Or at least it feels that way. One thing about this whole life circumstance right now is that I feel totally unsettled; it seems like the biggest, most drawn out transition.
Of course graduating college into the worst job market in recent history felt that way as well, but at least I was living with 3 unemployed guys who shared my misery! Eventually though I was able to find some footing and get settled, to an extent I guess you could say, but then seminary comes. So this is where I am now and I look ahead to June and I am getting married. In the span of 3 years 3 major life changes have happened. And all I want to do is get settled, but I feel like I won't be able to for another 7 months! This is definitely frustrating, especially when I feel like my grades and thus scholarships are hanging in the balance.
When I was in my extended transition after graduating UNCG I was frustrated but only because I didn't know where I was going or how I was going to get there and pay for it. That sort of looking out and seeing yourself on the edge of the cliff and not knowing how and where to go is more scary than simply frustrating, so I was frustrated because I was scared. Now I'm frustrated again for partly the same reason, paying for Seminary when you have money tied to grades and then the fear of not being able to make the grades and not being able to make them because you have so much to attend to. It's definitely frustrating, not knowing and then also not being where you want to be.
I must keep telling myself the love Christ has for me. Which I don't like, primarily because I feel like I should know it by now. Not because I don't like it though, I assure you! It's just the first thing I seem to forget, and the easiest thing I seem to forget is the love of God for me. He is far more concerned with me than I could even know and that, because of this, everything that I go through is all for my good for his good purposes. It seems so hard to believe sometimes when you don't know what the heck is going on and you're just trying to make it through the next paper, test, weekend, etc. Yet it is also comforting, especially comforting is how often I am reassured by everyone that I am meant for this. Because often I forget that too, but the people who love me most and are the most willing, at least I would hope, to tell me when I am going the wrong direction, tell me that I am at the right place and doing the right thing, going in the right direction.
Trust sucks. I'll admit it. Trust sucks because it's hard, especially trusting God. It doesn't mean that I don't love it, it just means that I have to depend on not knowing and going totally on faith in trusting God. That's scary for me, I am such an analytical, understanding based person and the thing I am called to most in my life and relationship with God is to not know and just take a, seemingly, giant step off this cliff into the abyss of the unknown trusting and totally depending on God's love and call for my life. Which for now is into school debt and ridiculous busyness trusting that not only will God pull me through, but that God has some sort of prosperity on the other side, be it freedom from debt or, and even better I would say, a deeper more real knowledge of his trustworthiness, faithfulness and love.
Though I would totally get the last part if it was freedom from debt.... haha!
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Friday, October 15, 2010
My favorite band... for right now
For right now being key.
Primarily because it could literally change in like a split second.
I will say that favorite is determined primarily by what I have been wanting to listen to mostly lately, and mostly lately I have been wanting to listen to Caedmon's Call. Why might you ask?
I am so glad you asked!
They are amazing!
But the two things I enjoy about them are that they have a folk sound and a theological message that I not only enjoy hearing and agree with, but its not presented in a stupid cheesy way. I love things that have a folk sound to it, like Paul Simon and Nickle Creek or Mumford and Sons and Fleet Foxes. It's just something about the sound of acoustic guitars layered over each other, or even the use of folk sounds from other parts of the world. My favorite song by them is "There's Only (Holy One)". It is on their album Share the Well, which was produced during and after they spent time traveling Ecuador, Brazil and India. So there is a world folk sound to the whole album, and I think it's really evident in this particular song primarily because it's played in DADGAD tuning or D modal tuning, which was popularized by Davey Graham. (I love to play in this tuning, if you never have I suggest you should, it's so much fun just to jam in it, and relatively easy to do so.) This is evident in a lot of their other songs though, some have like a poppy folk sound, others not so much, some have a really world folk sound, and some sound as if though they were made for radio, but all I think exhibit a Singer/Songwriter feel. Which is very different from a lot of the music you hear on Christian radio, or other Christian sources. A lot, not all, is either cheesy Christian pop/adult contemporary or teen-angst fueled, alternative rock; at least half of it, though, isn't even good. I don't want to throw out examples, but if you are familiar with Christian radio you know what I mean, or if not, oh well. There's just not depth or meaning to it, Bob Dylan's "Hurricane" tells such a brilliant story about social injustice and in such a musically pleasing, appropriate way, but you rarely hear such adept story telling tied to good, appropriate music on Christian radio.
Thus, their other greatest asset is their ability to translate a Christian theology and perspective into music and lyrics. I'm not gonna lie, very many artist trying to be Christian Contemporary are terrible at it and terrible for the industry. I'm not a huge fan a Bruce Springsteen (please don't hate), but I have a huge respect for his ability to translate American ideas into appealing lyrical form. Heck, I could go on and on about amazing classic rock acts who are amazing lyricists, Led Zeppelin, Tom Petty, The Beatles, Pink Floyd, John Mellencamp, etc. those are just the ones that pop into my head, I'm sure you could name plenty more yourself. I'm not saying that Caedmon's Call is equal to them, at least not yet, but Derek Webb is pretty dang good at it, as well as the rest of them. They are able to capture the emotions of the Christian trying to live out Christian ideology and at the same time able to capture the ideology and don't bank on the poppiness to make it stick.
I'll admit I'm very biased, as you can probably tell. But if you are one of those Christian music cynics like me who actually likes substance to their music then I suggest you check them out.
Primarily because it could literally change in like a split second.
I will say that favorite is determined primarily by what I have been wanting to listen to mostly lately, and mostly lately I have been wanting to listen to Caedmon's Call. Why might you ask?
I am so glad you asked!
They are amazing!
But the two things I enjoy about them are that they have a folk sound and a theological message that I not only enjoy hearing and agree with, but its not presented in a stupid cheesy way. I love things that have a folk sound to it, like Paul Simon and Nickle Creek or Mumford and Sons and Fleet Foxes. It's just something about the sound of acoustic guitars layered over each other, or even the use of folk sounds from other parts of the world. My favorite song by them is "There's Only (Holy One)". It is on their album Share the Well, which was produced during and after they spent time traveling Ecuador, Brazil and India. So there is a world folk sound to the whole album, and I think it's really evident in this particular song primarily because it's played in DADGAD tuning or D modal tuning, which was popularized by Davey Graham. (I love to play in this tuning, if you never have I suggest you should, it's so much fun just to jam in it, and relatively easy to do so.) This is evident in a lot of their other songs though, some have like a poppy folk sound, others not so much, some have a really world folk sound, and some sound as if though they were made for radio, but all I think exhibit a Singer/Songwriter feel. Which is very different from a lot of the music you hear on Christian radio, or other Christian sources. A lot, not all, is either cheesy Christian pop/adult contemporary or teen-angst fueled, alternative rock; at least half of it, though, isn't even good. I don't want to throw out examples, but if you are familiar with Christian radio you know what I mean, or if not, oh well. There's just not depth or meaning to it, Bob Dylan's "Hurricane" tells such a brilliant story about social injustice and in such a musically pleasing, appropriate way, but you rarely hear such adept story telling tied to good, appropriate music on Christian radio.
Thus, their other greatest asset is their ability to translate a Christian theology and perspective into music and lyrics. I'm not gonna lie, very many artist trying to be Christian Contemporary are terrible at it and terrible for the industry. I'm not a huge fan a Bruce Springsteen (please don't hate), but I have a huge respect for his ability to translate American ideas into appealing lyrical form. Heck, I could go on and on about amazing classic rock acts who are amazing lyricists, Led Zeppelin, Tom Petty, The Beatles, Pink Floyd, John Mellencamp, etc. those are just the ones that pop into my head, I'm sure you could name plenty more yourself. I'm not saying that Caedmon's Call is equal to them, at least not yet, but Derek Webb is pretty dang good at it, as well as the rest of them. They are able to capture the emotions of the Christian trying to live out Christian ideology and at the same time able to capture the ideology and don't bank on the poppiness to make it stick.
I'll admit I'm very biased, as you can probably tell. But if you are one of those Christian music cynics like me who actually likes substance to their music then I suggest you check them out.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Mohler on Yoga and I disagree
http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/09/20/the-subtle-body-should-christians-practice-yoga/
http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/10/07/yahoo-yoga-and-yours-truly/
So Mohler recently wrote these articles on Yoga and how its unChristian, and how Christians who practice it are either teetering on the brink of post-modern pluralism, or teetering on the bring of apostasy, or they aren't really Christians. Maybe he wouldn't necessarily agree with the last two, but I think that he some what leans that way.
I do not disagree with what he says about yoga's background, indeed it is an historical spiritual practice, and everything about it that we practice is only based off of that. In that sense we are simply taking part in the religious practice of it, albeit ignorantly and not fully giving ourselves to it. I would also say his conclusion is correct, because of yoga's religious/spiritual nature Christians who practice it are taking part in another religious practice that directs its worship to another god(s). However, I disagree with his premise that because yoga and Christianity are in service to two different truths, that they are forever diametrically opposed.
Christianity has it fair share of ascetics, Simeon the Stylite for instance. Prayer and fasting are ascetics, they are simply means that we use to assist our focus on God. So, yoga as an ascetic practice is completely and totally viable, simply using the body and certain movements to clear one's mind to better meditate and focus on God. The whole idea of ascetic discipline is to train the body to allow one to clear their mind. We are created as physical beings; we should not abandon our physicalness for a solely mental spirituality. That to me sounds too much like gnosticism.
Therefore, I applaud the efforts of Christians who seek out some sort of physical discipline to help them focus and relax, I myself hike/backpack,do yoga, lift weights and sleep. (Ha! So maybe not the last one as a discipline, but it is an area of weakness and I wouldn't doubt my ability to serve God would be enhanced if I got more.) Humanity, Christians included, have a problem of letting life get in the way causing us to cast our eyes downward. So we need a time of solitude to disengage our attention on the world and enable us to focus our eyes up back on God. Of course reading Scripture is a great way to do this, prayer is as well, but those things alone are often very mental. Our Western, Greek Philosophy influenced, culture leaves out our physicalness, which is obviously important to our creatureliness, so luckily we have this connection to this eastern religious practice of yoga that can help.
Yoga, like fasting, I would say depends mostly on natural revelation, where as bible study and prayer depend mostly on special revelation. Now granted natural revelation without special revelation can be distorted and twisted. Of course special revelation itself can be distorted and twisted too without insights from natural revelation. But if I am to go through life dependent solely on one or the other, something is gravely missing. I am unable to truly experience God in all things if I do not take to heart natural revelation, and I am unable to experience him truly if I do not take to heart what special revelation says about natural revelation. All this to say, ascetic practices like yoga, hiking, fasting or running are ways to experience God through the body, they are diving into natural revelation, and through this one can fully rest in the Truth that comes through special revelation. When I hike I let go, I rest; I experience the Triune God in his glorious creation and it frees me (my mind and my body) to rest in my knowledge of his love and my redemption.
The primary point of contention as I see it, and I am pretty certain in this, is not so much of the physical aspect of yoga, it is the practice's historical direction to whatever other god that wasn't Yahweh, not to mention its tantric aspect. One cannot really practice yoga without diving into some aspect of this, if they do not dive in, then it simply becomes a workout. However, its not that black and white; one does not have to dive into this to fully appreciate the practice of yoga. Yoga's whole spirituality can be redeemed, after all it was created by man. It is simply the longing of individuals to reach out to something that which they know is there; they know it because they sense something in their heart, and they know it because they sense something in nature. Unfortunately, it was only directed to something other than God. Now, if one wants to say that once yoga becomes "redeemed" it no longer becomes yoga, but becomes something else entirely, I might say they have a point. Although, I could in turn say that this opens the door for saying that once humans experience the finality of their redemption then they are no longer human, but something else entirely because their sinful past has been done away with.
I cannot find fault for people who are trying to find a divine experience with the God they know from church through yoga. Yes, they may be diving into it not truly knowing what they are getting into, nor truly knowing what they could be opening themselves up to. But I do not find fault with them, I find fault with the staid, dull churches that pushed them there. We do not need to be cutting off the people who are trying to experience Jesus through yoga by telling them its not Christian to do so. No, what we need to be doing is fixing the Christianity that's not enabling them to experience "life abundantly". Perhaps they think church is dull and boring because they have sin and that inturn is making them deaf to the "words of life" they are hearing at church, but if their sin issue isn't being competently addressed by the church then where really is the problem?
http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/10/07/yahoo-yoga-and-yours-truly/
So Mohler recently wrote these articles on Yoga and how its unChristian, and how Christians who practice it are either teetering on the brink of post-modern pluralism, or teetering on the bring of apostasy, or they aren't really Christians. Maybe he wouldn't necessarily agree with the last two, but I think that he some what leans that way.
I do not disagree with what he says about yoga's background, indeed it is an historical spiritual practice, and everything about it that we practice is only based off of that. In that sense we are simply taking part in the religious practice of it, albeit ignorantly and not fully giving ourselves to it. I would also say his conclusion is correct, because of yoga's religious/spiritual nature Christians who practice it are taking part in another religious practice that directs its worship to another god(s). However, I disagree with his premise that because yoga and Christianity are in service to two different truths, that they are forever diametrically opposed.
Christianity has it fair share of ascetics, Simeon the Stylite for instance. Prayer and fasting are ascetics, they are simply means that we use to assist our focus on God. So, yoga as an ascetic practice is completely and totally viable, simply using the body and certain movements to clear one's mind to better meditate and focus on God. The whole idea of ascetic discipline is to train the body to allow one to clear their mind. We are created as physical beings; we should not abandon our physicalness for a solely mental spirituality. That to me sounds too much like gnosticism.
Therefore, I applaud the efforts of Christians who seek out some sort of physical discipline to help them focus and relax, I myself hike/backpack,do yoga, lift weights and sleep. (Ha! So maybe not the last one as a discipline, but it is an area of weakness and I wouldn't doubt my ability to serve God would be enhanced if I got more.) Humanity, Christians included, have a problem of letting life get in the way causing us to cast our eyes downward. So we need a time of solitude to disengage our attention on the world and enable us to focus our eyes up back on God. Of course reading Scripture is a great way to do this, prayer is as well, but those things alone are often very mental. Our Western, Greek Philosophy influenced, culture leaves out our physicalness, which is obviously important to our creatureliness, so luckily we have this connection to this eastern religious practice of yoga that can help.
Yoga, like fasting, I would say depends mostly on natural revelation, where as bible study and prayer depend mostly on special revelation. Now granted natural revelation without special revelation can be distorted and twisted. Of course special revelation itself can be distorted and twisted too without insights from natural revelation. But if I am to go through life dependent solely on one or the other, something is gravely missing. I am unable to truly experience God in all things if I do not take to heart natural revelation, and I am unable to experience him truly if I do not take to heart what special revelation says about natural revelation. All this to say, ascetic practices like yoga, hiking, fasting or running are ways to experience God through the body, they are diving into natural revelation, and through this one can fully rest in the Truth that comes through special revelation. When I hike I let go, I rest; I experience the Triune God in his glorious creation and it frees me (my mind and my body) to rest in my knowledge of his love and my redemption.
The primary point of contention as I see it, and I am pretty certain in this, is not so much of the physical aspect of yoga, it is the practice's historical direction to whatever other god that wasn't Yahweh, not to mention its tantric aspect. One cannot really practice yoga without diving into some aspect of this, if they do not dive in, then it simply becomes a workout. However, its not that black and white; one does not have to dive into this to fully appreciate the practice of yoga. Yoga's whole spirituality can be redeemed, after all it was created by man. It is simply the longing of individuals to reach out to something that which they know is there; they know it because they sense something in their heart, and they know it because they sense something in nature. Unfortunately, it was only directed to something other than God. Now, if one wants to say that once yoga becomes "redeemed" it no longer becomes yoga, but becomes something else entirely, I might say they have a point. Although, I could in turn say that this opens the door for saying that once humans experience the finality of their redemption then they are no longer human, but something else entirely because their sinful past has been done away with.
I cannot find fault for people who are trying to find a divine experience with the God they know from church through yoga. Yes, they may be diving into it not truly knowing what they are getting into, nor truly knowing what they could be opening themselves up to. But I do not find fault with them, I find fault with the staid, dull churches that pushed them there. We do not need to be cutting off the people who are trying to experience Jesus through yoga by telling them its not Christian to do so. No, what we need to be doing is fixing the Christianity that's not enabling them to experience "life abundantly". Perhaps they think church is dull and boring because they have sin and that inturn is making them deaf to the "words of life" they are hearing at church, but if their sin issue isn't being competently addressed by the church then where really is the problem?
Thursday, October 7, 2010
The Hypothesis: The Documents
So I just finished taking my first Old Testament exam in seminary; the documentary hypothesis factored into it heavily. And I have been wanting to get my thoughts down on something, be it paper or computer screen, about it for a while.
So my thoughts on the Documentary Hypothesis: Whatever. Ha! I guess that's just cause I'm a product if the last 5th of the 20th century. But in all seriousness, whatever. I don't think the documentary hypothesis is really that big of a deal, considering it wasn't until later, like the last half of the 20th century, that the literary approach to Scripture made any headway. If there wasn't an emphasis on a literary approach to reading Scripture in academia before that, then the hypothesis is working in a vacuum. I would think that working in such a vacuum gave it a lot more power and influence than had it been working alongside other theories, like now for instance. Not to mention that one of it main proponents was an anti-semite, anti Roman Catholic, so I would assume such a bias throws a little speculation into what he was actually trying to accomplish. Lets not forget as well that the documentary hypothesis is exactly that a hypothesis, it can most definitely be proven wrong, and with other theories about the formation of the Pentateuch circulating one has to pick which one they want, or how they want it. The biggest point with the fallibility of a hypothesis is that if it is wrong your interpretation based on that will be wrong as well, and if your interpretation is wrong then your application of that would be wrong. So essentially your theological framework is "at risk". (Although I must say, it might be at risk, but I doubt a significant portion would be at risk, and even still its an interpretation based on Scripture. So I would say there is an element of protection there by Providence, or so I would hope.)
Don't get me wrong, though. The theory has its strong points. It gives us a way to look at the world behind the writings. If the first creation account was written by the Priestly source, and the Priestly source was mainly a product of the exile, then we get a glimpse into the thought behind it, and an intended purpose to it. Or if the Elohist source was a product of the Northern Kingdom it can gives a picture into the why Aaron is cast in such a bad light. If the hypothesis is wrong though, then of course all the interpretations therein are wrong too.
I would prefer Brevard Child's approach of biblical theology. It's more of a canonical criticism, we have the Scripture as a whole, and that's how I think it should be dealt with. Sure insight can be made by the source backgrounds, but ultimately the sources are now together, they are a unified whole and should be interpreted through that lens as much, if not more so than any other. We have two creation accounts, one from the P source and another from the J, but we don't have them separately we have them together, what does that mean for our interpretation? We have Sodom and Gomorrah, the conquest of the land of Canaan and what some call genocide, but we also have the prophets, epistles and Jesus, so how do we put these things together in the grand story without becoming Marcionist/ites? (That is saying that the Old Testament God is one of wrath and completely different from the New Testament God of universal love. Marcion created his own canon and it was essentially Luke and Paul's Epistles.)
Ultimately, in the interpretation of the Scriptures I think its helpful to start from a firm foundation of belief and then pull from many different sources to fill out one's view. To limit oneself to one criticism or approach would really prevent one from growing and developing new views, or strengthening their own view. Its really a practice in formal operations, I would think, to put yourself in another hat, or pair of shoes and fully live that out for just a second. Such a practice can help one to grow in their theological understand, as well as their faith. Interpreting Scripture should be a challenge, and it should seem dangerous and uncomfortable, God is far bigger than one theological thought, or biblical studies approach can handle.
If we really dig into Scripture and only do so to affirm what we already believe what then are we doing? We are simply using Scripture as a dictionary or encyclopedia, a reference source for our knowledge, is that what we should do? I do not think so, not if we want to be corrected, trained, rebuked, and taught in righteousness.
One may have their own bias on theology and approach, I for instance like the canonical approach, and prefer Covenant Theology, but I must at least allow all that to be challenged. I may argue those views to be right, but I must allow the discussion to happen.
So my thoughts on the Documentary Hypothesis: Whatever. Ha! I guess that's just cause I'm a product if the last 5th of the 20th century. But in all seriousness, whatever. I don't think the documentary hypothesis is really that big of a deal, considering it wasn't until later, like the last half of the 20th century, that the literary approach to Scripture made any headway. If there wasn't an emphasis on a literary approach to reading Scripture in academia before that, then the hypothesis is working in a vacuum. I would think that working in such a vacuum gave it a lot more power and influence than had it been working alongside other theories, like now for instance. Not to mention that one of it main proponents was an anti-semite, anti Roman Catholic, so I would assume such a bias throws a little speculation into what he was actually trying to accomplish. Lets not forget as well that the documentary hypothesis is exactly that a hypothesis, it can most definitely be proven wrong, and with other theories about the formation of the Pentateuch circulating one has to pick which one they want, or how they want it. The biggest point with the fallibility of a hypothesis is that if it is wrong your interpretation based on that will be wrong as well, and if your interpretation is wrong then your application of that would be wrong. So essentially your theological framework is "at risk". (Although I must say, it might be at risk, but I doubt a significant portion would be at risk, and even still its an interpretation based on Scripture. So I would say there is an element of protection there by Providence, or so I would hope.)
Don't get me wrong, though. The theory has its strong points. It gives us a way to look at the world behind the writings. If the first creation account was written by the Priestly source, and the Priestly source was mainly a product of the exile, then we get a glimpse into the thought behind it, and an intended purpose to it. Or if the Elohist source was a product of the Northern Kingdom it can gives a picture into the why Aaron is cast in such a bad light. If the hypothesis is wrong though, then of course all the interpretations therein are wrong too.
I would prefer Brevard Child's approach of biblical theology. It's more of a canonical criticism, we have the Scripture as a whole, and that's how I think it should be dealt with. Sure insight can be made by the source backgrounds, but ultimately the sources are now together, they are a unified whole and should be interpreted through that lens as much, if not more so than any other. We have two creation accounts, one from the P source and another from the J, but we don't have them separately we have them together, what does that mean for our interpretation? We have Sodom and Gomorrah, the conquest of the land of Canaan and what some call genocide, but we also have the prophets, epistles and Jesus, so how do we put these things together in the grand story without becoming Marcionist/ites? (That is saying that the Old Testament God is one of wrath and completely different from the New Testament God of universal love. Marcion created his own canon and it was essentially Luke and Paul's Epistles.)
Ultimately, in the interpretation of the Scriptures I think its helpful to start from a firm foundation of belief and then pull from many different sources to fill out one's view. To limit oneself to one criticism or approach would really prevent one from growing and developing new views, or strengthening their own view. Its really a practice in formal operations, I would think, to put yourself in another hat, or pair of shoes and fully live that out for just a second. Such a practice can help one to grow in their theological understand, as well as their faith. Interpreting Scripture should be a challenge, and it should seem dangerous and uncomfortable, God is far bigger than one theological thought, or biblical studies approach can handle.
If we really dig into Scripture and only do so to affirm what we already believe what then are we doing? We are simply using Scripture as a dictionary or encyclopedia, a reference source for our knowledge, is that what we should do? I do not think so, not if we want to be corrected, trained, rebuked, and taught in righteousness.
One may have their own bias on theology and approach, I for instance like the canonical approach, and prefer Covenant Theology, but I must at least allow all that to be challenged. I may argue those views to be right, but I must allow the discussion to happen.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Thoughts from President Cleveland
I read earlier this week that 20% of Americans take home 50% of the wealth, this leaves 50% of America's money to the other 80%. I think this is a rather large income gap, and I don't know if its a good thing or a bad thing, but I am leaning bad thing.
I could argue that its a good thing because this is how supply-side economics works, give the rich their money and they can spend spend spend and when they do that it greases the economy, creating jobs and thereby distributing wealth. And then the libertarian side of me thinks, well this is good as well, because if there are needy Americans the wealthy, with their wealth, can support them by their giving. After all Grover Cleveland said, "[T]hough the people should support the Government, the Government should not support the people." Going on to say, "The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune." Which is why you give wealthy people money, so they can spend it and give it. I mean its the great libertarian, classical liberal ideal!
Although I do have a slight issue with this, the wealthy with money now aren't necessarily so charitable and generous. I mean lets be real there are far more people spending money and saving money than giving it to those in need. Since reading Radical by David Platt I'm more convinced that Americans are far more concerned with the rat race, keeping up with the Jones, getting their American dream, etc., than ever. The more consumerist a society becomes, the more "dreams" become transmitted through advertising, and the more gullible idiots with money, i.e. everyone, buy into those dreams then try and go get them. So the friendliness and charity of fellow citizens is quickly vanishing to the consumerism and dream acquisition of our fellow citizens.
The idea of supply side economics, kind of like Reagan's, is great if you want to allow a bunch of money into the market. Unfortunately I don't think this works if you leave such tax cuts in for so long that they simply become the market standard. The only way such a policy is going to work is if you raises taxes so you can then cut taxes during another recession, or you just bottom out taxes to reproduce the effects. (I must also say there are some that don't even think it was Reagan's policies that stimulated the economy as much as Carter's. Take that conservatives?)
This all brings me to the idea of taxes. If the wealthy are not distributing their money to the needy do we need to raise taxes to redistribute their wealth for them? I mean the government may not do it nearly as efficiently, but at least they'll be doing it. Or should we not so that the wealthy can spend their money, thereby stimulating economic growth thus distributing it that way? (I must add, I have read some that argue the wealthy aren't spending money so much as they are investing and saving it. Whether or not that stimulates the economy I don't know. I guess by investing it, it puts money into the financial system allowing banks to loan to business which allows business to grow and function.) If this is our choice are we then protecting the rich and thereby allowing wealth to be concentrated with the few?
Cleveland again has something to say to this.
I could argue that its a good thing because this is how supply-side economics works, give the rich their money and they can spend spend spend and when they do that it greases the economy, creating jobs and thereby distributing wealth. And then the libertarian side of me thinks, well this is good as well, because if there are needy Americans the wealthy, with their wealth, can support them by their giving. After all Grover Cleveland said, "[T]hough the people should support the Government, the Government should not support the people." Going on to say, "The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune." Which is why you give wealthy people money, so they can spend it and give it. I mean its the great libertarian, classical liberal ideal!
Although I do have a slight issue with this, the wealthy with money now aren't necessarily so charitable and generous. I mean lets be real there are far more people spending money and saving money than giving it to those in need. Since reading Radical by David Platt I'm more convinced that Americans are far more concerned with the rat race, keeping up with the Jones, getting their American dream, etc., than ever. The more consumerist a society becomes, the more "dreams" become transmitted through advertising, and the more gullible idiots with money, i.e. everyone, buy into those dreams then try and go get them. So the friendliness and charity of fellow citizens is quickly vanishing to the consumerism and dream acquisition of our fellow citizens.
The idea of supply side economics, kind of like Reagan's, is great if you want to allow a bunch of money into the market. Unfortunately I don't think this works if you leave such tax cuts in for so long that they simply become the market standard. The only way such a policy is going to work is if you raises taxes so you can then cut taxes during another recession, or you just bottom out taxes to reproduce the effects. (I must also say there are some that don't even think it was Reagan's policies that stimulated the economy as much as Carter's. Take that conservatives?)
This all brings me to the idea of taxes. If the wealthy are not distributing their money to the needy do we need to raise taxes to redistribute their wealth for them? I mean the government may not do it nearly as efficiently, but at least they'll be doing it. Or should we not so that the wealthy can spend their money, thereby stimulating economic growth thus distributing it that way? (I must add, I have read some that argue the wealthy aren't spending money so much as they are investing and saving it. Whether or not that stimulates the economy I don't know. I guess by investing it, it puts money into the financial system allowing banks to loan to business which allows business to grow and function.) If this is our choice are we then protecting the rich and thereby allowing wealth to be concentrated with the few?
Cleveland again has something to say to this.
"Communism is a hateful thing, and a menace to peace and organized government. But the Communism of combined wealth and capital, the outgrowth of overweening cupidity and selfishness, which insidiously undermines the justice and integrity of free institutions is not less dangerous than the communism of oppressed poverty and toil which, exasperated by injustice and discontent, attacks with wild disorder the citadel of rule.
He mocks the people who proposes that the Government shall protect the rich and that they in turn will care of the laboring poor"So what are we doing as a society? Simply looking to provide for the needy by means of socialism through high taxes? Or are we trying to simply protect the rich under the guise of supply side economics? I mean if you want such a economic policy to work, as I have stated, you need something to adjust, otherwise it simply becomes the market norm and the market adjusts to it. Me personally? I think we are mocking the people, because I think we are protecting the rich who have influence in Congress and influence Congress to keeping taxes relatively low. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but lobbyist do what lobbyist do, and lobbyist work for those who pay them, and the people that pay money are the people with money, and that ain't the poor. And unfortunately its not the particular slant of our fellow citizens to provide for people in need, like the farmer's in Cleveland's time, more money than the government would have given or does give.
from my OT class
So I have this Old Testament class, and we are going through the book of Genesis right now, and the professor mentioned the story of Abraham as being understood by some as allegorical, thus not real. He then posed the question "If Abraham didn't exist does that mean Christ didn't die?" Obviously this was to get those with a "traditional" or "conservative" theological stance to think (or annoyed). Well I'm always up for a challenge even though I don't think of myself as solely traditional or conservative. The question is interesting, though, because many in fact would argue that if we say one part of the Bible isn't historically factual that then has a direct correlation to the story of Christ and now the story of Christ becomes totally and completely untrue. I don't think it's necessarily that clear cut, but I am nonetheless piqued by what allegorical understandings can do to Scriptural interpretation and understanding.
I'm posting a copy of my response to the discussion board, but before I do that I must feel I must explain that it is indirectly responsive to the other two responses as well as the question. They argued, essentially, that there is a bigger theological understanding to the text, and the one can know Christ and experience transforming faith through him without having to worry about the nature of the Abraham's story. Now this view I understand, but mostly disagree with which is what my post is more about; I think the posed question is not dealing with how such a reading impacts of experience of God's power or one's faith. Therefore, I am more concerned with how such a reading impacts the whole flow and understanding of Scripture and the implications that a particular reading in one place has on another reading in another place. Also, this was literally an off the cuff sort of thing, so I must add that it is definitely lacking:
The story of Abraham doesn't correlate, necessarily, to whether or not Christ died, it does I believe correlate to the resurrection. The power and authority of the resurrection does not come solely from the story of Christ and the writings of the New Testament, but from the Old Testament and the story of Israel. The problem with understanding the stories such as Abraham in a new light is that you must understand that in light of how it can impact the story of Christ.
If we are to say that the story of Abraham is only allegorical it can be understood to be the express of humanity's longing for God to redeem his creation. The idea that God has an intent to bless the whole world. That God sees faith as our righteousness and not our actions. The idea that God will provide the offer, such as in the story of Isaac, that culminates in the Father doing with Christ for everyone which he would not let Abraham do only for himself. It can, however, run the risk of understanding the story of the resurrection in the same light. That resurrection doesn't actually happen, but it's allegorical, and as such expresses the human longing which we can experience through the story and lifestyle of Christ, which raises another issue in itself.
Another risk that a pure allegorical reading can render is that actuality of God's work. If the reading is purely allegorical then we cannot point to the work of Christ and say, "Look what God does for us!", and then point back to the story of Abraham and say, "See he's been actually doing it all along!" The allegorical reading sacrifices a sort of evidence that we can point to showing that not only has it long been humanity's longing, but God has long been fulfilling that longing. The allegorical reading cannot say that God hasn't been fulfilling our longing, but it can prevent us from showing a certain sense of "proof" of where and how he has done it.
I'm posting a copy of my response to the discussion board, but before I do that I must feel I must explain that it is indirectly responsive to the other two responses as well as the question. They argued, essentially, that there is a bigger theological understanding to the text, and the one can know Christ and experience transforming faith through him without having to worry about the nature of the Abraham's story. Now this view I understand, but mostly disagree with which is what my post is more about; I think the posed question is not dealing with how such a reading impacts of experience of God's power or one's faith. Therefore, I am more concerned with how such a reading impacts the whole flow and understanding of Scripture and the implications that a particular reading in one place has on another reading in another place. Also, this was literally an off the cuff sort of thing, so I must add that it is definitely lacking:
The story of Abraham doesn't correlate, necessarily, to whether or not Christ died, it does I believe correlate to the resurrection. The power and authority of the resurrection does not come solely from the story of Christ and the writings of the New Testament, but from the Old Testament and the story of Israel. The problem with understanding the stories such as Abraham in a new light is that you must understand that in light of how it can impact the story of Christ.
If we are to say that the story of Abraham is only allegorical it can be understood to be the express of humanity's longing for God to redeem his creation. The idea that God has an intent to bless the whole world. That God sees faith as our righteousness and not our actions. The idea that God will provide the offer, such as in the story of Isaac, that culminates in the Father doing with Christ for everyone which he would not let Abraham do only for himself. It can, however, run the risk of understanding the story of the resurrection in the same light. That resurrection doesn't actually happen, but it's allegorical, and as such expresses the human longing which we can experience through the story and lifestyle of Christ, which raises another issue in itself.
Another risk that a pure allegorical reading can render is that actuality of God's work. If the reading is purely allegorical then we cannot point to the work of Christ and say, "Look what God does for us!", and then point back to the story of Abraham and say, "See he's been actually doing it all along!" The allegorical reading sacrifices a sort of evidence that we can point to showing that not only has it long been humanity's longing, but God has long been fulfilling that longing. The allegorical reading cannot say that God hasn't been fulfilling our longing, but it can prevent us from showing a certain sense of "proof" of where and how he has done it.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Peace of Mind
So I finally have my netbook back, at least now I will be able to surf the web when I can find a chance and not suffer with only having the internet so long as I am around a connected computer.
It feels freeing, I can actually do school work away from school!
Oddly enough, that seems how much of my life has been since class last Thursday... freeing, I've been able to get a peace of mind.
Its nice, its nice to feel free. I am caught up with all of my readings, I was stressed about an assignment and that seems to have gone away, I am done with my presentation for a class, so now that stress is gone.
I mean its like I can finally start the cruising process. I mean insofar as I am staying caught up. It will feel like cruising because I know what is expected of me, I know how I am going to have to appropriate my time, and since I now know this I know how to handle it.
It was a ridiculously stressful first few weeks, but now I don't feel so stressed any more. So this feeling is definitely a blessing, but I can't help to sense an under current of fear that somehow something along the way is just going to get me stressed out and frustrated again and I will feel helpless against it, like tests and papers.
I must admit I am not the best at disciplining myself to plan ahead, especially after coming off a particularly stressful time period. I am far more apt to just chill out and relax.
I suppose that's what my ultimate problem is though, I love to chill out and relax and... be lazy. I just can't get myself to be disciplined to the point of doing things so I am allowed the time to be free.
I mean I know the consequences, less sleep, more stress, more anger and a rather dead spiritual life.
Maybe I am learning, maybe. I just hope to grow in this area before I have a job that demands it of me and when I fail its not just myself is the primary sufferer, but the church I am pastoring and my family.
It feels freeing, I can actually do school work away from school!
Oddly enough, that seems how much of my life has been since class last Thursday... freeing, I've been able to get a peace of mind.
Its nice, its nice to feel free. I am caught up with all of my readings, I was stressed about an assignment and that seems to have gone away, I am done with my presentation for a class, so now that stress is gone.
I mean its like I can finally start the cruising process. I mean insofar as I am staying caught up. It will feel like cruising because I know what is expected of me, I know how I am going to have to appropriate my time, and since I now know this I know how to handle it.
It was a ridiculously stressful first few weeks, but now I don't feel so stressed any more. So this feeling is definitely a blessing, but I can't help to sense an under current of fear that somehow something along the way is just going to get me stressed out and frustrated again and I will feel helpless against it, like tests and papers.
I must admit I am not the best at disciplining myself to plan ahead, especially after coming off a particularly stressful time period. I am far more apt to just chill out and relax.
I suppose that's what my ultimate problem is though, I love to chill out and relax and... be lazy. I just can't get myself to be disciplined to the point of doing things so I am allowed the time to be free.
I mean I know the consequences, less sleep, more stress, more anger and a rather dead spiritual life.
Maybe I am learning, maybe. I just hope to grow in this area before I have a job that demands it of me and when I fail its not just myself is the primary sufferer, but the church I am pastoring and my family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)