pilgrim.not.wanderer

Dualism is totally passe.  If you confess dualism or engage in practices that seem to presuppose dualism, that’s a major clue that you don’t ‘get it’.  There are many rationales for this.  Pick your favourite.

So why then all this talk of embodiment?  You can be as pro-body and pro-embodiment as you like.  Good for you.  But to do so is to continue to live in the realm of dualism, right?

This seems so obvious to me.  How is it that everyone is missing this?  Am I missing something?

BTW - I’m in favour of all that pro-body and pro-embodiment talk.  But I’m also a dualist of sorts.  Though I’m not sure precisely what sort of dualist I am.

I’m a mystic.  I hope my recent diatribes against the charismatic movement do not sugest otherwise.

God is the inescapably present One.  I can’t shake him.  Even the dark days are haunted my him.  Even in the face of horrors, my deepest reaction is always the classic prayer: How long Lord?  How long?

I’m a mystic.  But not in the manner of traditional mysticism.  As I understand it, traditional mysticism (even that found in the Christian tradition) is at base anti-Christian.  

I do not hide away in solitude, entering deep within myself in the hopes of finding God’s warm and loving embrace.  I do not attempt to ’spiritually’ ascend into heaven and meet God by engaging in some sort of ‘meditative’ or ’spiritual’ practices.

No.  I encounter God in Christ, as he comes to me clothed in the Gospel.  God is near because he has descended down to meet me in Christ.  I find God despite myself and my feelings.  I find God despite good or bad circumstances.  I do not read providence as a plain revelation of God’s good pleasure.  The world and its unfolding history is mired in sin.  

God comes to me from without, encountering me in the Gospel, preached to me as strange news from afar.  This is not natural.  Yes, there is a natural revelation of God, but it is not good news.  By nature God is revealed to be awesome, yet terrible.  No warm and loving embrace here, outside of Christ.  By nature we are children of wrath.  And this is as it should be.  Idolatry is our attempt to find a warm and loving God in the face of a natural revelation which reveals him to be otherwise.  Good, yes.  But warm and loving, no.  God’s being good is not good news to me if I’m wicked.

I dare not search for God outside of Christ and the Gospel.  To find God outside of the Gospel is to encounter a terrible and all-consuming fire.  

Someone will say that God so loved the world that he gave his only Son.  Yes.  This is the Gospel.

Notice that God did not so love the world that the sending of his Son was unnecessary.   Given our state, God’s love required the sending of his Son.  This is precisely my point.

God’s love of the world is costly and messy.  It mustn’t be taken for granted.  It is cruciform.  

Ok, whether you are pro-choice or right-to-life, don’t you find this is bizarre?

York University student union calls for ban on anti-abortion groups

In response to a series of controversies over abortion debates on Canadian campuses, the student government of York University in Toronto has tabled an outright ban on student clubs that are opposed to abortion.

Gilary Massa, vice-president external of the York Federation of Students, said student clubs will be free to discuss abortion in student space, as long as they do it “within a pro-choice realm,” and that all clubs will be investigated to ensure compliance.

“You have to recognize that a woman has a choice over her own body,” Ms. Massa said. “We think that these pro-life, these anti-choice groups, they’re sexist in nature … The way that they speak about women who decide to have abortions is demoralizing. They call them murderers, all of them do … Is this an issue of free speech? No, this is an issue of women’s rights.”

The school’s administration condemned the decision as contrary to its academic mission.

One of the major problems in the abortion debate is the assumption amongst pro-choicers (and pro-lifers?) that the pro-life position is based upon faith in peculiar religious doctrines that not everyone shares.  As I see it, the pro-life position is no more religious in nature than the ‘anti-murder position’ or the ‘anti-sexual-assault’ position.  It is a matter of public justice that we can deliberate on together.

The pro-choicers want to say that it is simply a matter of women’s rights and reproductive rights.  If that’s all that mattered in the debate, then OF COURSE the pro-choice position is the right one.  Sign me up.  But the debate exists because it seems that it is not merely a matter of women’s rights and reproductive rights.  If that’s how it seems, then it is perfectly rational to inquire into whether there are other considerations that need to be factored in.  All this should be obvious.

Just shouting “a woman has choice over her own body” doesn’t accomplish much.  I agree that a woman has choice over her own body.  Of course!  

An example of how some rights trump others:  Imagine I owned slaves.  The slaves want to be free.  I say no.  It goes to court.  I say that I have a right to property.  The slaves are my property, case closed.  Nevertheless, the slaves have human rights which trump my right to property.  So they go free.

The fact that the slaves go free in no way means that I have no right to property.  It just means that the human rights of the slaves are preeminent.

So whether or not the pro-life position is the right one, the fact remains that being pro-life doesn’t require you to deny the existence of women’s rights and reproductive rights.

We have universal healthcare in Canada and we’re very proud of it.  Our politicians brag about it all the time.  Why don’t we have a similar universal food program in Canada?  

If we had to pay for healthcare, the rich would get better care than the rest of us, right?  

The idea behind universal healthcare is that your monetary wealth shouldn’t determine your access to healthcare.  The poor deserve the best healthcare just as much as the rich.

Isn’t the same true of food?  Don’t the poor deserve the best food just as much as the rich?  Isn’t it obvious that the rich are healthier (at least in part) because they can afford far better food?  What about exercise clubs?  

I’ve come across a bunch of youtube videos of news reports on racism in small town America.  This got me thinking.  Maybe I have lived a sheltered life.  I grew up around the kind of Christians who would find overt racism completely ridiculous and incomprehensible.  The first song I learned was probably “Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world, red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight…”  

I’m a grad student at a university.  Here too overt racism simply isn’t a live option.  It has been so thoroughly shamed as to be laughable.  We all have an instinctual distain for overt racism.  We can’t help but feel shocked and shaken when we encounter even a whiff of racism. The only thing left to worry about is ’systemic racism’.  BTW - I learned about systemic racism way back in grade 7.  Grade 7!!!  I can hardly remember a time in my life when I wasn’t trained and ready to be on guard for hints of racism.  This, even though you could probably count the number of visible minorities in my hometown on a couple of sets of hands.

Anyway, for years now I’ve thought overt racism was nothing but a sad but distant memory.  Sure, I’ve heard people tell me rude race based jokes (although to be honest right now I can’t think of any specific memories of this).  But never for a moment did I suspect that the people who told these jokes harbored serious racist beliefs.  They just liked telling rude jokes.  

Maybe I’ve been hanging around too many Canadians, too many Christians and too many of the university set.  I’m out of touch?  Apparently small town America still harbors a bunch of overt racists.  I’m talking about the kind of folks who go right out and say that they’d never vote for Obama simply because he’s black.  They said as much directly into a TV camera with little to no shame.

Weird.  I don’t get it.

D’you ever read a very famous philosopher and think that he’s obviously wrong about something very simple?  I’m thinking of Heidegger’s criticisms of human essence.  I read some of this and thought to myself, this guy doesn’t understand Aristotle.  At the very same time I thought to myself, this guy obviously does understand Aristotle.

That’s what it is like to be a philosopher in training.  This stuff happens all the time.  You get caught up in the tension between contradictory thoughts, but you move on because there’s no time to solve the puzzle.

It happens so very often.  After a while it can leave you feeling lost at sea.

There’s nothing more boring than the debate over what constitutes art or what art is supposed to accomplish.  

No wait.  There is something more boring: getting all riled up about an exhibit devoted to being clever about stretching of the boundaries of what is and is not considered art.  The whole point of these installations is to piss off the laity and reinforce the arts community’s sense of superiority.  When regular folks get mad they  give the arts community exactly what they want.  How boring.  

“In the U.S., AT&T’s combined iPhone service and data plans start at just $59.99 for 450 anytime minutes, 5000 additional night and weekend minutes, and unlimited data. But in Canada, as Geist notes, a comparable plan for Rogers Wireless — the only carrier with an iPhone-compatible GSM network — would currently run about $295 per month.”

It is often said that Calvin’s God is the God of Greek speculative philosophy. It is even suggested that Calvin’s conception of God begins with abstract principles and has little to do with the Bible and Biblical descriptions of God.

Whatever else we know, we know this: Calvin didn’t think he was doing this. And he constantly issued warnings against this.

“What is God? Men who pose this question are merely toying with idle speculations. It is more important for us to know of what sort he is and what is consistent with his nature.” (Bk 1, Ch 2, Sec 2)

“And here again we ought to observe that we are called to a knowledge of God: not that knowledge which, content with empty speculation, merely flits in the brain, but that which will be sound and fruitful if we duly perceive it, and if it takes root in the heart.” (Bk 1, Ch 5, Sec 9)

“…the most perfect way of seeking God and the most suitable order, is not for us to attempt with bold curiosity to penetrate to the investigation of his essence, which we ought more to adore than meticulously to search out, but for us to contemplate him in his works whereby he renders himself near and familiar to us, and in some manner communicates himself.” (Bk 1, Ch 5, Sec 9)

“For, to begin with, the pious mind does not dream up for itself any god it pleases, but contemplates the one and only true God. And it does not attach to him whatever it pleases, but is content to hold him to be as he manifests himself; furthermore, the mind always exercises the utmost diligence and care not to wander astray, or rashly and boldly to go beyond his will.” (Bk 1, Ch 2, Sec 2)

“Nevertheless, all things will tend to this end, that God, the Artificer of the universe, is made manifest to us in Scripture, and that what we ought to think of him is set forth there, lest we seek some uncertain diety by devious paths.” (Bk 1, Ch 6, Sec 1)

It is sometimes said that the key Calvinist distinctive is an emphasis on ‘the sovereignty of God’. It has even been suggested that this is the organizing principle or central theme of Calvin’s theology.

Um. Well. For whatever ever it is wroth, you should know that Calvin never uses the word ’sovereignty’ in the Institutes of the Christian Religion. NEVER. NOT ONCE. ZIP. ZILCH.

“Mystery is the vital element of Dogmatics… the idea that the believer would be able to understand and comprehend intellectually the revealed mysteries is [also] unscriptural. On the contrary, the truth which God has revealed concerning himself in nature and in Scripture far surpasses human conception and comprehension. In that sense Dogmatics is concerned with nothing but mystery, for it does not deal with finite creatures, but from beginning to end raises itself above every creature to the Eternal and Endless One himself.”

(Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, Ch. 1, Part I, A)

It is widely thought that Calvinism = ‘the five points of Calvinism’ or TULIP. It is also widely thought that Calvinism is what you get when you try to squash all the lively tensions of Scripture into a tight logical/philosophical system. The fact is that Calvin knew nothing of ‘the five points of Calvinism’ and he never summarized himself in this way. It is not even clear that Calvin himself believed in all of the five points. Calvin was positively repulsed by idle philosophical speculation about God, and he constantly harped on how dangerous thinking about God in this way is. In this series I will collect some quotes from Calvin’s Institutes and Herman Bavinck’s Doctrine of God. My goal will be to set Calvin’s theology and the theological tradition of Calvinism in a new light.

For Calvin our intellect and our affections may be distinguished, but they can never be separated. It is never right to think that we know God ‘intellectually’ if we don’t at once sincerely love him from the heart. If we don’t love God, we don’t know him as he truly is, for he is truly lovely. We we can never choose intellectual rigor over heartfelt piety, for without the latter the former will be false. We either have both or we have neither. In this way dry, dusty, heartless ‘orthodoxy’ is not an option. If our orthodoxy seems dry and dusty, it is to that degree unorthodox.

“… our mind cannot apprehend God without rendering some honor to him…”
(Bk 1, Ch 2, Sec 1)

“Now, the knowledge of God, as I understand it, is that by which we not only conceive that there is a God but also grasp what befits us* and is proper to his glory… Indeed, we shall not say that, properly speaking, God is known where there is no religion or piety.” (* ‘befits us’ = what is appropriate or suitable for us)
(Bk 1, Ch 2, Sec 1)

“I call ‘piety’ that reverence joined with love of God which the knowledge of his benefits* induces.” (* ‘his benefits’ = his good gifts to us)
(Bk 1, Ch 2, Sec 1)

“We must not suppose, however, that [because it is concerned with the knowledge of God] Dogmatics is renedered a dry, scholastic study, without practical value. On the contrary, the more it meditates on him, the knowledge of whom is its only content, so much the more is it transformed into worship and adoration.”
(Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, Ch. 1, Part I, D)

I suppose everyone has heard about the Blackberry blackout.

The weird thing about the Backberry system is that every single email gets channeled through a computer network located in the city where I live. Actually, I think the computers are located directly across the street from my university. Every single Blackberry email in North America (and Asia too I think) goes through those computers! Wow!

I wonder if it is considered a terrorist target? Do they have SWAT teams there? I wonder that their security is like? It most certainly must be a huge hacker target.

Several years ago, during a class I took at bible college, I said the following:

It is not just the words of songs which convey meaning and shape us when we sing. The music does too. And it seems pretty clear to me that not just any old ’style’ of music will do. Not all ’styles’ of music are appropriate for gathered worship. Take for example heavy metal. It is aggressive and violent and full of bravado. If a song is meant to express humility and gratitude to God, heavy metal is not the place to go. Doesn’t matter what the lyrics say, because the music will stir up emotions that clash with them. And the fact that heavy metal only appeals to a subculture (you should know that if a heavy metal band tries to earn popularity in the wider culture then any self respecting metal head will disown them - it’s part of the essence of metal that ‘everyone else’ has to hate it), also counts against it.

In response a baby boomer, upper middle class, luxury SUV driving, woman said (right after she condescendingly and utterly dismissively clucked her tongue me):

You only think that because you don’t like that kind of music. 20 years ago people thought the music we sing now was inappropriate for worship. It doesn’t matter what ’style’ of music we choose, so long as the ‘message’ glorifies God. We need to be sure that whatever ’style’ of music we choose really ‘connects’ with the worshipers. If it does, that’s all that matters.

This stirred up a lot of unholy anger in me. Some stupid baby-boomer woman is going to tell me, ME, that I need to be hip-with-the-kids if we’re going to get asses in the seats??? She’s going to reduce this down to the “old people always hate what the young whipper-snappers listen to, its been like like that for thousands of years” shtick??? You cannot possibly imagine how ironic this scene was!!!

But the stupid thing about it all is that she completely missed something I consider to be fairly obvious: the sound of the music contributes to and shapes the meaning of the songs we sing, whether we like it or not. This doesn’t mean that old fashioned is better than new school. I never said that or thought that. It does mean that we need to carefully consider the kind of emotions which are stirred up by our songs. Do they clash with the lyrics? Are they aids to Christian discipleship? These are real questions that need real answers.

She thought I was stuck in the past, while she was cutting edge. Wow. Remember, of course, that she was probably on staff at a very large church, which I’m sure sang all the usual folky/new-country style worship choruses. That they sang folky/new-country style songs is not necessarily bad. OK, it’s NOT bad. Well… it might be bad if worship turns into a sappy, overly sentimental, new-country style ‘Jesus-is-my-boyfriend’ tear jerker every Sunday. I’m a man. I don’t feel like that towards Jesus and I’m pretty sure think Jesus doesn’t want me to feel like that towards Him. He’s not my personal boyfriend.

The point in all of this is that, whatever you think about this, it is good and proper to think about it. It is important to think about it.

Apparently there’s a law in America that stipulates that most of its food aid must come directly from American farms and be shipped across the ocean by American ships. That’s good for America, but stupid in every other way. The thing is, there’s food in Africa already!!! Because of this stupid American law African food goes to waste and African farmers go broke. Brilliant. That’ll solve Africa’s poverty problem!!! Anyway… apparently Bush has been trying to change the law but congress won’t let it go through. Farm lobby groups are trying to block it.

Check out this NYT article: (Here’s an excerpt below)

…But the law in the United States requires that virtually all its donated food be grown in America and shipped at great expense across oceans, mostly on vessels that fly American flags and employ American crews — a process that typically takes four to six months.

For a third year, the Bush administration, which has pushed to make foreign aid more efficient, is trying to change the law to allow the United States to use up to a quarter of the budget of its main food aid program to buy food in developing countries during emergencies. The proposal has run into stiff opposition from a potent alliance of agribusiness, shipping and charitable groups with deep financial stakes in the current food aid system.

Oxfam, the international aid group, and other proponents of the Bush proposal say it would enable the United States to feed more people more quickly, while helping to fight poverty by buying the crops of peasants in poor countries.

The United States Agency for International Development estimated that if Congress adopted the Bush proposal, the United States could annually feed at least a million more people for six months and save 50,000 more lives.

But Congress quickly killed the plan in each of the past two years, cautioning that untying food aid from domestic interest groups would weaken the commitment that has made the United States by far the largest food aid donor in a world where 850 million go hungry…

A non-moralistic piece of moral wisdom from Jesus: A fallen world can’t be set right without mercy and forgiveness. Kindness, not just swift crushing judgment, leads the guilty to repentance. If ‘eye for an eye’ is our program for setting the world right, we are doomed to fail for two reasons: (1) it would leave us all blind since we’re all guilty and all sin, and (2) the passion that calls out for an eye in revenge is seldom holy and almost never satisfied by the taking of that eye - it always lusts for more. So vendettas multiply like rabbits and no one is satisfied that justice has been achieved. There is always more burning passion to avenge more wrongs, even as we loose track of ‘who started it’.

This isn’t just ‘religious’ moral wisdom. It ought to be seriously considered to be a part of our crime policy as a nation. Kindness can lead to repentance. And the kind of shrill cry from certain politicians for hard vengeance against criminals does not often come from a pure place in their hearts. Criminality is (among other things) a moral problem, and training in virtue has to be a part of the solution. Doesn’t it?

What do we know now? We know that the prison system is, by and large, a failure. And jails are no place to put someone who needs to training in virtue. Right? They are no place to put someone who feels they have no opportunities for success in life except for crime.

What should we do instead? Offer people a chance to repent and give real restitution for their crimes? Why not? Throwing them in prison works better?

It is like the bratty kid who’s parents beat him when he disobeys. But the beating teaches him to try harder to not get caught. It doesn’t teach him any moral lessons, or give him opportunity to right any wrongs or take responsibility for his actions and choices.

If you don’t know, you should know: public protest is dead. It died years ago. I’m talking about organized parades or open air gatherings in which people carry signs, shout slogans, and give speeches making demands.

It’s dead. Dissent is dead for crying out loud. Not because of Bush or anyone else. It is dead because everyone already fully expects that there are large factions of people who disagree with them on social and political issues. They probably already expect half the country to disagree with them. Encountering an angry group of people who disagree with you is about as shocking as a turtle neck sweater.

If you are committed to the left, why give a shit about some stupid right wing protest??? If you are committed to the right, why give a shit about some stupid left wing protest??? Each already has talking points ready in hand which explain why the other side are idiots.

Seeing people march up and down on the streets doesn’t change a thing. Who’s mind would be changed by that? And what could these protesters possibly point to which would change the minds of those who didn’t already agree with them?

Let’s get real… protesters are just cheer leaders for their home team.

Let me tell you what happens when you protest. You get 12 seconds, maybe a minute if you’re lucky, of coverage on the evening news. Big deal. So you fired up the home team. Good for you.

From what I can tell, the only reason why people still organize these protests is nostalgia. Or maybe it is kind of ‘rite of passage’ or act of self definition. I protest therefore I am. Perhaps it’s an act of penance which clears your conscience. “NOT IN MY NAME!!!”

Martin Luther King’s protests worked because he was able to appeal to natural law, not merely how things looked from his community’s perspective or what their passions lusted after. And his protests were fitting - they directly challenged what they were protesting against.

Anti-war protest is aimed at the utter defeat of political opponents, not their repentance and kindly reception. Pro-war protest is aimed at the utter defeat of political opponents, not their repentance and kindly reception. The thought of changing your opponent’s mind is laughable. No one can change their mind because this would be a matter of conceding defeat. Instead you want to conquer as many swing voters as possible while keeping the home fired up and launching attacks against the enemy.

I’m opting out the culture wars.

Rational public discourse is now impossible. Now all we do is ‘advocate’ for ‘what we are passionate about’. This is violence, plain and simple. I’m opting out of the culture war.

There is basically no way we can have rational discussion, in public, about the merits of… hmmm… let’s say the last Bush budget.

It is easy enough to imagine about a half dozen perspectives, each with their own talking points, each of which is pretty convincing to ‘the home team’ but not to anyone who generally disagrees with the ‘home team’. That’s all that’s left. And it is unthinkable that anyone, or any group, would ever admit they are wrong. Unthinkable.

Take the matter of ’social issues’ and Christianity. Let’s say that we agree that it’s a basic part of Christian discipleship that Christians need to give special deference to the poor. All things being equal, it is good and proper to be biased towards their interests, since they are the most vulnerable. If the rich get inadvertently screwed, at least they’ve got the resources to cope with it. The poor don’t.

But then consider all the debates concerning what policies are actually ‘Christian’. (BTW - Why enact ‘Christian policies’? Depends what you mean by ‘Christian’. Being neighborly and being concerned for the poor might be elements of Christian discipleship. Fine. But that doesn’t mean that non-Christians aren’t or can’t be neighborly or concerned for the poor. And it doesn’t mean that whosoever is neighborly and concerned for the poor is a Christian. Why not enact good and just and kind policies which aim at good and just and kind ends?)

On the one hand, if you are Christian you must support dept relief in Africa and the sending of gov’t money to Africa. Why? Because people are hungry and are dieing over there while we have plenty.

On the other hand, sending the money to corrupt African gov’t’s won’t help. And the conditions which keep them in poverty won’t be changed by it. What we need is to open up our markets to them and end our farm subsidies which make it impossible for Africa to join the world markets. Because of our protectionist policies, in Africa it is now cheaper to order a chicken in from Europe rather than cross the street and buy local. That’s not the result of free markets, but of artificial market interventions. Globalization will save Africa, not conscience comforting but ultimately ineffective foreign aid campaigns and rock concerts.

I’m not advocating (ha!) for either side here(or the thousands of possible variations or mixtures of these sides). What I’m trying to show is that Christian discipleship alone won’t tell you which way is the right way. Christian discipleship will tell you we need to find a way. But it will be economics and the social sciences (etc.) that will tell you which way is the right way to go. Won’t it?

But neither side is willing to admit they are wrong. So the culture war rages on.

I heard a great quote on one of the more recent episodes of the White Horse Inn.

One of the hosts quoted a line from William Willimon (who might be thought of a Stanley Hauerwas‘ right hand man). It goes like this (paraphrased):

“Preachers, when you finish off your sermons, and you fold them up and put in your bible, stop and ask your self this: ‘Did Christ have to die for this sermon to be true?’”

If the answer is no, there’s a very good chance you are preaching dry and dusty moralism, rather than the high drama of Christian doctrine - the great Christian story - of Law and Gospel - of the whole history of God with His people.

Dry and dusty moralism can be ‘taboo avoidance’ hard-legalism, or it can be tips-for-being-a-better-you soft-legalism, or here’s-my-strategy-to-save-the-world-with-12-Jesusy-moral-principles activist legalism.

Some, or maybe all, of these legalisms are true or even helpful in some sense… maybe. But they aren’t specifically Christian. They might be moral… and yes it is good to be moral, broadly speaking. BUT, if the center of our preaching is “be moral!” we are trouble.

If the center of our preaching is the story of God rescuing the world, in Jesus, through history, as he gathers together a people, who become caught up in this story as it continues to unfold, and caught up in God’s mission to save the world…. if that’s the center of our preaching, then that’s a whole different ballgame.

The Greatest Story Ever Staged by Dorothy Sayers

Read this article.

If you do you’ll understand why I’m not a:

(1) anti-saloon (no drink’n or card play’n or swear’n), avoid-these-taboos-and-you’ll-be-a-good-Christian kinda guy. {Is this right wing???}

Nor am I a:

(2) Jesus-just-told-us-to-be-nice-and-never-judge, and I’m-into-following-Jesus’-radical-new-moral-principles, and Christian-doctrine-just-divides-and-makes-people-mean-and-bored, and Jesus-never-started-a-Church-with-a-mission, and I-just-want-to-be-’Jesusy’, and I-just-follow-the-moral-teachings-of-Jesus-and-that’s-enough-for-me kinda guy. {Is this left wing???}