A Thinker's Progress

2007-04-13T11:29:00.000-06:00

My New Team!

2006-10-23T00:57:00.000-06:00

Monty Python-Philosophers play soccer

This might be the most hysterical thing i have ever seen . . . is that sad?

2006-08-16T09:24:00.000-06:00

A Thinker's Progress #8: I Have Moved

Just a quick note to let everyone know that all of my future posts will be at my new blog:

www.brainofdtrain.wordpress.com

thanks, and hope to hear from you on my new blog.

2006-08-11T14:48:00.000-06:00

A Thinker's Progress #7: Gregory of Nyssa Pt 1

I have been reading some of the church father's writings for my Church History class (it begins in only a few weeks!), and i recently read a fascinating passage from the father Gregory of Nyssa.

Let me start by saying that i know nothing about Greg except what i have learned from this book. He was heavily influenced by Neoplatonism (as were most, if ont all of the fathers at this time), which led him to have a deeply spiritual view of the intellect. However, he thought that the "knowledge" of God transcends not only the senses but even someone's cognitive thoughts.

To illustrate this, he talks about Moses encountering God on Mt Sinai in the "darkness." He teaches that in the initial stages of someone's religious knowledge comes to them as illumination, but "the closer it (the believer's mind) approaches the vision of God the more it recognizes the invisible character of the divine nature."

Pretty heavy stuff i think. It seems that Greg is saying that the pinnacle of knowing God transcends not only the senses but even the mind. I am not sure whether Greg refers to the human soul or to the core of the nature of God when he says that God is most profoundly found in the interior, in a place beyond our senses and thoughts to to the "unseeable, and the incomprehensable." As he puts it: "For the goal of our search is beyond all knowledge; it is surrounded on all sides by a wall of incomprehensibility like a kind of darkness."

This paradoxical idea of seeing God in the dark is really intriguing, but i find its (over, in my mind)emphasis on transcendence to be a bit frightening. Of course, Greg would say that is the point: "So the very first commandment of God is that the divine is not to be likened to anything within the range of human knowledge." This idea lays significant groundwork for deterministic thinking, although i don't know if Greg endorsed such thought (most of the fathers didn't).

However, maybe the incarnation solves this problem; the unkowable God has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ: "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known (John 1:18).

Wow, this was way too long. Any Thoughts?

2006-07-28T09:07:00.000-06:00

A Thinker's Progress #6: Historic Christianity, Modern Walls

Well i recently started my reading for my upcoming church history class. I have to confess that my initial feeling was that i was going to be bored out of my mind on this one, and i was intimidated to say the least by the amount of reading required.

I think that i am still a bit intimidated, but i am actually really enjoying the material. It is fascinating to watch a historian interact with the Bible. The first book i am reading is called "A Short History of Christianity" by Martin E. Marty. To read up about him and his work click here. He views the Bible from a different vantage point than I, who tend to think more devotional and exegetically about it. This is great b/c he reaches some different conclusions than i do, and they have challenged me.

For example, Marty maintains that there was divison in the Apostolic church. He gets this from Paul recount of visiting Jerusalem in Galatians 2, as well as the emphasis on the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 by Luke. I am not going to go into all the details of his argument here, but i will say that i think that he is reading too much into the text. Paul and Peter didn't always see eye-to-eye, but to say Paul was combating heresy from the men who had been with Jesus is a stretch.

Either way, the most interesting thing about his perspective to me is how as Acts progresses Paul's churches, while being attacked by sinful living from the inside, and heresy on the outside, Paul's work still grew and flourished, whereas the "mother church" in Jerusalem didn't. Why was this?

Marty claims that this is b/c the Jerusalem church couldn't completely part ways with their traditions to go and evangelize the gentiles. They were okay with gentiles not following Judaic rituals, but weren't okay leaving their place of safety to do exsperience "gentile Christianity." He argues that in essence, the Jerusalem church couldn't let go of the old and move on, and as a result, they died out fairly quickly.

I am not sure if Marty is 100%, or even 80% accurate, but this idea raises some tough questions for me today. It makes me wonder if i am building up walls through my behavior that i am not willing to let go that push people away from Christ. On Gadsden's blog (see blog column to the right) he talks about love, and why we resist/fear it. My current reading helped me to see an additional reason for why we resist love: our rituals provide comfort and familiarity, and often they act like walls that isolate us from people and God. This is a tragedy i am often guilty of.

As believers we must be willing to extend ourselves into uncomfortable areas, because it is there that we find love. If we don't take a chance, a risk (not an open theism reference!), then we remain in our cage of traditions, locked in from the inside. Maybe if we embrace it, fear can be our ultimate ally, because when we can sense fear's nearness, we know that he has brought opportunity for a love that conquers with him.

Lord may we welcome unfamiliarity as our friend and teacher in the way of agape.

2006-07-25T21:14:00.000-06:00

A Thinker's Progress #5: "I Do"

Well, i recently took the "plunge" and got hitched. I got married on July 1st, went on a week-long honeymoon, and then spent the last two weeks getting moved to my new home an hour away from where we graduated from college. This will hopefully explain why i haven't posted in over a month; it has been one crazy month.

I am excited to finish the "Jesus, the smartest man who ever lived" posts, as well as talk about married life, living in huge city (over 300,000 people), and other such theologoical ramblings. My first class for graduate school is over church history, so i am sure that my posts will move in that direction. I have over 1,200 pages to read in a little under two months once the class starts in late August (i am going to start early!) spanning over a variety of backgrounds and perspectives, so i am pretty pumped and intimdated.

One initial comment over marriage. It is great, but not what i (naively) expected. However, it has already been one of the most profound object lessons regarding what it means to have faith in Christ that i have experienced to this point in my life. She and i are one. Everything i have is hers. I have realized that the only way i am going to be able to love like Christ does the church is to trust her completely. I have to believe that she will hold up her end of the deal, or i immediately begin to act selfishly, trying to take "terrritory," so that i can eventually "win the war." I assume that the parallel (marriage-faith in Christ) is obvious.

That's it for now.

2006-06-15T09:35:00.000-06:00

A Thinker's Progress #4: Jesus, the Smartest Man Who Ever Lived (Pt 2)

I have been working through Willard's article more today (see post #3 to get a copy), and he has begun to expound further upon what he means by calling Jesus a "logician." He does not mean that Jesus developed or taught logical theories, but rather is referring to his use of logic and the insights he gained from logical thinking when he spoke with people.

Jesus' goal, according to Willard, was not to win battles. He didn't listen to the pharisees and point out the inconsistencies in their thought just to prove them wrong (although he did do that), but rather to teach them about the Kingdom of God.

He did this by trying to help his hearers gain insight into his teachings internally on their own. Thus Jesus' use of logic is always enthymemic, which is a fancy way to say that his arguments were always "missing" a premise or a conclusion, like most ordinary conversation does.

Jesus talked like this because he wasn't about forcing the Kingdom down anyone's throat. He wanted them to have that "eureka moment" on their own (with the aid of the Spirit), so that they would willingly choose to follow him. In short, he wanted people who had ears to hear.

Jesus' style of argumentation is good food for thought for those who wish to evangelize. While Jesus' mind was razor sharp, he was kind and wanted others to understand and choose to believe, not be pinned down and forced. Whether we are witnessing to someone with a PhD or someone who is more experience-driven, we should be alert to how we are presenting the Gospel. This is b/c how we present the Gospel is itself a moral act. This point brings us to the connection between logic (good thinking) and morality, which is the subject of the next post.

2006-06-14T00:14:00.000-06:00

A Thinker's Progress #3: Jesus, the Smartest Man Who Ever Lived (Pt 1)

Today i have started combing through a journal article written by Dallas Willard. Willard is a Christian who is a professor of philosophy at USC and a reknown author and speaker. The journal article is called "Jesus the Logician." To read a printable version of the article click here.

Willard asserts that:

In understanding how discipleship to Jesus Christ works, a major issue is how he automatically presents himself to our minds. It is characteristic of most 20th century Christians that he does not automatically come to mind as one of great intellectual power . . .

As can be surmised from me labeling this post Pt 1, i have several different thoughts on this. However, for the sake of clarity (and getting some sleep) let me pose two basic questions tonight: One, when you think of Jesus, do you think of Him as someone of intelligence? I assume that we would all agree He is now in his risen state, unfettered by our temporary bodies, but what about when He was here now, in one of our bodies? Second, what was the extent of Jesus' knowledge? Did His brain, roughly the same size as yours, contain the knowledge of psyics, logical theory, oil painting, economic theories, and what the Grand Canyon looked like? Did He simply know what He had learned during His human life time? Did He even have to study?

I ask this question for two reasons. 1) It reveals one's picture of God, which has implications for how we "do" our faith, and 2) it reveals a key aspect of one's theology. What say you?

2006-06-12T01:24:00.000-06:00

A Thinker's Progress: Introduction

This is actually a re-post of my original thoughts about what i hoped this blog would be. After two months and several blunders, i think that i have finally grasped how to maintain a blog site. With that in mind, here is my original post.

My purpose in starting this blog is to discuss theology and philosophy. To many, this will seem as a waste of time at best, and a devisive tool at worst. However, let me try to elucidate why this site will be different as succintly as possible.Many people my age have charged that theology is impractical, and often turns into a contest to see "who is smarter (the person that i remember saying this was quoting, interestingly enough, Brian Mclaren)," rather than how our beliefs can be well-informed yet practical to our daily walks with Christ.

I see much truth in my friends, and in general, evangelical Christians, claims here. However, my earnest hope and prayer is that we can find a solution that allows us to have both.It seems to me that when people say that theologians are people who sit in ivory tower think-tanks, and do no "real ministry." What is often needed, many say, is just to read the bible, believe it, and do it.What is interesting about this line of reasoning is that it is actually fallacious logically. These sentiments are a perfect example of what is called the "false dilemma." Basically, this fallacy occurs when two options or solutions to a problem, which are often the two extreme points, are held to be the only solutions available, when actually there are more options to be considered., some of which seek a middle ground between the two extremes. I believe that is what is happening in this situation, although sadly some people's commitment to not consider philosophic ideas prevent them from seeing what they are doing here.In essence, i am saying that it is not necessary to throw out the baby with the bathwater (pardon the crude analogy).

We can in fact, have our cake and eat it too. I believe this is possible when we appraoch our intellectual pursuits with humility. When we start believing that all that we believe is 100% correct, we run into the danger of pride, which is the real cause of our "i am smarter than you" discussions.I like the theologian Clark Pinnock's analogy of being a "pilgrim." A pilgrim is a journeyman, someone who hasn't arrived yet. I believe that this metaphor is the right way to do theology.If we conduct our discussions in an attitude of still journeying towards a better understanding of God, we leave ourselves open to learning from each other, and possibly seeing Truth clearer, which will enable us to get at the real goal of all that we do; a deeper, more passionately lived discipleship with the Lord Jesus Christ.

I invite you to join me on my pilgrimage of faith. May we seek to understand God as best that we can, so that we may serve Him

2006-06-11T17:44:00.000-06:00

A Thinker's Progress #2: To hell with sin

Recently i was trying to work through an extreme bout of spiritual apathy. What has been interesting to me has been that during a lot of this time i had not really been doing a whole lot "wrong." I had tried to love my fiance, eat well, and work hard at my job, and i would say that for the most part i have been able to do that (my fiance might disagree). Despite my actions, i felt dead inside. I found myself distraught.

That began to change this past weekend when i went with my fiance to visit a friend of mine and visit the pastor who is to marry us. As we were making the roughly two hour trek up to my friend's house a sermon came on the radio. I normally dislike listening to sermons in the car (i have no idea why), but she wanted to and i agreed.

The pastor began to preach over Psalm 6. For those of you who don't know, that is one of several Psalms categorized as the "penitential psalms." These Psalms have traditionally been used by the church as texts to call itself to repentance of sin (see also Psalms 32 & 51). I immediately began to dislike what i was hearing, because i thought that it was stupid for Christians to spend their time flooding their bed with weeping and drenching their couches with tears (Ps 6:6). "Yes we sin" i thought, but get up and get moving again! I thought that this focus on sin was counterproductive at best, morbid at worst.

After a weekend to think about this, i see now how foolish my initial impressions were. Being a Christian is't about efficiency; it is about pleasing God. Sometimes we need to feel bad, b/c it moves to a place where God can give us true happiness! The Bible never asks us to only weep, but it also never says we will never be sad. God's grace can be implanted in our hearts only as deeply as we allow him to dig and remove our sin to make room for it. Sadly it seems that He can dig deeper than we ever thought He could (or wanted Him to). It is scary to realize that until we allow God's ever-present heavy hand of holiness to spur us on to acknowledge our sin and beg for him to remove it from us, our souls are sapped of strength (Ps 32:3-5). Once that is the case, we are merely trying to look busy by what we do. We are wasting our time and God's offering Him filthy rags.

This has really been an interesting time of "relearning." I am discovering that while the actions are the same, i am starting to notice the Lord again. The pain was worth it, but i hope that i don't have to "relearn" it again.

2006-04-18T12:52:00.000-06:00

A Thinker's Progess #1: Open Theism

One of the newest and most controversial ideas in Christian Theology today is the debate
surrounding what is know as open theism. This view is a distinct, and depending on who you
talk to, fundamentally different view concerning the nature of God and how He works in the
world.

The basic tenet of this system is that God by his own free choice, has decided to give up
exhaustive definite foreknowledge and as a necessary corollary, meticulous control of earthly
affairs. This is done for the sake of genuine (in theological & philosophical terms, libertarian) freedom, which according to the open theist is a necessary component of an genuine, loving
relationship.

Although i hope to write more about this topic in the future, for now i will include an
ample bibliography over both sides of the debate. This issue represents my first major journey
into Christian theology, and as such qualifies as my first "pilgrimage" as a Christian theologian.

Here is the site that has the bibliography. Enjoy!