Pictures from Mora

I just posted some new pictures from a recent trip with some friends to the Pacific Coast out on the peninsula. They can be found here:

http://www.cabematthews.com/photos/mora

And here:

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2458108&id=7915777&ref=mf

The Non-Violent Jesus of Revelation

I just posted the following comment on Kim's Faith and Gender blog. Her post is in response to a blog post by Mark Driscoll that can be found here.

You're right. The street-fighting Jesus is not in the Gospels. But I have to break something to Mark: he isn't in Revelation either.

In Revelation it turns out that the victorious lion is a slain lamb, and when Jesus rides in to battle he has a sword, as Kim rightly pointed out, only it's a sword that is coming out of his mouth. His sword is the word of God.

There is war imagery in Revelation to be sure; many first century Christian communities felt besieged and attacked and so this imagery makes sense here. But it's always twisted a little, showing that this war is very much not conventional. For instance, it doesn't make sense for a victorious general's robe to be soaked in blood - to be soaked in blood like that is an image of defeat, because whose blood is it going to be but yours? And yet the victorious general riding into battle is wearing such a blood-soaked robe. This is not conventional warfare imagery, but subverted warfare imagery - imagery to transform and supersede conventional warfare.

The victorious lion is the lamb that was slain. That's the scandal of the New Testament, and perhaps of all human history. The lion defeats his foes by the way of the cross, not by the way of the sword.

I think Mark is right: Jesus could beat him up. The gospel (expressed perhaps too simply) is that he absolutely won't.

Also, it should perhaps be pointed out that pornography, something I believe Mark takes a strong stance against, is also very good at reaching men from 18 to 34. I think in that case also it's important to wonder with Mark why this demographic is drawn to such things. But to then colonize your doctrine of God with such things is problematic at best. Why are we to reject pornography but embrace the UFC? Why is sex bad in pornography but violence is great when it comes to the Octagon? Who gets to decide what's good and where?

If the answer to that last question is "Jesus" then I think there is a much better case for Christians to be skeptical of violence in all forms than there is for us to be skeptical of things like pornography.

Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not be Ordained for Ministry

Kim George emailed this link to me, and I found it amusing, witty, and insightful:

Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not be Ordained for Ministry

Some Thoughts on What's Changed Since the Last Time I Blogged

It has been since December, and there has been significant movement in my life since then. Here are a few of those movements, briefly articulated as a way for me to step back into the blogosphere with these new convictions as a starting point of sorts.

1. Christian theology must be ethical. Jesus' teachings must be lived now, in this life, and they aren't some kind of unrealistic moral standard to prove we are all sinners. We are all sinners, but Jesus' teaching are still what we aspire towards today.

2. This (perhaps obvious to some) realization has led me to another conclusion: If I am to follow Jesus I must be against violence in all forms. As such, I'm a pacifist now. If I follow a God who preached love and forgiveness for enemies and neighbors alike, who taught us to turn the other cheek and that those who live by the sword die by the sword, who ultimately allowed himself to be brutally murdered while praying for his murderers' forgiveness, and who we call Prince of Peace, I am by necessity unable to justify taking the life of another.

3. But also to be true to this God I must recognize another important theme in God's self revelation through Christ. Namely, I cannot be passive, but must be active. To follow Christ is to do things: healing the sick, caring for the poor, setting captives free, and actively standing up against the violence of those who would do harm to others, whether those others are my friends or my enemies.

Those three are a helpful starting point, but it should be said that they are in no way an attempt at being comprehensive, as I've left out much that has remained largely the same. For instance, the resurrection went unmentioned, though that remains a central presupposition of mine, and in many ways I think I see these three things through resurrection eyes. I also left some things out that have changed, but get off my back; this is only a blog.

Crystal Downing's How Postmodernism Serves (My) Faith

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)

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

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."

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.

Rational Atheism

A new editorial by noted skeptic Michael Shermer in Scientific American, of interest (in my opinion), to atheists and theists alike.

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.