We had to read Crystal L. Downing's How Postmodernism Serves (My) Faith: Questioning Truth in Language, Philosophy and Art for the MHGS class "Theories of Culture and the Engagement of Postmodernity." I recommend the book to anyone who is interested in either the topic implied by the title of the book or the topic implied by the title of the class. Downing's book is well thought out and relatively accessible for the layperson. She essentially argues that the Church should not have a "duck and cover" attitude towards postmodernity, but instead should seek thoughtful engagement with it. She then proceeds to show how this cultural/philosophical turn can be thought of as good news for the Church in the way that it critiques the all-too-secular thought and attitude of modernity, actually opening the door for true faith. She uses biblical, historical, theological, cultural, literary, architectural and artistic examples throughout, explaining very well the good and the bad of the modern and the postmodern, and develops some thought on how it is that we might be the Church in this strange new age.
Rating:
For Me - 4 (Really Liked)
For You - 4 (Recommended, if the topics interest you)
Friday, December 14, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
When I met Quantum Physics
Of course I have had conversion experiences of a decidedly non-religious (conventionally speaking) sense as well. The one of these that sticks out most in my mind as a conversion was when I became a believer in the truth of quantum physics.
In Quantum I, on the 7th floor of RLM at the University of Texas, we were discussing the historical origins of quantum theory. We had been through Planck's explanation of the Black Body Radiation phenomenon, in which one particularly surprising logical result of his solution was the quantization of light. Planck's quantum conclusion was less than convincing to me, as it was to physicists of his day. The experiment that would later convince most physicists of the truth of Planck's conclusions, as well as me nearly a hundred years after the fact, was that of the Photoelectric Effect.
This phenomenon had been puzzling physicists for years. Essentially, when light towards the blue/violet end of the spectrum hits certain metals it causes the metal to eject electrons that all have approximately the same energy. If light is, strictly speaking, wavelike, then one would expect as the intensity, or brightness, of the light is increased then the energy of the electrons would increase similarly. Think about that for a moment; let that sink in.
It turns out that what actually happens in the Photoelectric effect is that as the intensity of light is increased, the energies of the electrons that are expelled from the metal remains constant. What we get instead of increased energies is simply an increase in the number of electrons expelled. I hope that you allowed ample time for the previous paragraph to sink in so that you realize how crazy this is. Einstein was able to resolve the problems one runs into in this experiment by treating light as if it were a particle, which worked wonderfully. What is more strange is that a constant that showed up in Planck's treatment of Black Body Radiation reappeared in Einstein's equations explaining the Photoelectric Effect. Einstein thus corroborated Planck's quantum conclusion, and essentially kicked off the quantum revolution in physics, as well as in me personally.
Sidebar: Einstein won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 for his explanation of the Photoelectric Effect. Of course that work of his came out the same year (1905) as his more famous Special Theory of Relativity, and his similarly important explanation of Brownian Motion. Planck justifiably received the Nobel Prize for his work on Black Body Radiation in 1918
In Quantum I, on the 7th floor of RLM at the University of Texas, we were discussing the historical origins of quantum theory. We had been through Planck's explanation of the Black Body Radiation phenomenon, in which one particularly surprising logical result of his solution was the quantization of light. Planck's quantum conclusion was less than convincing to me, as it was to physicists of his day. The experiment that would later convince most physicists of the truth of Planck's conclusions, as well as me nearly a hundred years after the fact, was that of the Photoelectric Effect.
This phenomenon had been puzzling physicists for years. Essentially, when light towards the blue/violet end of the spectrum hits certain metals it causes the metal to eject electrons that all have approximately the same energy. If light is, strictly speaking, wavelike, then one would expect as the intensity, or brightness, of the light is increased then the energy of the electrons would increase similarly. Think about that for a moment; let that sink in.
It turns out that what actually happens in the Photoelectric effect is that as the intensity of light is increased, the energies of the electrons that are expelled from the metal remains constant. What we get instead of increased energies is simply an increase in the number of electrons expelled. I hope that you allowed ample time for the previous paragraph to sink in so that you realize how crazy this is. Einstein was able to resolve the problems one runs into in this experiment by treating light as if it were a particle, which worked wonderfully. What is more strange is that a constant that showed up in Planck's treatment of Black Body Radiation reappeared in Einstein's equations explaining the Photoelectric Effect. Einstein thus corroborated Planck's quantum conclusion, and essentially kicked off the quantum revolution in physics, as well as in me personally.
Sidebar: Einstein won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 for his explanation of the Photoelectric Effect. Of course that work of his came out the same year (1905) as his more famous Special Theory of Relativity, and his similarly important explanation of Brownian Motion. Planck justifiably received the Nobel Prize for his work on Black Body Radiation in 1918
Monday, November 5, 2007
When I met Jesus
A few nights ago some friends and I were discussing conversion and evangelism, thinking about what that looks like lived out in today's world. We were speaking primarily about relationship, because it seems like that is where Christ most often meets people - through the face of another. This made me remember the first encounter I can recall having of Christ many years ago. It is in a way my first conversion story, the beginning of what has been and will continue to be a long journey for me as I seek to figure out what this life is, how I fit in it, and how Christ speaks into that.
I was probably five or so years old, and all I remember is my room at our family's old house on Mellow Ridge. I was sitting on my bed, alone in my room. I was being punished for something, probably having to do with a fight with my younger sister Allison or something. Sitting there alone, I was surprisingly clear-headed about my situation, at least as I remember it. It dawned on me, what if God wants me to be good?
It seems childish when I think back on it, but childish in a good way. From where I am now I really want to deconstruct what it would mean for me to be "good" and I would want to point out that Christianity offers so much more than morality (which it does), but the simplicity of such a revelation I think is pretty remarkable.
Some people get burning bushes or theophanies involving hosts of angels or a clear, audible voice. I first got a subtle suggestion to be nicer to my sister. Of course if I was any nicer to Allison she likely didn't notice. We fought continuously throughout childhood, even into high school. But this was my first conversion experience, and though there have been many since, this overly simplistic, naive, childish moment is special to me.
"Love your neighbor as yourself."
I was probably five or so years old, and all I remember is my room at our family's old house on Mellow Ridge. I was sitting on my bed, alone in my room. I was being punished for something, probably having to do with a fight with my younger sister Allison or something. Sitting there alone, I was surprisingly clear-headed about my situation, at least as I remember it. It dawned on me, what if God wants me to be good?
It seems childish when I think back on it, but childish in a good way. From where I am now I really want to deconstruct what it would mean for me to be "good" and I would want to point out that Christianity offers so much more than morality (which it does), but the simplicity of such a revelation I think is pretty remarkable.
Some people get burning bushes or theophanies involving hosts of angels or a clear, audible voice. I first got a subtle suggestion to be nicer to my sister. Of course if I was any nicer to Allison she likely didn't notice. We fought continuously throughout childhood, even into high school. But this was my first conversion experience, and though there have been many since, this overly simplistic, naive, childish moment is special to me.
"Love your neighbor as yourself."
Friday, September 21, 2007
Fox News vs. Kathy Griffin
I spent so much time formulating my replying to this post on Kj's blog (which should probably be read first for context), that I figured I should post it here as well:
We live today in an increasingly post-Christendom culture. In times past, Christianity was really the only acceptable religion in the United States, and in many places it still is (You still pretty much have to claim to be a Christian to get elected president).
That may sound great to some people, and in some ways I think it is, but in many other ways it distorts the faith.
When Christianity is given power, we historically don't tend to handle it better than others in power for very long (See the Inquisition, the Crusades, the 30 years war, Native American Genocides and countless other acts of cultural and theological arrogance). A culture's favorite Bible verses are quoted out of context (or allegorized) in order to justify just about anything.
It is this Jesus that Kathy Griffin is protesting - an oppressive non-Jesus born of eisegesis, greed and hunger for power. He is a mythical figure who indeed founded democracy and capitalism, not to mention the modern day Republican party. He is the God of American superiority, and we are his chosen people who will take his gospel of freedom and free markets to the ends of the earth. He is a white male with blond hair and blue eyes, and he is worshiped everyday in strip malls and Wall-Marts nationwide.
I am not at all offended by Kathy Griffin's remarks, which seem intentionally comedic and appropriately satirical. But I am offended by Fox News's Lauren Green and her ill-conceived and ahistorical attempt to connect the annointed messiah of democracy, capitalism, and consumerism with the Jesus of the Bible and my faith.
Also, one final point. If Kathy Griffin had attacked Mohammad, she would have been attacking a religious figure whose followers are - in this country - marginalized. Attacking the primary religious figure of an oppressed group is very different than attacking the primary religious figure of a group who has used that person to justify their acts of oppression[1]. It is now socially acceptable to critique the majority (or perhaps now, plurality), which I think is great. Maybe we should focus less on the speck in Kathy Griffin's eye, and more on the log in our own.
[1] I'm also aware of the fact that many Muslims use Mohammad in similar ways, and I would extend the same critique to them where they are in power, though in a different way, since on the world's stage we are still the dominant power.
We live today in an increasingly post-Christendom culture. In times past, Christianity was really the only acceptable religion in the United States, and in many places it still is (You still pretty much have to claim to be a Christian to get elected president).
That may sound great to some people, and in some ways I think it is, but in many other ways it distorts the faith.
When Christianity is given power, we historically don't tend to handle it better than others in power for very long (See the Inquisition, the Crusades, the 30 years war, Native American Genocides and countless other acts of cultural and theological arrogance). A culture's favorite Bible verses are quoted out of context (or allegorized) in order to justify just about anything.
It is this Jesus that Kathy Griffin is protesting - an oppressive non-Jesus born of eisegesis, greed and hunger for power. He is a mythical figure who indeed founded democracy and capitalism, not to mention the modern day Republican party. He is the God of American superiority, and we are his chosen people who will take his gospel of freedom and free markets to the ends of the earth. He is a white male with blond hair and blue eyes, and he is worshiped everyday in strip malls and Wall-Marts nationwide.
I am not at all offended by Kathy Griffin's remarks, which seem intentionally comedic and appropriately satirical. But I am offended by Fox News's Lauren Green and her ill-conceived and ahistorical attempt to connect the annointed messiah of democracy, capitalism, and consumerism with the Jesus of the Bible and my faith.
Also, one final point. If Kathy Griffin had attacked Mohammad, she would have been attacking a religious figure whose followers are - in this country - marginalized. Attacking the primary religious figure of an oppressed group is very different than attacking the primary religious figure of a group who has used that person to justify their acts of oppression[1]. It is now socially acceptable to critique the majority (or perhaps now, plurality), which I think is great. Maybe we should focus less on the speck in Kathy Griffin's eye, and more on the log in our own.
[1] I'm also aware of the fact that many Muslims use Mohammad in similar ways, and I would extend the same critique to them where they are in power, though in a different way, since on the world's stage we are still the dominant power.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Rational Atheism
A new editorial by noted skeptic Michael Shermer in Scientific American, of interest (in my opinion), to atheists and theists alike.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
El Chupacabra
I'm taking a brief break from paper writing to spread the word about this delicious Mexican Food establishment on the Greenwood side of the Greenwood/Phinney Ridge juke. In spite of the terrifying pictures that a Google Image Search brings up of the hypothetical goat sucking monster, El Chupacabra makes some amazing food. I think Rene may even like it: Corn tortillas, white cheese, and real Mexicans in the kitchen. Thanks go out to Georgia Bulldogs fan Smruti Desai for the tip.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Isaiah 25:6-9
And YHWH of Hosts will make for all the peoples on this mountain
A feast of fatty foods, a feast of aged wines
Fatty foods that are full of marrow, aged wines that have been refined.
And he will swallow on this mountain
The presence of mourning, the mournful covering over all the peoples
And the covering that was spread over all the nations.
He has swallowed death for forever
And the Lord YHWH will wipe away tears from upon all faces
And the shame of his people will be taken away from upon all the earth
Because YHWH has spoken.
And it will be said on that day,
“Behold! This is our God. We waited for him and he is saving us.
This is YHWH. We have waited for him.
Let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation.”
(Is. 25:6-9, my translation)
A feast of fatty foods, a feast of aged wines
Fatty foods that are full of marrow, aged wines that have been refined.
And he will swallow on this mountain
The presence of mourning, the mournful covering over all the peoples
And the covering that was spread over all the nations.
He has swallowed death for forever
And the Lord YHWH will wipe away tears from upon all faces
And the shame of his people will be taken away from upon all the earth
Because YHWH has spoken.
And it will be said on that day,
“Behold! This is our God. We waited for him and he is saving us.
This is YHWH. We have waited for him.
Let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation.”
(Is. 25:6-9, my translation)
Christ the Center
"Christ goes through the ages, questioned anew, misunderstood anew, and again and again put to death."
-Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center, p. 35
-Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center, p. 35
Monday, June 25, 2007
Dr. Flappy-cakes is Staying in Colorado!
Congratulations to Dr. Brandon Fain, M.D. (soon enough, anyways), for gaining acceptance to University of Colorado Medical School in Denver. Now you can stay close to home and continue to cheer for your Broncos, Nuggets, Avalanche and Rockies. Congratulations, Bro.
A Tale of Three Burgers: Genre Triggers Eating Strategy
I've had three different cheeseburgers in the last week or so, and I wanted to share my thoughts about them with you all.
Dick's
If you are the kind of person who likes solidified American cheese that is stuck to burger wrapping paper, I've got a recommendation. A buck-thirty or so will buy you a cheeseburger at my local Lower Queen Anne Dick's, and fries are the same price. They are approximately comparable to McDonald's cheeseburgers, though they are a bit more expensive, and maybe a three quarters of a step better in the class category (though class admittedly counts precious little in the realm of delicious cheap eats). What counts for more is the quality of french fries, which are of the hand cut variety and, glistening with glorious grease, are practically begging for you to let them make the nearest piece of paper on your desk translucent.
Of course it'll take a few Dick's cheeseburgers, plus the fries, to put a dent in your hunger, but I'm okay with that, because after tax I still find myself in the four dollar neighborhood. Not a bad neighborhood to be in when you are hungry and in a hurry.
In the genre of cheap fast food burgers, Dick's gets a solid "A."
Burgermaster
This drive-in is located up on Aurora, somewhere between 85th St and the Canadian border. Closer to 85th, I think. It's like a Sonic, only with a much more mom-and-pop feel, less annoying uniforms, and a cooler, less technologically advanced way to order (turn on your headlights for service). It's not in the same class as Sonic though, because a cheeseburger combo ("Burgermaster w/ Cheese") is something like $6.34 plus tax. With me giving them more of my money, standards must be raised. The cheeseburger was delicious (Austinites - think Player's), and the fries were comparable to McDonald's, in a good way. One problem I had was the drink that came with this combo. It was only 10 oz. You can easily upgrade it for a bit more money, which I didn't do because I wasn't thirsty at all, but in a world where a small at Jack in the Box or Taco Bell is the size of an average pitcher, I think you can afford to give be a bit more to drink. Even though I didn't want it. This is America, dammit; waste some carbonated beverage on me.
If the benchmark is Players in Austin, I'll give them only a B because they are a bit overpriced and they have Mr. Pibb instead of Dr. Pepper. At Players on MLK I can get a jalapeño cheeseburger, thick fries and a bottomless Dr. Pepper for about $5.25. But be kind, this is Seattle, and the burger options are far less diverse.
A note from the bad pun department: Anyone who thinks this burger is master needs to get out more.
Mcmenamin's Queen Anne
A northwestern chain of brewpub/restaurants, I'm partial to the one a few blocks from my apartment in Uptown Seattle at the bottom of Queen Anne Hill. I don't really have anything bad to say about this place. The beer is delicious (try the Terminator Stout) and is brewed a few feet from where you sit, and the cheeseburger is priced reasonably enough at $7.10 to justify not ordering from the Happy Hour menu. This is a sit down restaurant, so clearly a class or two higher than Burgermaster, but surprisingly less than a dollar more expensive (before tax and tip), a notable feat in a city where the industry standard restaurant burger price is an over-confident ten bucks. And this burger is better than most ten dollar Seattle burgers, and might be the best burger I've had in the Seattle area (see also Red Hook brewery in Woodinville - evidently the ability to make good beer also comes with the ability to make good burgers). Of course the fries are delicious and hand-cut, and I can get Tabasco and beer, two things that were lacking at the other two establishments.
All told, in the Seattle restaurant burger scene, Mcmenamin's gets an "A".
Dick's
If you are the kind of person who likes solidified American cheese that is stuck to burger wrapping paper, I've got a recommendation. A buck-thirty or so will buy you a cheeseburger at my local Lower Queen Anne Dick's, and fries are the same price. They are approximately comparable to McDonald's cheeseburgers, though they are a bit more expensive, and maybe a three quarters of a step better in the class category (though class admittedly counts precious little in the realm of delicious cheap eats). What counts for more is the quality of french fries, which are of the hand cut variety and, glistening with glorious grease, are practically begging for you to let them make the nearest piece of paper on your desk translucent.
Of course it'll take a few Dick's cheeseburgers, plus the fries, to put a dent in your hunger, but I'm okay with that, because after tax I still find myself in the four dollar neighborhood. Not a bad neighborhood to be in when you are hungry and in a hurry.
In the genre of cheap fast food burgers, Dick's gets a solid "A."
Burgermaster
This drive-in is located up on Aurora, somewhere between 85th St and the Canadian border. Closer to 85th, I think. It's like a Sonic, only with a much more mom-and-pop feel, less annoying uniforms, and a cooler, less technologically advanced way to order (turn on your headlights for service). It's not in the same class as Sonic though, because a cheeseburger combo ("Burgermaster w/ Cheese") is something like $6.34 plus tax. With me giving them more of my money, standards must be raised. The cheeseburger was delicious (Austinites - think Player's), and the fries were comparable to McDonald's, in a good way. One problem I had was the drink that came with this combo. It was only 10 oz. You can easily upgrade it for a bit more money, which I didn't do because I wasn't thirsty at all, but in a world where a small at Jack in the Box or Taco Bell is the size of an average pitcher, I think you can afford to give be a bit more to drink. Even though I didn't want it. This is America, dammit; waste some carbonated beverage on me.
If the benchmark is Players in Austin, I'll give them only a B because they are a bit overpriced and they have Mr. Pibb instead of Dr. Pepper. At Players on MLK I can get a jalapeño cheeseburger, thick fries and a bottomless Dr. Pepper for about $5.25. But be kind, this is Seattle, and the burger options are far less diverse.
A note from the bad pun department: Anyone who thinks this burger is master needs to get out more.
Mcmenamin's Queen Anne
A northwestern chain of brewpub/restaurants, I'm partial to the one a few blocks from my apartment in Uptown Seattle at the bottom of Queen Anne Hill. I don't really have anything bad to say about this place. The beer is delicious (try the Terminator Stout) and is brewed a few feet from where you sit, and the cheeseburger is priced reasonably enough at $7.10 to justify not ordering from the Happy Hour menu. This is a sit down restaurant, so clearly a class or two higher than Burgermaster, but surprisingly less than a dollar more expensive (before tax and tip), a notable feat in a city where the industry standard restaurant burger price is an over-confident ten bucks. And this burger is better than most ten dollar Seattle burgers, and might be the best burger I've had in the Seattle area (see also Red Hook brewery in Woodinville - evidently the ability to make good beer also comes with the ability to make good burgers). Of course the fries are delicious and hand-cut, and I can get Tabasco and beer, two things that were lacking at the other two establishments.
All told, in the Seattle restaurant burger scene, Mcmenamin's gets an "A".
Sunday, June 24, 2007
A word from Dietrich Bonhoeffer
"Those who remain alone with their evil are left utterly alone. It is possible that Christians may remain lonely in spite of daily worship together, prayer together, and all their community through service - that the final breakthrough to community does not occur precisely because they enjoy community with one another as pious believers, but not with one another as those lacking piety, as sinners...However, the grace of the gospel, which is so hard for the pious to comprehend, confronts us with the truth. It says to us, you are a sinner, a great, unholy sinner. Now come, as the sinner that you are, to your God who loves you. For God wants you as you are, not desiring anything from you - a sacrifice, a good deed - but rather desiring you alone."
-Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together
-Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together
Overrated Item of the Day: Pretzels
I could live without them. They are completely useless to me except as a conduit for salt. So why don't I just eat salt? At least salt won't make me quite as unnecessarily thirsty as pretzels do.
Some people really like pretzels, and I think that's great for them. But as far as I'm concerned, pretzels are nothing more than the stuff that gets in the way of the good stuff when I'm trying to eat Chex Mix.
Some people really like pretzels, and I think that's great for them. But as far as I'm concerned, pretzels are nothing more than the stuff that gets in the way of the good stuff when I'm trying to eat Chex Mix.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Changing Paradigms in Camera-ology
My Nikon D40 came in the mail a few days ago and I've been really having a great time figuring out how to use it.I took this one with my new camera (which needs a name) resting on a playground set at a dog park a few blocks up from my apartment. If I owned a tripod then that building might not be in the way. This picture is way better than what my old point and shoot would have taken under the provided lighting conditions. Speaking of which, maybe now would be a great time for a moment of silence to honor my old 2.0 Megapixel Canon Digital Elph.
She took many an amazing photo, and I'd pit her against any other point and shoot out there when it comes to quality of print.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Overrated Item of the Day
Seattle's collective taste in coffee.
Generally speaking, Seattle, in spite of its reputation as a city of coffee, has horrible taste in coffee. Starbuck's sucks and Tully's is worse, and both chains are wildly popular and well thought of by the average Seattleite. I'm more and more convinced everyday that very few of them have any idea what good coffee tastes like. I bet you could take Folger's, or maybe that stuff they brew at 7 Eleven, slap a green circular logo with some smiley lady with a crown on it and most people here would think it's delicious.
Not to say that Seattle isn't well above average when it comes to the availability of good coffee: Cafe Vita and Zoka's are both of high quality, and I've heard great things about Uptown Espresso and several other places, but it could definitely be said that largely the average resident of Seattle couldn't tell a good cup of coffee from a good cup of water.
Generally speaking, Seattle, in spite of its reputation as a city of coffee, has horrible taste in coffee. Starbuck's sucks and Tully's is worse, and both chains are wildly popular and well thought of by the average Seattleite. I'm more and more convinced everyday that very few of them have any idea what good coffee tastes like. I bet you could take Folger's, or maybe that stuff they brew at 7 Eleven, slap a green circular logo with some smiley lady with a crown on it and most people here would think it's delicious.
Not to say that Seattle isn't well above average when it comes to the availability of good coffee: Cafe Vita and Zoka's are both of high quality, and I've heard great things about Uptown Espresso and several other places, but it could definitely be said that largely the average resident of Seattle couldn't tell a good cup of coffee from a good cup of water.
Some Thoughts from Heschel's The Prophets
"The principle to be kept in mind is to know what we see rather than to see what we know." (p. xi)
"It is not a world devoid of meaning that evokes the prophet's consternation, but a world deaf to meaning." (xiii)
"Prophecy, then, may be described as exegesis of existence from a divine perspective." (xiv)
"Instead of showing us a way through the elegant mansions of the mind, the prophets take us to the slums." (3)
"Of what paltry worth is human might - yet human compassion is divinely precious." (6)
"Instead of cursing the enemy, the prophets condemn their own nation." (12)
From The Prophets: An Introduction Vol. I by Abraham Heschel
"It is not a world devoid of meaning that evokes the prophet's consternation, but a world deaf to meaning." (xiii)
"Prophecy, then, may be described as exegesis of existence from a divine perspective." (xiv)
"Instead of showing us a way through the elegant mansions of the mind, the prophets take us to the slums." (3)
"Of what paltry worth is human might - yet human compassion is divinely precious." (6)
"Instead of cursing the enemy, the prophets condemn their own nation." (12)
From The Prophets: An Introduction Vol. I by Abraham Heschel
Monday, June 11, 2007
A recent return to meditating with Meister Eckhart
"Apprehend God in all things,
for God is in all things.
Every single creature is full of God
and is a book about God.
Every creature is a word of God.
If I spent enough time with the tiniest creature -
even a caterpillar -
I would never have to prepare a sermon. So full of God
is every creature."
"Now I shall tell you something I have never
spoken of before.
God enjoys him/herself.
In the same enjoyment in which God enjoys him/herself,
S/he enjoys all creatures.
God
finds joy and rapture
in us.
All that is good in creatures -
all their honeysweetness -
comes from God.
All things are pure and noble in God."
"God's being is my being
and God's primordial being
is my primordial being.
Wherever I am,
there is God.
The eye with which I see God
is the same eye with which God sees me."
"God created all things in such a way
that they are not outside himself,
as ignorant people falsely imagine.
Rather,
All creatures flow outward, but nonetheless remain
within God.
God created all things this way:
not that they might stand outside of
God, nor alongside God,
nor beyond God,
but that they might
come into God
and receive God
and dwell in God.
For this reason everything that is
is bathed in God,
is enveloped by God,
who is round-about us all, enveloping us."
"If you were to let a horse
run about in a green meadow,
the horse would want to pour forth its whole strength
in leaping about the meadow.
So too
it is a joy to God
to have poured out
the divine nature and being
completely into us
who are divine images."
"The seed of God is in us.
Now
the seed of a pear tree
grows into a pear tree;
and a hazel seed
grows into a hazel tree;
a seed of God
grows into
God."
Taken from Matthew Fox's Meditations with Meister Eckhart
for God is in all things.
Every single creature is full of God
and is a book about God.
Every creature is a word of God.
If I spent enough time with the tiniest creature -
even a caterpillar -
I would never have to prepare a sermon. So full of God
is every creature."
"Now I shall tell you something I have never
spoken of before.
God enjoys him/herself.
In the same enjoyment in which God enjoys him/herself,
S/he enjoys all creatures.
God
finds joy and rapture
in us.
All that is good in creatures -
all their honeysweetness -
comes from God.
All things are pure and noble in God."
"God's being is my being
and God's primordial being
is my primordial being.
Wherever I am,
there is God.
The eye with which I see God
is the same eye with which God sees me."
"God created all things in such a way
that they are not outside himself,
as ignorant people falsely imagine.
Rather,
All creatures flow outward, but nonetheless remain
within God.
God created all things this way:
not that they might stand outside of
God, nor alongside God,
nor beyond God,
but that they might
come into God
and receive God
and dwell in God.
For this reason everything that is
is bathed in God,
is enveloped by God,
who is round-about us all, enveloping us."
"If you were to let a horse
run about in a green meadow,
the horse would want to pour forth its whole strength
in leaping about the meadow.
So too
it is a joy to God
to have poured out
the divine nature and being
completely into us
who are divine images."
"The seed of God is in us.
Now
the seed of a pear tree
grows into a pear tree;
and a hazel seed
grows into a hazel tree;
a seed of God
grows into
God."
Taken from Matthew Fox's Meditations with Meister Eckhart
Friday, April 20, 2007
"Jesus Camp", Shame and Fundamentalism
I just watched Jesus Camp and one word sticks out for me: shame.
A lot of what was said I would agree with at some level, but for all the shame that was involved. I saw that shame in these children's tears. They internalized all the sin they were told was in them and in the world, and the it seems like it was that burden that caused the intense emotions that expressed itself as tears. They cried because they had been named as evil, and then told that it is their responsibility to tell everyone else they are evil. Shame is naturally evangelistic, and so it's not much of a stretch for these kids to easily become evangelists of this bastardized "gospel" of shame. When a person is consumed with shame, they cannot love, all they can do is shame others.
Speaking of shame, I don't want to vilify the specific people who were portrayed in this movie. Instead, I would like to ask broader questions about what should be taught to children, both in the church and in the home. Or, perhaps more foundationally, how is your theology different than that which was portrayed in the film (or is it?) and why? And what part do you think shame plays in fundamentalism as a whole?
A lot of what was said I would agree with at some level, but for all the shame that was involved. I saw that shame in these children's tears. They internalized all the sin they were told was in them and in the world, and the it seems like it was that burden that caused the intense emotions that expressed itself as tears. They cried because they had been named as evil, and then told that it is their responsibility to tell everyone else they are evil. Shame is naturally evangelistic, and so it's not much of a stretch for these kids to easily become evangelists of this bastardized "gospel" of shame. When a person is consumed with shame, they cannot love, all they can do is shame others.
Speaking of shame, I don't want to vilify the specific people who were portrayed in this movie. Instead, I would like to ask broader questions about what should be taught to children, both in the church and in the home. Or, perhaps more foundationally, how is your theology different than that which was portrayed in the film (or is it?) and why? And what part do you think shame plays in fundamentalism as a whole?
Thursday, April 19, 2007
a wedding
This past Sunday, a wedding was a part of the church service. The liturgy just sort of stopped after the offering, and a guy in a tux and a woman in a wedding dress got up and were married. Then the wedding paused while the bride and groom served us communion, then the pastor did the whole kiss the bride thing, then the benediction and that was the end. It was easily the simplest wedding I've ever been to, and it was incredibly beautiful. I'll bet this was cheaper than a Saturday wedding too. And what a great theology of church. I don't even know these people, but I was invited to their wedding because they chose to have it in the middle of a church service that I happen to be attend. This has changed my entire hermeneutic for what a wedding should be. What a great thing, not to invite only close family and friends, but to invite your local instance of the body of Christ to attend your wedding.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
See you later, Billy
This made my day/month:
Kentucky welcomes new coach Gillispie
Congratulations, and Bon voyage! Go beat Florida for me.
Kentucky welcomes new coach Gillispie
Congratulations, and Bon voyage! Go beat Florida for me.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Oh Happy Day
Thanks to the fine customer service practitioners at Target in Lynnwood, Washington I am now the proud owner of another French Press by Bodum. Thank you for all your prayers and support through this difficult time.
Advice: Be gentle to hot, thin, soapy glass.
Advice: Be gentle to hot, thin, soapy glass.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Good Grief?
When confronted with grief, what do you do? I do what I think a lot of men do, I kill it or I run from it. Grief is not safe, it's not masculine; I've got to get away from it as quickly as possible. Diffuse it with a joke, or maybe with optimism. Or maybe with a sense of futility - I can't change it, so why should I feel it? But what am I so afraid of? And if you are with me on this, what are you so afraid of? What does a tear, especially in front of someone, cost you?
What if we followed in the footsteps of Christ? He was a man, a brilliantly strong man, but he was also called a "man of sorrows and full of grief." I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.
Maybe to truly be a man is to embrace your sorrow instead of hiding from it. Maybe strength is being able to feel, to weep and shed tears for yourself without shame. Maybe a good place to start is to grieve the fact that there is shame for a lot of men (myself included) when it comes to grief and, indeed, tears. Why should I be ashamed of my tears? Why should I be afraid to feel?
Cry, wail, tear your clothes, because our world has a really fucked up view of masculinity, and we have inherited it.
But what will we do with it now that it's ours?
What if we followed in the footsteps of Christ? He was a man, a brilliantly strong man, but he was also called a "man of sorrows and full of grief." I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.
Maybe to truly be a man is to embrace your sorrow instead of hiding from it. Maybe strength is being able to feel, to weep and shed tears for yourself without shame. Maybe a good place to start is to grieve the fact that there is shame for a lot of men (myself included) when it comes to grief and, indeed, tears. Why should I be ashamed of my tears? Why should I be afraid to feel?
Cry, wail, tear your clothes, because our world has a really fucked up view of masculinity, and we have inherited it.
But what will we do with it now that it's ours?
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Horrible Travesty at the Kitchen Sink
I was just washing my Bodum french press that I bought about 3 weeks ago and it shattered in my hands. I didn't drop it, or hit it with a frying pan, I was holding it gently and washing it with a sponge. I am really pissed off right now. And to top it all off, I now have no way to make my own coffee tomorrow, so I have to go to a coffee shop and pay two dollars for a freaking cafe americano which will be only marginally more delicious than what my press pot would have made me for two dollars cheaper. Damn you, Bodum.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Tarahumara, the Runners on Foot
I watched Snatch with some friends tonight, and somehow (it fit in the conversation somehow) I ended up talking about a tribe native to northern Mexico who happen to be famous for their long distance running. I'm fairly certain that those friends don't really care that much, but I found the name and thus wanted to share just a bit about this fascinating culture that lives in the Sierra Madre Occidental in Chihuahua, Mexico. They are the Tarahumara, and here is some reading that may be insightful:
Wikipedia
mexonline.com
And an excerpt from a paper I wrote for my undergrad, which was a review of Tarahumara by Bernard L. Fontana:
"They can run for days without even sleeping, and with large packs filled with mail or some other burden. In spite of disease and often malnutrition, they are able to get around on foot in a way that is more than impressive. "
And a brief shout out to my friends: I'm sorry you hated Snatch.
Wikipedia
mexonline.com
And an excerpt from a paper I wrote for my undergrad, which was a review of Tarahumara by Bernard L. Fontana:
"They can run for days without even sleeping, and with large packs filled with mail or some other burden. In spite of disease and often malnutrition, they are able to get around on foot in a way that is more than impressive. "
And a brief shout out to my friends: I'm sorry you hated Snatch.
Monday, February 5, 2007
A Swim Through, Rather than a Bridge Over, Troubled Waters
I have often heard the work of Christ described in terms of what my roommate Justin calls “The Bridge Illustration”. In this metaphor, man is separated from God by a large gorge that represents sin, and Jesus is the bridge that takes us over the chasm to be with God. I think that there is likely a place for this illustration, but it seems too simple and nice for every situation. It seems to imply that by accepting the free gift of Christ I get to cross the bridge and be with God, which sounds incredibly easy and painless, but I wonder if this sets up false expectations.
The bridge seems to take us over sin and death so that we don’t have to deal with them, but don’t we have to deal with them? What does this mean for us in times of doubt or intense hardship or pain? When I’m in the valley of the shadow of death, does that mean that I didn’t cross the bridge, or maybe I fell off, or maybe I crossed back over to the other side again?
It seems like what Job went through was a lot harder than simply crossing a bridge. I would say the same about David or Abraham or Peter or John the Baptist or Paul and pretty much everyone else in the Bible, most notably Jesus who calls us to take up our crosses and follow him, not to simply use his cross to walk across the chasm. The way that we save our life is by losing it. We are indeed more than conquerors, but that doesn’t mean that we get to skip out on the struggle involved in the conquering process.
There will be (and have been) dark nights of the soul and there will be tears and disease and in the end all of us will die, and all of that will not be as nice as a simple stroll-across-the-bridge-over-the-chasm-of- sin-and-death might seem to indicate. We follow a God who gives and takes away, and we are dangerously kidding ourselves if we expect to avoid struggles and difficulties and deep heartache.
In reading for class today I found a slightly remixed metaphor that I prefer because I think in many ways it is more true:
“Death, in the vivid language of the Bible, is the wages of sin. It is the outwards sign of the fact that neither I nor my achievements are of themselves fit for the kingdom of God. The fact of death … cuts across the attractive picture of an unbroken ascent from the origins of the world to the final consummation of history. A chasm cuts across the landscape between the place where I stand and the glorious vision of the holy city that I see on the horizon of my world. The path goes down into the chasm, and I do not see the bottom. The gospel is good news because in Jesus Christ God has dealt with sin and death, has opened a way that goes down into that chasm and leads out into the uplands beyond it, and has thereby released me from the dilemma in which I was trapped.” (p. 105, Newbigin, The Open Secret)
Jesus doesn’t give us a bridge, he gives us a path. It’s a dangerous path that will take us straight through death, and who knows what kinds of crazy turns and switchbacks it will include. All we know for sure when we embark on our journey on this path is that this journey is going to involve a lot of pain and hurt.
We have a path though, and we also know the glory that is to be found at the end of this path, and it is good, and worth traveling through Sheoul to meet.
The bridge seems to take us over sin and death so that we don’t have to deal with them, but don’t we have to deal with them? What does this mean for us in times of doubt or intense hardship or pain? When I’m in the valley of the shadow of death, does that mean that I didn’t cross the bridge, or maybe I fell off, or maybe I crossed back over to the other side again?
It seems like what Job went through was a lot harder than simply crossing a bridge. I would say the same about David or Abraham or Peter or John the Baptist or Paul and pretty much everyone else in the Bible, most notably Jesus who calls us to take up our crosses and follow him, not to simply use his cross to walk across the chasm. The way that we save our life is by losing it. We are indeed more than conquerors, but that doesn’t mean that we get to skip out on the struggle involved in the conquering process.
There will be (and have been) dark nights of the soul and there will be tears and disease and in the end all of us will die, and all of that will not be as nice as a simple stroll-across-the-bridge-over-the-chasm-of- sin-and-death might seem to indicate. We follow a God who gives and takes away, and we are dangerously kidding ourselves if we expect to avoid struggles and difficulties and deep heartache.
In reading for class today I found a slightly remixed metaphor that I prefer because I think in many ways it is more true:
“Death, in the vivid language of the Bible, is the wages of sin. It is the outwards sign of the fact that neither I nor my achievements are of themselves fit for the kingdom of God. The fact of death … cuts across the attractive picture of an unbroken ascent from the origins of the world to the final consummation of history. A chasm cuts across the landscape between the place where I stand and the glorious vision of the holy city that I see on the horizon of my world. The path goes down into the chasm, and I do not see the bottom. The gospel is good news because in Jesus Christ God has dealt with sin and death, has opened a way that goes down into that chasm and leads out into the uplands beyond it, and has thereby released me from the dilemma in which I was trapped.” (p. 105, Newbigin, The Open Secret)
Jesus doesn’t give us a bridge, he gives us a path. It’s a dangerous path that will take us straight through death, and who knows what kinds of crazy turns and switchbacks it will include. All we know for sure when we embark on our journey on this path is that this journey is going to involve a lot of pain and hurt.
We have a path though, and we also know the glory that is to be found at the end of this path, and it is good, and worth traveling through Sheoul to meet.
Friday, February 2, 2007
On My Dear Friend, Who Happens to be a Dormant Volcano
Today I saw Mount Rainier.
It doesn’t sound like that big of a deal because it isn’t that far away and I know that on a clear day if I go to certain places around town I can usually see it, but despite the fact that it seems like it should have become routine to me by now, catching a glimpse of that mountain has yet to stop amazing me. I love it.
Sometimes I think of it like an old friend who is very special to me. After a few weeks of dreary weather I begin to miss it, until I wake up one day to see sunshine pouring in through my window and I get excited and think through my plan for the day, trying to figure out when in the day I’ll get a chance to have a glimpse of glory. A lot of times it is on my way to work. I’ll check my rear view mirror every 10 or 15 seconds to see if this is that one spot on the interstate where it peeks out from behind the trees to be visible for only a second. Then it comes out, and for just a moment I am completely enchanted.
When I used to live with Rene in Redmond, I would have to cross Lake Washington to get to Seattle, but there is a point about midspan where I know by experience that if I just look behind me and to the left I’ll get the most amazing view of the Mountain, and so, in spite of the danger of doing this at seventy or so miles an hour, the temptation is too much to resist. When Rene was driving I would find myself staring, trying to really take it all in.
The Mountain is surprising, too.
Last semester my school was way up north in an office park in Bothell, WA. I was very accustomed to going to that building to study or go to class, and went there often. It was routine for me, and I visited the building probably three or four times a week for several months, and it wasn’t until the end of the semester, and only once, that I discovered that Mount Rainier was visible from the parking lot. Also, just the other day I was stuck in traffic on the Five and I saw her in a place that I had driven many times, but had never noticed her before.
Today when I saw the Mountain, I realized that it has, in my mind, a lot in common with God. It is huge, it is majestic, and it is always just right there, although it is oftentimes hidden. As I said earlier, seeing Rainier is a lot like seeing an old friend to me, and always deeply moving and humbling. And although I know that on certain types of days I can go to certain locations and be almost sure to see him, he still surprises me sometimes.
I’m very thankful for the privilege to live for a season in a place with such surprising beauty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)