Happy fourth, everyone! If you haven't voted yet, there's still time. If you're from out of state and did not send in an absentee ballot, may the Lord God smite thee.
Thanks to Dr. Ballweg for dragging another choir in to perform. It's really nice to be able to sit back and watch someone else do the worshiping for us. The problem with having choirs perform in chapel is that worship is intended to be a communal experience, or so we've been told. If students wanted to attend a choir concert, they'd show up in Cantrell once a semester.
At least the choir sang in tune [mostly]. That's more than I can say for most chapel performers.
His Holiness was especially amusing today.
1) "SNU is a place where we are transformed into Jesus through educational pursuits." Well, if that's what our administration is shooting for then perhaps they should take a quick glance at the last several years' enrollment figures. The strategy really seems to be working. . . .
Being like Jesus does not require an education. Systematic theology, metaphysics, Greek II, and MCS are essential to being like Jesus in the same way that green beans, pork rinds, and durian are essential to making a glass of chocolate milk.
2) The sermaprayer.
My third favorite thing in the world is when pastors/speakers/people who think they have a right to be on stage in religious settings use their prayers to preach to the people in attendance. His Holiness fell into this trap this morning. I'll be honest, I was asleep three minutes in, but my neighbor was nice enough to wake me when the babbling was over. Brad, as much as you like to be in the limelight, let's not forget that Dr. Dunnington was scheduled to speak today. Remember, sharing is a virtue.
For the next fifteen minutes I'm going to try my best to bore you with a long-winded story about a bike trip I took last summer and whatever tangential narratives I find pertinent. Occasionally I will laugh maniacally in a manner reminiscent of George H.W. Bush. Oh, and I think numerology is a worthwhile pursuit. 666. You have been warned.
My second favorite thing in the world is when pastors/speakers/people who think they have a right to be on stage in religious settings speak only in metaphor, offer no arguments or supporting evidence to bolster their positions, and appeal only to the emotions to communicate their message. Pathos alone does not a position create. [Maybe Dunnington can start a new list: "Things I've Learned After Turning 60."]
"I have food to eat that you do not know about." [John 4:32] That's what she said.
Dunnington's main point this morning, once he finally shut up about bikes long enough to make one, was that being in the center of God's will is the most important thing a person can ever strive for. I believe his exact quote was, "Nothing is more important to your life than being in the center of God's will." Wrong. Food is more important to my life than God's will. Boo-yah.
The main problem with all this talk about God's will is that we cannot, ever, know what the will of God is. If God is the absolute ideal that we take her to be, then it seems to require little more than common sense to recognize that humans, in our "fallen" state, cannot comprehend the mind of an absolutely idealized being. [We may be able to know things about the mind of God, but we cannot know the thoughts of God.] If this is accepted as true then it appears that the only way humans could come to knowledge of God's mind would be through direct revelation. And aside from the occasional bleeding Mary statue and a few pieces of Jesus toast here and there, God doesn't seem to be too big on direct contact. Maybe when he finally gets an unlimited texting plan . . .
New discussion board post. God's will. Go now and discuss.
Dunnington did get one thing right; love should be the standard by which we live our lives. I think we can all agree on that.
"This is my simple religion.
There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy.
Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness."
- Dalai Lama
My favorite thing in the world is when I say something over and over and over and no one takes me seriously. I know I'm not Jesus reincarnate or anything, but I was serious when I suggested that, "God helps those who help themselves." [Having to repeat this so many times almost makes me sympathize with Brad's need for a semester theme.]
Seriously.
As it's the fourth, I think it is only appropriate that I close with a few enlightening comments about the election. America is not and was never intended to be a Christian nation. On the contrary, America was intended to be a place where people could exercise their religion, however crazy it may be, without fear of oppression. With this in mind it is interesting to note that, in the last half-century, America has become the stomping ground for a brand of religious fanaticism that can only be likened to that of the Islamic terrorists who have declared Jihad against America. You think I'm kidding, but simply because the Sharptons, Falwells, Robertsons, Haggards, Dobsons, Wildmons, and Bushes of America have been clever enough to disguise their fanaticism behind the facade of "pastor" or "leader" does not make it any less prevalent or threatening. Bombing abortion clinics is only a small step away from knocking down buildings.
Jesus Camp.
Now go in the grace and peace of God and vote for Obama.
"Keep near me and you will be safe."
Daedalus
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
First of all, I think that the choir performing was sort of a promotional deal, and I for one would much rather sit and listen to a decent choir than watch the horrific videos that have been the staple of our pre-chapel time.
I wholeheartedly agree with Daedalus regarding Brad's sermoprayer. I absolutely cannot stand it when pastors attempt to get some sort of message across disguised as a prayer. A prayer is a conversation with God, not preaching with your eyes closed.
And good idea for the discussion post over God's will. I will go there to post my thoughts on that.
Not bad, Daedalus.
"Systematic theology, metaphysics, Greek II, and MCS are essential to being like Jesus in the same way that green beans, pork rinds, and durian are essential to making a glass of chocolate milk."
I disagree. While these subjects are not essential to "being like Jesus", they are certainly not entirely unrelated. They might be considered to be the whipped topping or sprinkles on ice cream: not necessary, but certainly not harmful either.
The second question that arises with this post in a subject on which I commented in an earlier post and did not receive a response. Here is my earlier comment:
"While I do agree that humans do have a moral obligation to care for one another, I'm not sure that is an argument that can be made without some sort of metaphysical system including a higher power. If there is no God-like figure at the basis of a system of morality, then morality becomes highly relativistic, and there is little more basis for a "golden rule" (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) or even "silver rule" (Don't do unto others what you wouldn't have them do unto you) methodology of morality anymore so than Hobbes' view of morality as simply that which promotes self-interest. If morality is not a code of ethic from a higher power, then it is simply a matter of pragmatism, and I don't know if I see a practical reason for helping the less fortunate in Africa apart from the Judeo-Christian ethical system."
The same sort of problem applies here. You imply "ought"'s of an altruistic nature, but apart from the will of God, there is no "ought" of morality.
Ok you were harsh on the choir today.. honestly I think they took your advice from last time. It was great to give Bri the microphone because we all know that she sings with a passion and I noticed a few other ones in the choir getting into the worship. They didnt just sing to us in gibberish the whole time but included us in worshiping as well.. or tried.
I enjoyed that part of chapel today.
I hear Dunnington reads a lot of books and maybe his intelligence is so great that I was uncapable of comprehending the message...
or I was asleep somewhere before and after the 666 story.
Oh and I agree with Brads sly move to get in some preaching and call it prayer. I unfortunately had no idea and chose to stand and be active in this worship of God, silly me. Good thing I didn't fall asleep standing up.. That would have been awkward.
peace be with you as well.
I'm so glad you brought the uselessness of choral presentations to light in Christian gatherings. I think you'd better dust off the old time machine and send back some quick memos to the churches of the past few hundred years to let them know how pointless it is so that they don't waste all that time. You could really help them dodge a bullet, there D.
As another small sarcastic note: I anxiously await the forthcoming smiting. While he's at it, God should read Josh Wright's paper about the pointlessness of voting in the American electoral college system.
And now for my main point:
I agree.
Don't tell me how to vote.
"The main problem with all this talk about God's will is that we cannot, ever, know what the will of God is. If God is the absolute ideal that we take her to be, then it seems to require little more than common sense to recognize that humans, in our "fallen" state, cannot comprehend the mind of an absolutely idealized being. [We may be able to know things about the mind of God, but we cannot know the thoughts of God.] If this is accepted as true then it appears that the only way humans could come to knowledge of God's mind would be through direct revelation. And aside from the occasional bleeding Mary statue and a few pieces of Jesus toast here and there, God doesn't seem to be too big on direct contact. Maybe when he finally gets an unlimited texting plan . . . "
Daedalus ~
I am a bit confused about the slippery-synonymity with which you connect “God’s will”, “the mind of an absolute idealized being” the “mind of God” and the “thoughts of God.” That is, you seem to use the terms as if they are all the same, which they may not be. Nevertheless, the point of my response is not to criticize this but rather to comment on the idea of revelation. For the sake of conversation, I will accept your synonymous confluence of terms.
And, I will accept that the only way to “come to knowledge of God’s mind would be through direct revelation.”
In fact, I think this claim is at the heart of Canonical and Incarnational faith.
I do not understand, though, your claim that “And aside from the occasional bleeding Mary statue and a few pieces of Jesus toast here and there, God doesn't seem to be too big on direct contact.”
*A* claim – if not *the* claim – of the Biblical Canon is that God *has* revealed God’s self – in and through various stories, experiences, activities, dreams, speeches, and through the event Christians claim as God having become “enfleshed” in life with us.
While I *may* agree that God’s personal, indvidiualized, minutely-constructed “will” “for” “my” life can not be discerned in *precise* ways. It does seem clear in the context of the Canonical record of revelation that God’s *purpose* [You say tomato(e), I say tomato(w). You say “will” “mind” – I say “purpose”] can be known.
God’s *purpose* is revealed in the incessant call to justice and righteousness – mercy, equity, charity, grace, service, loving-kindness which is to be manifest in the totality of ones life – the domains of ones life which include all “spheres” of life – but might be called personal and communal, social and economic, political and private, holy and profane.
Canonical and Incarnational revelation demonstrate God’s purpose in the hoped for expectation of a revolutionary new social order, structured around God’s good revelation (Torah, Prophets, Jesus) for God’s good purpose, that is extended and shared in and through persons like you and I.
Or, at least, so it seems to me.
Will you be coming over for dinner this semester or next? Next Thursday the 13th of November? How many should we plan on? Our address is 4309 N. College. Please advise so we have the proper amount of foods to share.
Several things.
The Wanderer: Josh, seriously? I would have thought that you, after all the philosophy you've taken, would know better than to think that God is necessary for morality.
Sir Randomness: Learn to take a joke.
Michelson: Sorry for the equivocation of terms. Also, a few questions. First, if the Bible is taken to the the direct revelation of God to man, how do you explain the incongruities and contradictions within the text? Or did God just throw those in there to trip us up? Also, think for a moment of your immediate reaction to someone as soon as they say the words, "God told me to______."
I'll grant you that the Bible, at least the New Testament, lays out an ideology that we might interpret today as the "general will of God," but my beef is with people who say that God has a specific plan for individual people's lives. This claim strikes me as both arrogant and ignorant, as we could never know if God did have such a plan, and even if he did have a plan for my life, why would he tell you what it was?
As for dinner, I think you'll understand if I must politely bow out.
The Ostracized: Congratulations, you've figured me out. The next step is to not be so pompous to think that you're the only person on campus who has come to the realization you have.
The point that you seem to be missing is that this blog is a good thing for SNU. There are a number of problems with the way things are done on campus and in chapel that need to be addressed and changed.
Although you are apparently too dense to appreciate the finer intellectual nuances of my posts, do not assume that everyone else is as well. Perhaps this could be a good exercise for you, as a freshman. Read the posts, and try to extract the assumptions, ideologies, and motivations behind what I'm saying. Trust me, you'll be a better person for it.
Dear lowly freshman-
First, if you have the nerve to call shame down on Marty Michelson for his comments, you have my very low opinion, indeed. Perhaps us upperclassmen have come to a point to which the lowly freshmen cannot as their endurance has not been worn quite so thin, nor has their intellect been refined so far (in some cases and clearly not all).
Secondly, we understand D. will go away if we stop reading him, however
a.) he is amusing,
b.) he has some good points,
and c.) he makes those capable of seeing past sarcasm shake ourselves out of the deadly torpor imposed by our school's rigorous religious posing in order to come to definitive conclusions about belief and ritual.
I believe that those who continuously challenge him on his posts do so, as I do, out of good humor, or in response to the challenge thrown down by the author. We *wish* to be challenged, we *wish* our religious tradition to have meaning, and D. merely seeks to aid us in this excavation.
Dr. Michelson- would you be willing to save two places for me on Thursday? I'd love to take up your invitation.
Damn I can't believe I missed what the freshie had to say. Sounds like it was juicy.
I have abandoned the idea of posting on the facebook group due to lack of previous coherent posts. I am confused about whether we are talking about God's will here or God's purpose for our individual lives. If we are talking about the former, then it has been made apparent through the Bible what God's general will is for us. I can think of several passages off the top of my head where God instructs us on how He wants us to live our lives. "Do justly, love mercy, walk humbly...", "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strenght, and love your neighbor as yourself", just to name a couple. But if we are talking about God's purpose for each of us as individuals, then I must say that I do not believe that He has one singular purpose or plan for us individually. I believe that God has given each of us many talents, (some more than others..), and that we are called as Christians to use these gifts to glorify Him. We have free will to choose what we do with our lives. And as long as we are living within the overarching theme of "God's will" and doing everthing that we do to the best of our ability, then I believe that we are fulfilling our purpose. And besides, how boring would life be if we all had one specific purpose that we were "meant" for and that purpose was revealed to us?
I cannot not make up my mind- are you really wanting to change our campus for the better or just make waves. I doubt your "good intentions" Daedalus.
i hate it when the choir sings. if i had wanted to listen to them i would have attended one of their lame concerts. in total agreement there.
whatever happened to one guy with an acoustic? sheesh. keep it simple.
and i have never heard anyone speak in a more put-on voice than Mr. Dunnington. if that's really how he holds his conversations, i never want to meet him.
UndercoverFabala ~
If you're serious about coming over for dinner, we're serious about hosting you. But, my lovely and gracious Bride says we need a head-count for whatever she'll make/order/organize. So, send me an email or call me - mmichelson @ snu . edu
Daedalus wrote:
"First, if the Bible is taken to the the direct revelation of God to man, how do you explain the incongruities and contradictions within the text? Or did God just throw those in there to trip us up?"
Well, this depends on which or what kind of "incongruities and contradictions" you are pointing to Daedalus. If you mean of the textual variety, it is pretty clear that they can be explained as human errors of transcription - I present material on this in Bib. Interp. The Church of the Nazarene (CoN) Manual has a statement on Scripture and it (in my estimation) has a very nice way to understand this issue. The statement is very close to this which I will list as a quote, but I may be off by a word or two - "inerrantly revealing the will of God for us in all things necessary to our salvation." In that way, the CoN allows for "errors" but not errors that change the message of salvation. This, it seems to me, is a very solid statement (and one reason I choose to be a Nazarene.)
Daedalus wrote: "the New Testament, lays out an ideology that we might interpret today as the "general will of God," but my beef is with people who say that God has a specific plan for individual people's lives. This claim strikes me as both arrogant and ignorant, as we could never know if God did have such a plan, and even if he did have a plan for my life, why would he tell you what it was?"
I can understand your potential grievance with the idea of arrogance or ignorance on this matter, Daedalus. At the same time, though, I would note that when I have had persons use this language with me, about my own life, they have always done so out of charity and grace, for my well-being. So, while it *may* be presumptive, even arrogant to speak about God's individualized, specific future, and while I do not characteristically speak in these terms - I can also say that the persons I have known to use this language with me did not do so out of arrogant or ignorant ambition, but out of kind grace in helping me try to discern God's work in the world that involves me.
So sorry you won't be able to come over on Thursday, but do understand your need to not show up.
Perhaps someday you'll feel able to come over. You're always welcome.
Post a Comment