. So Paul makes a few clarifying remarks before concluding:

"I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves." (5:9-13)

Apparently Paul had given the Corinthians instructions on this point at some previous point, but they misunderstood or misconstrued them. This may have been innocent, but it is also important to keep in mind the danger of judgmentalism that lurks in the background whenever we end up misconstruing our own freedom in Christ. An us-them mentality develops easily when we lose sight of our own accountability to God. Sometimes laxness toward Christians leads to laxness toward the world. At other times, laxness toward Christians, especially when it is rooted in a pretense of holiness, causes us to look down on non-Christians and forget that our own salvation does not come from any merit belonging to us.

The Corinthians may well have fallen into this latter error. Paradoxically they are accepting of certain sins in their own community but condemning of those who commit those sins outside of their community. But this is to forget the important difference between those who are inside and outside of that Christian community. The Christian is not to judge those who are outside the church but those who are on the inside. The Christian is not to hold outsiders accountable but insiders. Jesus, Himself, serves as a helpful example of this. (Matthew 9:9-13)

Some may wonder at this given our conclusions about judging from the first four chapters of Paul's letter to the Corinthians. In chapter 4 Paul says, quite explicitly, "Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden inn the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God." (4:5) Is Paul contradicting himself? It might look like that, but only if we do not take seriously the context in which these statements are being made. In chapter 4, Paul is addressing those Corinthians who are trying to evaluate the works of their leaders (Paul and Apollos) and trying to decide who is better or greater. Paul says that such judging is inappropriate, especially since it leads to factions and divisions. But the judgment about which he is speaking in chapter 5 is different. In chapter 5 he is addressing flagrant immorality, sin, corruption, and wickedness. These things, he says, are to be judged by the Corinthian Christians. (But even in this case, "final" judgment still belongs to God.) And so he concludes with the clear directive: "Remove the wicked man from among yourselves."

--

The main question I want us to consider in connection with this passage is: Do we take sin seriously in the way that Paul takes it seriously? Do we recognize sin for the wicked, corrupting, dangerous, harmful evil that it is? Or are we inclined to overlook or allow certain of these evils as we find them convenient? Are our lives guided by what we want to do or by our understanding of God's will for us? In many cases this will be hard to hear. Following God may cause us to stick out like proverbial sore thumbs. People may notice and think us odd for not just going with the flow. People may even be offended by our strict observance and obedience to God. But we have to consider carefully--if we are not committed whole-heartedly to following God's will then what are we committed to? If we are not committed to following Jesus then who are we following?

Sometimes it requires another perspective to expose our own shortfalls. Such exposure is never comfortable. If a person points out some problem in our lives, our first instinct, often, is to become defensive. It takes a great deal of maturity to stop and think, "I wonder if this person is right. I wonder if there is something to what he or she says." Change is also difficult. If we are focusing only on managing external behavior so that we look good to the world, then change will be extremely difficult. But if we are truly desiring to walk with and follow God, then his strength and power will come to our aid. Then the question becomes, How badly do you want to follow and walk with God?

--

Footnotes:

[1] Details of Passover ritual drawn from www.chabad.org.

--

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 129: 1 Corinthians 4:6-21

"Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, [1] in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other." (4:6)

Here Paul refers to the argument of 3:5-4:5. In that section, he indicated to the Corinthian Christians that they should not place their confidence in Paul or Apollos or quarrel amongst themselves concerning the apostles because the apostles are mere servants. Not only that but the Corinthians, like the apostles, have been called by God to be ministers of the gospel and kingdom of God; they should be working instead of arguing with one another. Paul has pointed to his own work and to Apollos' work in order to illustrate to the Corinthian Christians how they ought to conduct themselves. The result should be that they no longer "become arrogant in behalf of one against the other." Now Paul continues:

"For who regards you are superior? And what do you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?" (4:7)

Here Paul further undermines their boasting. Have they been boasting in their leaders? How ridiculous since they have nothing to do with the accomplishments or merits of their leaders. Have they been boasting in their own gifts and attainments. That is also ridiculous for their gifts and attainments are not their own but all come from God. But in fact, the extent of their boasting runs still deeper as evidenced by Paul's ironic rebuke.

Fee expresses the point quite nicely in this passage: "Their [i.e. the Corinthians'] "boasting" is sure evidence that they have missed the gospel of grace. Instead of recognizing everything as a gift and being filled with gratitude, the possessed their gifts--saw them as their own--and looked down on the apostle who seemed to lack so much. Grace leads to gratitude; "wisdom" and self-sufficiency lead to boasting and judging. Grace has a leveling effect; self-esteem has a self-exalting effect. Grace means humility; boasting means that one has arrived. Precisely because their boasting reflects such an attitude, Paul turns to irony to help them see the folly of their "boasting."" (Fee, 171)

"You are already filled, you have already become rich, you have become kings without us; and I would indeed that you had become kings so that we also might reign with you. For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men." (4:8-9)

At several points throughout this letter (and also in 2 Corinthians) there are indications that the Corinthians (or at least some portion of them) are doubting and questioning Paul's apostleship and authority. Given the fact that they have become so enamored of the world's wisdom, this is not surprising. In chapter 2, Paul says of himself, "And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom.... And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. And my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom...." (vv. 1, 3-4) Such a manner of speaking and teaching would hardly inspire confidence in people who judge and evaluate by human standards of quality. That is why Paul has to remind them that the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God. At the very least, those who belonged to the party of Apollos or of Cephas would have questioned Paul's authority and ability, especially if they viewed it as inferior to that of their own preferred leader.

Especially for those who are in positions of great wealth, power, and influence (as well as for those who aspire to such positions) it is often difficult to see success and blessing as taking any other form. Certain members of the Corinthian congregation (the Corinthian church would have been extremely mixed, socially and economically) have attained such success and perceive themselves as already having arrived. They are already recipients of the fullness of God's blessings--and they are boasting in that fact. This is a curious view, Paul indicates ironically, because none of the Lord's apostles have risen to such levels of blessing. Quite the opposite, in fact.

"We are fools for Christ's sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor. To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless; and we toil, working with our own hands [3]; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now." (4:10-13)

Paul comes to the Corinthian Christians in weakness and humility. He carries with him none of the trappings of success. As a result, many of them are led to question whether he is a true apostle and possesses real authority. But Paul points out that this is not only his own position but that of all the apostles. If the Lord's own apostles have not entered into their full and final blessings, does it really make sense to think that these recently converted Corinthians have? [2] Note Paul's opening statement in v.10. "We are fools for Christ's sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor." Does that progression sound familiar? It should. It closely resembles a list of contrasts that Paul draws back in chapter 1. "[B]ut God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are." (vv. 27-28) If that is the way that God works, then 4:10 indicates that the Corinthian Christians are on the wrong side. They boast of being prudent, strong, and honored, while God has chosen to exalt the foolish, weak, and despised. Every point that Paul adds to the list of the apostles' characteristics no longer serves to show how the Corinthians are superior to the apostles; rather, they each shows how much farther the Corinthians have gone astray. Not only in their condition (hungry, thirsty, poorly clothed, roughly treated, homeless) are they far off but in their attitudes as well (when we are persecuted, we endure, etc.).

All this comes of being too much enamored of the ways of the world. You see the things that the world calls success and you begin to confuse them with what God calls success. You chase after them as if they were the things that would truly fulfill and when you have them you think that you have received the blessings of God. Then when you lose those good things, you think that you have fallen out of God's favor and you perceive others who are so lacking as also deprived of God's blessings.

I find myself doing this. I have friends who are already making very comfortable livings at jobs that don't require a great deal of skill or training. And I sometimes feel envious of them--wishing that I was in their situation and wondering to myself why on earth I'm on the career path that I am. But that's just me being confused. That's me losing sight of how much I love learning and studying and how I hope to teach and impact students lives. In a world that is constantly bombarding us with messages about what it takes to be happy and successful, in a society that pressures us to conform and pursue popularity and the good opinion of our peers, we have to work hard not to lose ourselves in the world's values--not to get swallowed up in that trap. Being hungry, thirsty, poorly clothed, roughly treated, and homeless might not look like success to some--but for the man who knows that he is exactly where God wants him to be, even those kinds of difficult circumstances will be nothing compared to the joy of walking and working with God.

Does this mean that wealth, power, and influence are bad things? Certainly not. Again, the Corinthians' problem is not that they are rich but that they are boasting in their riches--that they are placing their confidence in their riches. They view riches as the mark of God's favor and believe that God's favor is withheld from those (like Paul) who lack such riches. Paul is not criticizing their wealth. He is only criticizing their pride and boasting. He is criticizing their misguided judging. [4] But as strong and sometimes caustic as his tone is at points, his purpose is not to humiliate them. His purpose is, rather, constructive. He writes:

"I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. I exhort you therefore, be imitators of me." (4:14-16)

That Paul refers to the Corinthians as his beloved children is a point worth pausing to consider. Paul is not some dispassionate, remote, or far-removed teacher giving instruction to people that he knows little about. Rather, he founded ("begot") the church at Corinth. It is his beloved children that he addresses. Sometimes we have a tendency to read the Scriptures as if they were written by some cold preacher to a faceless congregation, but that is not the case at all. Paul loves and cares for the Corinthians and his heart's desire is that they should grow into the fullness of their calling in Christ. That is his hope and his confidence. (1:1-9) Making these claims clear is also part of Paul's effort to establish and confirm his authority and apostleship to those who doubt him within the Corinthian congregation. But his goal is not that they would honor or revere him in some special way; his desire, rather, is that they should imitate his example.

Here is an important lesson for contemporary teachers of the Bible to consider (including the writer of these blog posts). We often focus on conveying information ("truth") and increasing people's knowledge about God and the Bible, but the most compelling witness and most effective tool for transformation is not to be found in the words that we say but in the manifestation of the Spirit in our actions. Of course, many will quite understandably feel uncomfortable about telling people to "imitate me." That sounds like arrogance. On the other hand, we have to consider whether there is not something wrong in a church where all the teachers say really wonderful things about God's faithfulness and the Holy Spirit's inspiration and spiritual transformation but evince absolutely no marks of any of it. Even if we do not go around saying, "Imitate me," we should endeavour to live lives in which people will recognize the presence and action of God's grace. Timothy is another example of such a person:

"For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church." (4:17)

"Now some have become arrogant, as though I were not coming to you. But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I shall find out, not the words of those who are arrogant, but their power. For the kingdom of God does not consist in words, but in power. What do you desires? Shall I come to you with a rod or with love and a spirit of gentleness?" (4:18-21)

As if to further underscore this point about the difference between words and deeds, Paul concludes this section by indicating to the Corinthians that he will come and test their words and deeds. Certainly they have been using a lot of strong (and arrogant) words; but is their true power behind those words? The proverbial ball is now in the Corinthians' court. It is up to them to decide how Paul will come to them--"with a rod or with love and a spirit of gentleness". If they persist in their boasting and quarreling and foolish arrogance, then he will have to be harsh with them. But if they take to heart his instructions and follow his example, then he can come to them in a spirit of gentleness.

This concludes this section of the letter. (1:10-4:21) Some scholars speculate that this marked the end of the letter that Paul originally intended to send to the Corinthians but that when received the another letter from the Corinthians--full of questions and concerns--he added the subsequent twelve chapters. Not a great deal hangs on whether or not this is the case. It is the case that many of the topics of those twelve chapters seem to be foreshadowed in 1:1-9 and that themes that emerge in the first four chapters continue to play a part in the subsequent material. However, the letter developed, it is clear that a shift has occurred at the beginning of chapter 5. Paul begins to address many particular concerns that the Corinthians have raised and about which they have communicated to him. The first has to do with sexual immorality in the church. (5:1-13)

--

But before moving on, let us stop to consider what we've seen in these last four chapters. The Corinthians, Paul hears, have been quarreling and divided by allegiances to various leaders within the church community. Paul rebukes them and points to the absurdity of their manners and attitude; they are acting just like the world and placing value on the things that the world considers valuable. But God's ways and different from the world's ways and the things that God considers valuable, the world considers rubbish. The clearest example of this is found in Jesus, Himself. Jesus was despised by the world, but God has exalted Him to the highest place.

That the Corinthians have gone down the wrong path should be obvious to them just because it has born fruit in factions and divisions; but they have become so narrow-minded that they cannot see their truly pathetic condition. So Paul has to remind them of where their proper focus should be; also that they have been called to do God's work and are heirs of all the blessings of God. They should place their confidence and trust in God and focus on obedience to Him.

Where are you placing your confidence? How important is it to you that you have a certain amount of money in the bank? A certain kind of car? A certain kind of job? A certain kind of house? Enough for your retirement? How important is it to you that people approve of you? That you are respected? That people compliment you? How important is it to you that you be up to date on the latest news? The latest trends? The latest fashion? The latest gossip?

How do you judge and evaluate other people? By how they dress? By how they speak? By how much money they have? By what kind of coffee they drink? By how white their teeth are? By how they smell? How do you judge Christian leaders? By how attractive they are? By how well they speak? By the numbers that they draw? By the size of their budget?

Who are you relying on for success? How much time do you spend in prayer? How willing are you to be interrupted by God's calling? Do you become very frustrated and angry when things don't go as you expect? Are you thanking God for the gifts that He has given you? Are you trusting God to take care of your finances--even when things are tight? Do you find yourself frequently skipping out on church? Are you able to share struggles and trials with other Christians? How do you deal with obstacles, discouragement, and failure?

Jesus was willing to humble himself to the point of death on a cross. How far are you willing to go? And if you find that you're not willing to go that far then consider this question: Do you want to be willing to go that far?

--

Footnotes:

[1] Just in case there is a question on anyone's mind about the meaning of this phrase, I have included the following passage from Keener's commentary that I think treats the scholarly views fairly comprehensively. "Scholars debate the meaning of, "Nothing beyond what is written" (4:6). Some suggest that it means not to exceed the bounds of (i.e., to transgress) Scripture (the most common view); or a child tracing the lines of letters established by teachers (cf. 3:1-2); or a plea to maintain terms of an agreement used in ancient arguments for unity). Perhaps the basic sense is, "Do not boast beyond the appropriate station God has given each one" (cf. 2 Cor 10:13, 15; Rom 12:3-8). (By pointing out that he is using parabolic speech [a claim obscured by NRSV's "applied"] rather than merely implying it, as appropriate for rhetors' "covert allusions," Paul probably treats them like children, as in 3:1.) Certainly, as ancients sometimes noted, it was foolish to boast in another's gift to one as if it were one's own achievement (4:7; cf. 1:7; 12:4-11)." (Keener: 2005, 45. All brackets and parentheses are in the original.)

[2] Additional comments on v. 8. "Some take without us to mean 'without our help', but in view of the second part of the verse it means rather 'without our company'. The Corinthians thought that they had attained a position to which neither Paul nor the other apostles dared lay claim. Paul expresses the wish that they really were in the royal position they imagined. Then perhaps he and his associates might be linked with them in this splendour! The construction Paul employs implies that the wish has not been fulfilled: 'Would that you did reign (though in fact you do not)' is the sense of it." (Morris, 77.)

[3] Regarding the phrase, "and we toil, working with our own hands": "Here Paul distinguishes himself from most kinds of philosophers and from the more aristocratic ideals of the higher-status faction within the Corinthian church. Philosophers might beg, charge tuition or be supported by a patron; to them, manual labor was the least honorable option. Because wealthy landowners also considered manual labor undignified, well-to-do people in the church would be embarrassed to invite friends to their own social circle to hear the teachings of Paul, who worked as an artisan (skilled laborer). Paul here supports the majority, lower-class faction in the congregation and boasts in his low social status." (Keener: 1993, 461.) The particular difficulty that some of the Corinthian Christians have with accepting Paul's manual labor comes up again in 9:1-15.

[4] "This is an admittedly difficult text to hear well in the contemporary church, especially in Western cultures. In fact one feels a certain sense of personal dissonance commenting on it while sitting at a word-processor surrounded by books and other modern conveniences. The rhetorical questions of v. 7 come through loud and clear. They still have their powerfully disarming effect, no matter who one is or in what circumstances. Life, all of life, is a gift; and it is all the more so for one who knows the Giver: "For out of His infinite riches in Jesus, He giveth and giveth and giveth again." But what do we do with the rhetoric and irony of vv. 8-13? Some would easily dismiss it as rhetoric; others simply read it and leave it in the first century (Paul may have been like that, but so what?); ; still others read it, but are greatly puzzled as to how it might speak to them. How does one avoid either guilt, on the one hand, because we are not like that, or a martyr complex, on the other, in which one loves to suffer because he/she does it so well? / Two observations might be made: (1) We need to become more aware of the Corinthian side of this text than we tend to. That is, we try desperately to identify with Paul, when in fact we are probably much more like the Corinthians than any of us dare admit. We are rich, well-filled, etc.; (p. 113), between Paul's and the Corinthians' views of ministry "there can be little doubt which conception... corresponds more closely to the Lord's command (e.g. Mark viii.34f.)." (2) Perhaps if we were truly more like our Lord, standing more often in opposition to the status quo with its worldly wisdom and more often in favor of justice, we too would know more about what it means to be scum in the eyes of the world's "beautiful" and "powerful" people. In any case, we greatly need to recapture Paul's eschatological perspective so that neither wealth nor want tyrannizes us." (Fee, 181-182) I actually think that Fee is mistaken in the overall tone of his assessment. Regarding (1), in particular, it is true that we probably more closely resemble the Corinthians than Paul; however, this is not in virtue of simply having wealth but in virtue of our placing confidence in wealth. Paul is not objecting to the Corinthians' wealth. He is objecting to their boasting in their wealth. That is why he draws the contrast--not to show that being poor is better than being wealthy but to show that the Corinthians standard for measuring God's favor is not true to reality. Poor, hungry, and wretched are not always the recipients of God's disfavor.

--

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 128: Does God have a worldview?

I've come to the conclusion (tentatively) that I don't update my blog more regularly, not for lack of things to write about or lack of time for writing, but because of lack of time for posting. As implausible as that might seem, I find that while I may take the time here or there to write or muse about something, finding the time to post is extremely difficult. One reason for that is the fact that I do not have Internet access in my home. The only time that I regularly have Internet access is when I am on the UC Riverside campus; and that's when I'm doing work or conducting research or writing papers. My Internet use, at those times, is driven by the desire to get some piece of information and get back to work--far from leisurely and not conducive to blogging or posting blogs. Another reason is that blog-posting, for me, at least, is a process unto itself--quite apart from writing the posts. That's because I regularly modify the type face in my writing to include bold-face and italics. Those modifications do not automatically transfer from my word processor to the blog text window, so I have to manually reinsert them.

So I'm not sure how long after I write this it will actually get posted. Maybe it will be a week or two; we'll see. Anyhow, this question (i.e. the title question) has been rolling around in my head for several weeks and I figured that a good way to (maybe) get it out of there would be to write about it. This post came together very quickly and I have not edited it for grammar, readability, organization, or structure. Note also that this is being posted while my views on the topics have not been fully formed. If I say anything heinously wrong, let me know and I'll modify my view accordingly. This post is not my attempt to say the final word on the subject. Take it for what it's worth. Here it is.

--

Does God have a worldview? This question was posed to me by a friend at church. How would you answer it?

My initial answer was: Yes.

Are you surprised?

I have since decided (as if it were up to me) that God does not have a worldview and I would like to explain some of the thought process that led me to that conclusion.

Oftentimes, when speaking of worldviews, the metaphor of 'glasses' or 'lenses' comes up. Worldviews, it is said, are the lenses through which we see the world. Depending on the kind and shape and tinting of the glasses, the world will show up differently. In fact, we have a phrase--"looking at the world through rose-colored glasses"--that employs this very idea. To a person wearing "rose-colored glasses" the world appears rosy, happy, good--perhaps, to a greater degree than it, in fact, is. Worldviews operate at all levels of human cognition. They affect how we think about ourselves, reality as a whole, relationships, morality, God--everything. They are constituted by the various ideas that we possess and beliefs that we hold. They are the map (another metaphor commonly employed in connection with this theme) by which we orient ourselves and other objects in the world. When presented with situations, words, circumstances, actions, events, questions, surprises, etc. we interpret them and think about them and process them and make sense of them by bringing them into dialogue with our established worldview.

Here's a really simple illustration of a worldview and how it can affect our outlook on the world. A person who was raised in an atheistic home and taught that all events in the world can be explained by the laws of physics will bring those ideas to bear when confronting the world and interpreting people and events that he encounters throughout his life. If he hears about a person who, against incredible odds, recovered from a fatal and terminal strain of cancer, his worldview will tend to rule out, for him, the possibility that such an event was the result of divine or miraculous intervention. He will not interpret that person's recovery as a divine act because his worldview has conditioned him to interpret all events only through the laws of physics. Now if enough "highly improbable" recoveries happen, say, in a very short period of time and are highly correlated to incidents of religious communities praying for the affected persons, that person may see fit to change his worldview, but for the most part, worldviews operate by conditioning and interpreting how we see the world.

Now consider the question: Does God have a worldview? What are we to make of it? Does God have a way of interpreting the world? Does he see the world through a set of "lenses" that condition what and how he sees it? Most Christians, I suspect, would say: No, God does not have a worldview. What they mean by this is that God's understanding and knowledge of the world is NOT mediated by some intervening interpretive framework. Instead, God just sees and understands and knows how the world is.

Notice the opposition: On the one hand there is how we see the world and on the other hand there is how the world (actually) is. The thought is, usually, that human beings have a way of seeing the world that may or may not be in line with how the world actually is. We experience this often enough. Sometimes the way we think the world is bumps up against how things actually are. E.g. Larry thought that Sue was really attracted to him but, in fact, she was not; he interpreted certain of her actions as expressing an interest in him, but was mistaken; he discovered this when he tried to kiss her and she slapped him in the face. In other cases, we can become aware of the contingency of our worldviews just by the realization that other people see the world differently. E.g. In some parts of the world, insects form a regular part of a human diet. In other parts of the world, eating bugs is thought to be very disgusting and strange.

By contrast, God is never in the position of seeing the world in any way other than how it actually is. God is never in the position of bumping up against reality by virtue of a mistake or of discovering that something that He thinks is offensive or wrong is actually not.

In the end, I have come to the conclusion that this view of God is basically correct. God, as creator, is in a unique position to understand the essences of things in the world and of the events that unfold in it. His understanding is not mediated by some contingent, interpretive framework. HOWEVER, I think, that is not the end of the story.

Why, you may ask, did I begin by saying that God did have a worldview? The reason is, that I have an objection to the opposition that I described above, between how we see the world (or how the world seems to be) and how the world (actually) is. My thought was, initially, that if I say that God has a worldview, then that will undermine this objectionable opposition by conferring a kind of legitimacy on worldviews. I now have decided that it is not necessary that God have a worldview for this opposition to be effectively undermined. So, my conclusion is: (1) God does not have a worldview and (2) the tendency to place in opposition how we see the world and how the world is is fundamentally flawed.

Now it may not be clear to everyone how these two concepts are "opposed" so let me elaborate a bit. I think there is a tendency to connect how the world is to some concept of reality. Makes sense, right? How the world "actually" is; how the world "really" is; what is real; what is "reality". The problem is that how we see the world, because it is contrasted with reality takes on a certain sense of unreality. Indeed, there are many Christians who are seriously worried that if, prompted by certain philosophical and cultural movements, we lose the idea of there being, fundamentally, a way the world is, then all we will be left with is these various unreal perspectives. Such views are commonly designated anti-realist.

I can understand the worry being presented here and the consequent preoccupation with discovering how the world "really" is. But is that really where we should be putting our focus? One of the problems with worldview talk is that the more we emphasize worldviews, the harder it seems to be to stay in touch with actual reality. We are constantly faced with this problem: how do we know whether our way of seeing the world actually lines up with the way the world actually is? Another way of putting the question: is it possible to get around the glasses to see the world directly? If we reject the idea that there are worldviews, then we seem to fly in the face of very clear and obvious evidence that people often do see the world in different ways and not always in ways where there is a clear right and wrong. (Recall the insect example.) But if we acknowledge that we see the world through lenses, then how can we know that we're actually in line with reality.

This is, I think, a very interesting philosophical question that I would like to continue to pursue in the long-term. I don't have really solid answers as yet, but I would like to make a few suggestions. My main point, for now, is this: we need to get away from this opposition between the way the world (actually) is and the way the world seems to be. We need to get away from the idea that our worldviews represent these interpreting lenses through which we see the world and we need to realize and appreciate that those very interpretive lenses are part of the world. Notice, that when we use worldview language, we often invoke this image of us standing at a certain point with the world somewhere in front of us and our worldview lenses in between. On this picture, both we and our lenses are seen as somehow separate from the world that we are looking at and evaluating. That picture, I think, is wrong. We are part of the world and our lenses are part of the world. In what sense are we and these lenses a part of this world? Here's one illustration to help make clearer what I have in mind.

In ethical discourse, there is one very influential school of thought that tends to draw a distinction between facts and values. So for instance, consider a situation in which one person kills another person. According to this way of thinking, there are, on the one hand, the facts of the situation: the one person pulled the trigger which ignited the gunpowder and propelled the bullet toward the other person's chest where it penetrated and punctured the heart, causing severe bleeding and death. Those are the facts, on the one hand. On the other hand are the value judgments that could be made on this event: was the killing murder? was it manslaughter? was it self-defense? was it authorized by a government order, as in war-time? was it authorized by a government order, as in war-time, in accordance with principles of just war? In a time and place where dueling is acceptable, the killing might not be interpreted as a murder. In a time and place where dueling is illegal, the killing might be interpreted as a murder. But the upshot of this view is that whether or not the killing counts as a murder has nothing to do with the actual facts of the case but relies upon an interpretation--usually the interpretation of the society-at-large (i.e. the laws).

Here, as in the case of worldviews, described above, there seems to be a reality/unreality distinction. The facts are thought to be real and the interpretation is thought to be, to some extent, unreal--or at least it is not as "real" as the facts. Now, many Christians would agree that this kind of view of morals and ethics is unacceptable. Most of them would argue that whether or not a particular act counts as murder amounts to an objective fact. Whether or not we are in the position to determine whether it was a murder is a different question; but whether or not the act was a murder remains a fact nonetheless.

I am intrigued by the idea (suggestion) that where worldviews are concerned, we need to come to appreciate a similar point. Now these cases do not amount to exact parallels. So we must be careful. But I am suspicious that our tendency to speak of worldviews as interpretations confers on them a kind of unreality that they do not, in fact possess. I will leave until another time a further defense of this point. What I would now like to turn to is a piece of biblical evidence for the point that I am making.

The following Scripture passage struck me in a new way after some study in philosophy of language. For just that reason, I am a bit skeptical of the very interpretation that I am about to put forward. I worry that my study in philosophy may be tainting my reading of Scripture. Still, I would like to be open to, at least, considering the point that I am about to make; perhaps my study of philosophy is illuminating my reading of Scripture.

The passage I have in mind comes from the Genesis creation account.

Genesis 1:26-28
"Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. And God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Genesis 2:19-20
"And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. And the man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him."

Notice what Genesis 2:19-20 does NOT say: "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man so that He could tell him what each was called and make sure that he got all the names right."

God did not name the animals. That task was given to man: "and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name." That's quite a gift--quite a lot of power and authority that has been conferred on man. God did not tell Adam the way it is or direct Adam to discover what the real names of the animals were. Instead, he granted Adam the authority to name the animals. And I think that "naming" and "interpreting" are closely related. I think this passage is pointing to the reality of interpretation. Interpretation is not unreal. Interpretation is not something that is separate from the world or the way the world really is. Rather, interpretation shapes reality in very "real" ways.

Now, does admitting this mean that there is no such thing as the way the world really is? I don't think so. Does it mean that man's ability to interpret and reinterpret the world is boundless or unlimited? I don't think so. Notice: "but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him." What counted as a "suitable helper" for Adam was not completely up to Adam. He was not in the position to look at a female gorilla and say, "I will call you Woman." Had he done so, I expect, God would have stepped in and said, "Um, Adam, that's not going to work." Humans have a powerful, but not unlimited, ability to interpret the world. Just as we have powerful, but not unlimited, creative abilities. We share in God's image in our ability to create and to shape matter and produce new things in the world; but we cannot create, like God, ex nihilo. Likewise, though, I believe, we are free to interpret the world in all sorts of ways, that authority is not boundless or unlimited.

What does this mean? It means that some people can be okay with eating bugs and some people can be not okay with eating bugs and there not be a contradiction--not because those are (unreal) "value judgments" but because they reflect the real abilities of people to shape the reality around them. If one were to ask God, "Is it normal or not normal to eat bugs?" he would not answer, "Yes," or "No."

What else does this mean? I fear that it does not mean that we will have an easier time working out where that dividing line is between what holds for all people in all places at all times and what is open to interpretation. We will still face that challenging question. However, the view I am proposing, I think, has the advantage of situating the discussion solidly in the realm of what is real and really the case--whereas, in traditional worldview discourse, I fear, we find ourselves in the awkward position of working with these putative "unrealities."

I think this view gives us a new way of understanding what it means to be created in the image of God and of the great power and authority and glory with which God has invested humanity.

What I have tried to do is take the question, "Does God have a worldview?" as a launching point for thinking about worldviews in general. Again, I have come to the conclusion that God does not have a worldview, but the reason that I initially thought that he might and the point that I have tried to emphasize is that I want us to take seriously that worldviews are more than just "interpretations of the world" (understood as somehow abstracted from the world, not a part of that world, and unreal) but reflect our God-given ability to shape the world around us.

--

Post scripts: This view of worldviews also does not change the fact that we are capable of bumping into reality or of finding reality to be quite contrary to our expectations and beliefs. Again, our ability to shape the world is not unlimited. (Larry cannot make Sue be attracted to him just by believing it to be so.)

One of the big questions that stays with us is how we can be properly sensitized to the way the world is. How can we know that our interpretations of the world are appropriate given the way those things actually are, even if our interpretations go beyond just the way things are. These are Heideggerian questions, I think.

--

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 127: Favorite Films

So I've been wanting to resume blogging but a lot of what I'm been scrawling about lately has been either philosophy- or 1 Corinthians-related. And that's fine and interesting for me, but I want to get back into writing on less narrowly specific topics. General how-things-are-going-with-me blogs don't strike me as very interesting, though, perhaps, I'll drop a few comments on that here or there. I needed something to write about, so I settled on an idea: movies.

I don't see a lot of movies. And over time I've come to appreciate that I have very different movie tastes then do most (or all) of my friends. I don't claim to be well-versed where films are concerned. I'm probably completely unfamiliar with most of the "classics" and don't know that I have much use for the "great" ones either. Why post a list like this? As a kind of self-exploration, I suppose. My selections probably reveal more about me then about the films; though, perhaps, if my choices reveal something about me, they also do reveal something about the films--indirectly--but I will leave others to speculate on that point.

In no particular order, here are ten films that I like.

Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan
Toy Story
Spirited Away
Treasure Planet
Miss Potter
Night at the Opera
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
The Muppets' Christmas Carol
iRobot
Finding Forester

I enjoy science fiction and have been a (mild) trekkie for many years. As far as Star Trek films go, I think the best two are The Wrath of Khan and The Undiscovered Country. Both were directed by Nicholas Meyer who, I get the impression, had an enormous impact on the way in which the stories were developed and produced. I came to appreciate The Wrath of Khan in a whole new way after reading Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities and feel that the story is all-around really solid and engaging. Also, I think the computer animation that was used in the Genesis demo is some of the finest that I have ever seen. It was groundbreaking when it was created; but even with all the amazing things that film-makers are doing with computers today, I still get chills when I watch the fly-by of that terraforming planet.

Toy Story and Toy Story 2 are both brilliant movies, story-wise. What both Woody and Buzz Lightyear learn in the course of those two movies about the meaning of life and purpose and fitting into a world that is larger than you is all so True. (Yes, capital 'T'.) There is incredible wisdom packed into those movies and presented in such a fun and enjoyable way.

Spirited Away is the first of Japanese-animator Hayao Miyazaki's films that I ever saw. His other films are all great, though I would recommend, in particular Princess Mononoke, My Neighbor Totoro, and Howl's Moving Castle. What I like about Miyazaki's films is a certain quality of simplicity that they all seem to share. In many cases, the plots and stories are not simple, but his movies have that quality about them, nonetheless. It's hard to describe. I like that his characters are simple. They are not extremely powerful or dominating figures. When faced with challenges and dangers, they do not respond with clever schemes or subtle strategies. Instead, they act from a genuinely good, truthful, and sincere heart and the result is that things turn out right in the end. In a world where we often feel the need to resort to manipulation and maneuvering and subtlety in order to succeed, it's good to be reminded of the Truth (again, capital 'T') that real goodness, truth, and love are enough and will ultimately win out. Miyazaki is also a master at crafting fantastical worlds. His animation is amazing. His work is all of the highest quality.

Treasure Planet is one of the most underappreciated of Disney's animated films. In a time when Disney seems to have been producing really low-quality animated features, this film should have stood out head and shoulders above the rest. But I fear it was the victim of an absolutely wretched ad campaign and so did not do well at all in the theaters. The story is adapted from Robert Louis Stevensons' book Treasure Island. The film makers did a marvelous job of adapting the concept. The animation and design are beautiful. The story is rich and funny and, I think, even succeeds in touching some very deep human chords.

I cannot recall Miss Potter ever being released in theaters. Maybe it was and I just didn't hear about it. If you didn't hear about it either then maybe this film, too, was the victim of a wretched ad campaign. Miss Potter is an absolutely delightful film. It's based on the life of Beatrix Potter who lived around the turn of the twentieth century and wrote, among many other children's books, The Tale of Peter Rabbit. This is an absolutely heart-warming movie and so well-crafted. I expect that part of why I like it has to do with it being about a writer and artist. The fact that it's set in late-Victorian England also helps. It is well-acted. The dialogue and characters are wonderful. You should really see it.

A Night at the Opera was the first Marx Brothers movie that I ever saw and is my favorite of all their films. Second, on that list, is probably Animal Crackers. I really enjoy the Marx Brothers. Don't ask me why, because I can't give you a really coherent answer. They're fun. Groucho's wit and Chico's accent and Harpo's antics. They're wonderful, lovable characters that are fun to root for and laugh at. They give me the opportunity to indulge my anarchic side. They're unconventional. They're fun.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is based on a graphic novel by Alan Moore and Kevin O'Neill that I don't own, but hope to some day. It is also set around the turn of the Twentieth Century and all the main characters are drawn from late nineteenth century fiction literature. Alan Quatermain, Captain Nemo, Dr. Jekyll, Dorian Gray, Mina Harker, Tom Sawyer, the invisible man. It's an exciting action packed film that's built around a solid story, incorporates a lot of nice character development, with fantastic dialogue. The design of the film is superb--the costumes, the sets, the props, the Nautilus, the Nemo-mobile. It's beautiful. The film is multi-faceted and offers a great deal even after multiple viewings.

I'm pretty sure that one could mount a convincing case that The Muppets' Christmas Carol is the best film adaptation ever of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. I've found that other film versions seem to fall flat, particularly when it comes to portraying the ghosts of Christmas and some of the more emotionally charged moments. I think there's supposed to be a lot of emotional feeling; and that's difficult to capture with ordinary human actors but suddenly becomes real and compelling when you fill the screen with these funny puppets. Michael Caine plays a brilliant Scrooge and the whole film is put together really well. This film is another example of visual effects that, though now outdated, still hold up really well.

iRobot was an interesting movie. I think, for the most part, I enjoy a lot of Will Smith's movies. Of course, iRobot is based on a collection of short science-fiction stories by Isaac Asimov--and doesn't try very hard to remain close to the character of those stories. Moreover, I think the writers also missed the opportunity to highlight what is really crucially distinct and valuable about human beings. But the story is still really interesting and engaging. The production was very well-executed and I really enjoyed and continue to enjoy seeing this film.

Finding Forrester--another Sean Connery film. He's another actor whose movies I tend to like; Dragon Heart and Indiana Jones: The Last Crusade are also good movies of his. Of course, part of what I like about this movie is the fact that its about writing. It's a nice story with a lot of really touching moments and I definitely appreciate how they stick it to the bad guy (I can't remember his name right now) in the end.

--

So let's see. Three of the movies are animated and four are children's movies. Three are science fiction and three are closely tied to Victorian England. Two are about writing and two are about the arts (visual and performing). At least two have to do with mentoring relationships. Two are action movies. Two are what you might refer to as human-drama. Do all these films have anything in common? Well, keep in mind that these aren't necessarily my ten most favorite films. They're the one's that came to mind as I thought about this blog. I could have listed others.

But about the films that I like in general--what do I think holds them together? Well, I do like animated movies, many of which are children's movies. If you think that's silly, that's fine. The real world is depressing enough; I don't need to wallow in more of it for "entertainment" purposes. And I've written elsewhere about my thoughts on Realism and just what is Really Real. I like movies that are uplifting and end on positive notes--that inspire and encourage and push you to strive for more and greater things. That's probably the main feature that holds this list together. Frankly, I'm pretty mystified when people talk about what's "artistic" and such. I think all these films have really good stories, although there may be more that goes into judging what is a "good" story than I realize.

Well, that's enough for now. I've written something and I'll post when I next get a chance and those who want to read it will read it and if you're looking for a movie to watch and see something on this list that you haven't seen before, I would absolutely recommend seeing it. Let me know what you think of it after seeing it.

Blessings,

--

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.