Something in me cries out for change. "There must be more than this" is a phrase in a current worship song. Maybe it should be "There must something different than this." What will it take to actually be agents of the kingdom of God? What will it take for us to 1) Walk in the power and presence of Jesus all the time, producing fruit in season (i.e. results!) and 2) be solid, trustworthy, dependable people. Why do I list these separately? Because there's a perception out there that if you seek after 1) you will probably not qualify for 2).
There are, I'm certain, other dichotomies out there. "If you want this, you can't have that." But I reject them. I want the whole enchilada (as the saying goes.) I want a church filled with thousands of people, all disciples of the Messiah, (not of anyone else!) in proper, healthy, relationships with each other, worshipping God in his fullness with all their hearts, producing fruit in all areas of ministry through the power of Him who dwells with us, walking in love for each other and all around them, with leaders who are not the focal point or the motivation of the church's activity, but rather who faithfully keep the whole already moving entity from straying from God's path which is clear to all. This is my prayer for my church. Pray it for yours, too.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Friday, July 13, 2012
Utility
In the previous post, admittedly in a very oblique way, I touch on an idea that has been becoming more and more clear to me. It's something I've used in the past but not really given a name. But I have one now and that name is utility.
Utility as a principle is a criterion for judging any theory, theological, philosophical or otherwise. I've used it in the past to choose open theism over classic theism, because one of the problems I have with the idea that every bit of minutia about my life is foreknown and therefore (people who ignore this 'therefore' are just being dishonest, in my books) predetermined is that it's no damn use to me. Such a view precludes prayer or any effort at all. Why would I involve my heart or passion in anything I do under such a scheme? Indeed most devout classic theists live like thoroughgoing open theists, praying to move the heart of a God that technically they believe to have already been in the future and decided it by knowing it, but willing to dichotomize and follow their hearts. Thus partly based on the non-utility of the theory of God existing outside a time that also already exists, I find I can't espouse it.
The post 'in other news' pokes fun at the atheistic religionists that I frequently encounter on my favourite tech news site, Slashdot. They pillory ad infinitum, at nauseam, all who refuse to espouse the idea that the complexity of life we see every day as merely a product of chance. Intelligent Design for them is an epithet, synonymous with stupidity. And yet, when we encounter complexity, as the character, Alison Blake, did in Eureka, (Series finale is next Monday!) it's of no use at all (no utility) to assume that it's a mere product of chance, and we just don't. The researchers who discovered Flame and Stuxnet, based on their findings of complexity, did not immediately assume that the right combination of operating system, hardware and atmospheric conditions had caused these targeted malware attacks to simply evolve. Rather, they theorized a concerted effort by technologically enabled government departments. And it appears they were right.
So also every investigative agency on the planet. Nothing complex and seemingly concerted can be viewed as random coincidence. CIA or NSA analysts would lose their jobs if they started with the assumption of randomness. So also everyone else. The most thoroughgoing (I love that word) atheistic evolutionist would not assume that time and chance produced a nasty prank against his daughter in school. And yet we are told, against all that we intuitively know, that underlying all of the universe there is a phenomenon of chance producing the complexity of life we see around us. Can it be? Written into the fabric of the universe is a basic principle -- evolution caused by chance alone -- that runs counter to all our method of living? Nuts. So I reject the idea. It has no utility. Oh wait, I forgot. It does have a use! It's a handy-dandy way of ignoring and helping others to ignore the uncomfortable idea that Someone might have caused me!
Utility as a principle is a criterion for judging any theory, theological, philosophical or otherwise. I've used it in the past to choose open theism over classic theism, because one of the problems I have with the idea that every bit of minutia about my life is foreknown and therefore (people who ignore this 'therefore' are just being dishonest, in my books) predetermined is that it's no damn use to me. Such a view precludes prayer or any effort at all. Why would I involve my heart or passion in anything I do under such a scheme? Indeed most devout classic theists live like thoroughgoing open theists, praying to move the heart of a God that technically they believe to have already been in the future and decided it by knowing it, but willing to dichotomize and follow their hearts. Thus partly based on the non-utility of the theory of God existing outside a time that also already exists, I find I can't espouse it.
The post 'in other news' pokes fun at the atheistic religionists that I frequently encounter on my favourite tech news site, Slashdot. They pillory ad infinitum, at nauseam, all who refuse to espouse the idea that the complexity of life we see every day as merely a product of chance. Intelligent Design for them is an epithet, synonymous with stupidity. And yet, when we encounter complexity, as the character, Alison Blake, did in Eureka, (Series finale is next Monday!) it's of no use at all (no utility) to assume that it's a mere product of chance, and we just don't. The researchers who discovered Flame and Stuxnet, based on their findings of complexity, did not immediately assume that the right combination of operating system, hardware and atmospheric conditions had caused these targeted malware attacks to simply evolve. Rather, they theorized a concerted effort by technologically enabled government departments. And it appears they were right.
So also every investigative agency on the planet. Nothing complex and seemingly concerted can be viewed as random coincidence. CIA or NSA analysts would lose their jobs if they started with the assumption of randomness. So also everyone else. The most thoroughgoing (I love that word) atheistic evolutionist would not assume that time and chance produced a nasty prank against his daughter in school. And yet we are told, against all that we intuitively know, that underlying all of the universe there is a phenomenon of chance producing the complexity of life we see around us. Can it be? Written into the fabric of the universe is a basic principle -- evolution caused by chance alone -- that runs counter to all our method of living? Nuts. So I reject the idea. It has no utility. Oh wait, I forgot. It does have a use! It's a handy-dandy way of ignoring and helping others to ignore the uncomfortable idea that Someone might have caused me!
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
In other news...
The slashdot council on doctrinal purity (SCDP) has threatened to subject itself to a taste of its own medicine and resign en masse over failing to censure 'Eureka' writer Bruce Miller for an apparent 'Intelligent Design' slip of the pen. In episode S05E11, 'Eureka' character Dr. Alison Blake, observing the effects of a mysterious computer glitch was made to utter the blasphemous words, "it can't be an accident -- it's too complex!" When asked why there was not an immediate and caustic post on slashdot on the night of the show's airing SCDP members admitted that they had been too interested in the plot to notice and, in an unguarded moment, one even guessed that the story might have been less interesting should the glitch have been of completely random origin.
It was only later, after extensive reprogramming, that SCDPers have turned their usual inquisitional fervour on themselves and threatened to resign because of their failure to shield young minds from the pernicious idea that one can infer design from complexity. Earlier today, the SCDP released a statement admitting that its formerly unimpeachably pure scientific outlook had become tainted with mere common sense and begging, on behalf of all members, to be released from their essential slashdot duties. The release explained that although the members knew that slashdot could not function without their input, they would rather see it temporarily crippled rather than 'endanger the minds of the impressionable.' Faced with this crisis, the slashdot high directorate (SHD) has not accepted the resignation of the SCDP but has instead instituted regular beatings for SCDP members. We are assured from inside sources that SCDPers have found this quite acceptable and that in future, no such further slip-ups will occur.
It was only later, after extensive reprogramming, that SCDPers have turned their usual inquisitional fervour on themselves and threatened to resign because of their failure to shield young minds from the pernicious idea that one can infer design from complexity. Earlier today, the SCDP released a statement admitting that its formerly unimpeachably pure scientific outlook had become tainted with mere common sense and begging, on behalf of all members, to be released from their essential slashdot duties. The release explained that although the members knew that slashdot could not function without their input, they would rather see it temporarily crippled rather than 'endanger the minds of the impressionable.' Faced with this crisis, the slashdot high directorate (SHD) has not accepted the resignation of the SCDP but has instead instituted regular beatings for SCDP members. We are assured from inside sources that SCDPers have found this quite acceptable and that in future, no such further slip-ups will occur.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Songwriting -- Canto I: The Struggle
I've had a dream of mine come true -- at least partially, but even the part that has come true astounds me. So in gratefulness, I'm going to document it here.
I refer to songwriting. I'm privileged to lead worship approximately once a month at my church and last Sunday four of the songs we (not just we the worship group, but we the congregation, you understand) sang in worship of our Lord were of my own making -- and in the context of my struggle to have my music recognized by my own church, that is nothing short of amazing to me. I dreamed it long ago. It has happened. Got to say thank you.
It may be a bit silly of me to try a thing like songwriting. 'Why?' seems like an appropriate question. Well, if you've spent any time reading this blog, or if you know me from elsewhere, you'll know I tend to try to swim upstream. If the trend is one way, I will try to buck it if I can. So probably that's in the mix. It's a challenge. Probably also I'm admirer of good music (a loaded phrase, laden with objective and subjective overtones) and I want to produce some, too. The inclusion of the 'too' in that last sentence, reveals a competitiveness, godly or not, that also drives me. On top of that justice also drives me. I recently watched a talk by Bret Victor, a noted software developer, (I gather that if you are an iPhone user, you see his work all the time) who says that life is not as much about following your dreams as having strong principles, which, when they are violated, drive you to do something about it and correct the situation with whatever creativity you have. Church music is my situation. When I see it, a voice in me says, "There's something we lack in our songs, something missing, something that is slipping away, or some way in which we have stagnated by not having original new songs" and I must do my part to try and rectify that.
There. I've just articulated more about my reasons for songwriting than I've ever done to myself before. Conscious choices, in black and white. But it wasn't always this way. When I started on this particular journey I was the starry-eyed admirer of Vineyard worship and the wealth of new music which came forth from this movement, which I joined and have stayed with (long after the initial bloom has died and we have to see what fruit the tree will yet produce.) My prayer was, "God, let me write songs, too." I would pray that frequently, and pick up my guitar and try. And nothing would happen, or, nothing that I could honestly identify as an answer to a prayer for new songs. (This is not really accurate: I wrote one or two but there was no sense that it was possible that I could ever write any more than that) But I kept praying and I kept trying, and suddenly, it seems, in retrospect, at a retreat (an Alpha "Holy Spirit" weekend, if you want to know...) I wrote a song (we sang it last Sunday) which seemed to uncork the bottle. After that for a time, I wrote new songs nearly every day. God had really answered my prayer. But there was a hitch, a missing component, a thing without which the blessing of being able to write songs at all was somewhat sour. Maybe I never thought to ask for this also. Maybe God just wanted me to gain what nobody wants the bother of gaining, that is, character, so he withheld this other blessing at the time. I refer to what some have called 'favor.' There. I said it. Favor. Now I have to resist the temptation to digress into a rant against super-spiritualized Christian code words. But whatever you want to call it, the truth was that few people saw anything particularly special in my songs. I tried submitting them to some who had oversight of that sort of thing in our church and their response was akin to "Don't call us. We'll call you." Yeah. That felt real good. But it didn't stop me from writing even more songs. And I didn't stop. I have slowed over time, but I still haven't stopped. Anyway, it was pretty frustrating. Truth is, if you don't have the opportunity to teach others your songs, no one will get to love them and I certainly didn't.
I'm not going to chart my whole journey from there to here except to mention that some people actually believed in me and my songs. My brother, for one, and a few others -- very sustaining and more than in a small way. So now they let me lead worship and they let me teach my songs and they seem to like it. I thank God. It's a load off my heart. It was always supposed to be a gift to share. I hope to keep sharing.
I refer to songwriting. I'm privileged to lead worship approximately once a month at my church and last Sunday four of the songs we (not just we the worship group, but we the congregation, you understand) sang in worship of our Lord were of my own making -- and in the context of my struggle to have my music recognized by my own church, that is nothing short of amazing to me. I dreamed it long ago. It has happened. Got to say thank you.
It may be a bit silly of me to try a thing like songwriting. 'Why?' seems like an appropriate question. Well, if you've spent any time reading this blog, or if you know me from elsewhere, you'll know I tend to try to swim upstream. If the trend is one way, I will try to buck it if I can. So probably that's in the mix. It's a challenge. Probably also I'm admirer of good music (a loaded phrase, laden with objective and subjective overtones) and I want to produce some, too. The inclusion of the 'too' in that last sentence, reveals a competitiveness, godly or not, that also drives me. On top of that justice also drives me. I recently watched a talk by Bret Victor, a noted software developer, (I gather that if you are an iPhone user, you see his work all the time) who says that life is not as much about following your dreams as having strong principles, which, when they are violated, drive you to do something about it and correct the situation with whatever creativity you have. Church music is my situation. When I see it, a voice in me says, "There's something we lack in our songs, something missing, something that is slipping away, or some way in which we have stagnated by not having original new songs" and I must do my part to try and rectify that.
There. I've just articulated more about my reasons for songwriting than I've ever done to myself before. Conscious choices, in black and white. But it wasn't always this way. When I started on this particular journey I was the starry-eyed admirer of Vineyard worship and the wealth of new music which came forth from this movement, which I joined and have stayed with (long after the initial bloom has died and we have to see what fruit the tree will yet produce.) My prayer was, "God, let me write songs, too." I would pray that frequently, and pick up my guitar and try. And nothing would happen, or, nothing that I could honestly identify as an answer to a prayer for new songs. (This is not really accurate: I wrote one or two but there was no sense that it was possible that I could ever write any more than that) But I kept praying and I kept trying, and suddenly, it seems, in retrospect, at a retreat (an Alpha "Holy Spirit" weekend, if you want to know...) I wrote a song (we sang it last Sunday) which seemed to uncork the bottle. After that for a time, I wrote new songs nearly every day. God had really answered my prayer. But there was a hitch, a missing component, a thing without which the blessing of being able to write songs at all was somewhat sour. Maybe I never thought to ask for this also. Maybe God just wanted me to gain what nobody wants the bother of gaining, that is, character, so he withheld this other blessing at the time. I refer to what some have called 'favor.' There. I said it. Favor. Now I have to resist the temptation to digress into a rant against super-spiritualized Christian code words. But whatever you want to call it, the truth was that few people saw anything particularly special in my songs. I tried submitting them to some who had oversight of that sort of thing in our church and their response was akin to "Don't call us. We'll call you." Yeah. That felt real good. But it didn't stop me from writing even more songs. And I didn't stop. I have slowed over time, but I still haven't stopped. Anyway, it was pretty frustrating. Truth is, if you don't have the opportunity to teach others your songs, no one will get to love them and I certainly didn't.
I'm not going to chart my whole journey from there to here except to mention that some people actually believed in me and my songs. My brother, for one, and a few others -- very sustaining and more than in a small way. So now they let me lead worship and they let me teach my songs and they seem to like it. I thank God. It's a load off my heart. It was always supposed to be a gift to share. I hope to keep sharing.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Someday... Yesterday
Yesterday,
This revival seemed so far away
Now it looks as if it's here to stay
Oh I believed it yesterday
Suddenly,
There's a power coming over me
More than twice the man I used to be
Oh something new came suddenly
Why it took so long, I don't know
I couldn't say,
Then he came so strong
Like we longed for yesterday
Yesterday
Praying, crying for it everyday
Now it looks as if he's come to stay
Oh I believe I bless this day!
This revival seemed so far away
Now it looks as if it's here to stay
Oh I believed it yesterday
Suddenly,
There's a power coming over me
More than twice the man I used to be
Oh something new came suddenly
Why it took so long, I don't know
I couldn't say,
Then he came so strong
Like we longed for yesterday
Yesterday
Praying, crying for it everyday
Now it looks as if he's come to stay
Oh I believe I bless this day!
Sunday, April 15, 2012
The Myth of the Theological 'Alone'
It happened in the context of an argument. It often does for me, so I'm used to it. A group of people who all disagree when I bring forward an alternative view that I'd been brewing, and yet I didn't think they needed to. My alternative view didn't rule out anything they said, though they treated it that way. I was merely emphasizing something that I thought had been neglected. So I've been pondering how things like that happen. It came to me that Martin Luther might have started it. Since his 'Justification by Faith Alone' it's possible that the use of the word 'Alone' has been an expected feature of all theological debate. It speaks of entrenchment. It speaks of either-or, it rules out both-and.
Look at Luther's cockeyed down-rating of the book of James -- a mere straw epistle he called it. James, that wonderfully practical view of the Faith, mere straw? And why? because Luther could not reconcile James' emphasis with his own now entrenched position. Yes, I know he got to this position through divine revelation. I don't even doubt it. But it seems to me that revelational experience is a double edged sword in theological pursuits. We need fresh ideas and paradigms and that's one edge, but defending your private revelation is apt to entrench you in your own ideas and not allow for balancing views.
Look at Luther's cockeyed down-rating of the book of James -- a mere straw epistle he called it. James, that wonderfully practical view of the Faith, mere straw? And why? because Luther could not reconcile James' emphasis with his own now entrenched position. Yes, I know he got to this position through divine revelation. I don't even doubt it. But it seems to me that revelational experience is a double edged sword in theological pursuits. We need fresh ideas and paradigms and that's one edge, but defending your private revelation is apt to entrench you in your own ideas and not allow for balancing views.
Bad Theology And God's Love for His Children
Yesterday at prayer meeting we prayed for some specific people, that God would heal them. There was a bit of a discussion in that process that turned up some bloggable material that I'd like to hash through here.
Point. There's not one bit of God that is bad. He's all good. He never intends evil to anyone. Even though he is never caught off guard by evil and can and will go to extravagant lengths to redeem his creation in face of evil, his intentions never include it. (So yes. I'm a thoroughgoing open theist. God made Adam and Eve with every intention of a joyful eternity and did not 'know' that they would fall. I speak here of a timeless 'knowledge' that would make him out to be a twisted person who would see all the horror awaiting his children and create them anyways. I just don't -- God help me -- accept that.)
From this we understand that God's plan, although, he will work with and around our sickness is never our sickness itself. He doesn't wantonly damage his creation: he restores, he redeems, he heals it. Suffering in the context of the kingdom battle that is still happening will come, but not from God afflicting his children with sickness.
So what do you do about stories where people who receive their sickness as from God and suffer and die with a glorious sense of the presence of God all around them? I realized (again, probably, because I'm sure it's not the first time I've thought this) that God's love for his children supersedes bad theology. "According to your faith be it done to you." or something like that. If someone has a problematic idea that blocks God from doing what he does naturally, i.e. heal, he will still love them and dwell with them, sometimes gloriously. But don't let's, as Christians have in the past, build a theology around it and bless sickness itself as a 'gift' from God.
Yeah, that sounds a bit militant. Whatever.
Point. There's not one bit of God that is bad. He's all good. He never intends evil to anyone. Even though he is never caught off guard by evil and can and will go to extravagant lengths to redeem his creation in face of evil, his intentions never include it. (So yes. I'm a thoroughgoing open theist. God made Adam and Eve with every intention of a joyful eternity and did not 'know' that they would fall. I speak here of a timeless 'knowledge' that would make him out to be a twisted person who would see all the horror awaiting his children and create them anyways. I just don't -- God help me -- accept that.)
From this we understand that God's plan, although, he will work with and around our sickness is never our sickness itself. He doesn't wantonly damage his creation: he restores, he redeems, he heals it. Suffering in the context of the kingdom battle that is still happening will come, but not from God afflicting his children with sickness.
So what do you do about stories where people who receive their sickness as from God and suffer and die with a glorious sense of the presence of God all around them? I realized (again, probably, because I'm sure it's not the first time I've thought this) that God's love for his children supersedes bad theology. "According to your faith be it done to you." or something like that. If someone has a problematic idea that blocks God from doing what he does naturally, i.e. heal, he will still love them and dwell with them, sometimes gloriously. But don't let's, as Christians have in the past, build a theology around it and bless sickness itself as a 'gift' from God.
Yeah, that sounds a bit militant. Whatever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)